I think it will happen like this:
All the earth’s major economies are in the Northern Hemisphere. But the economics of doing what has to be done is expensive, so the leaders of these economies are resisting the idea of anthropogenic climate change because they don’t want to be the first to tank. So, if the majority of scientists are right and the climate change we have been experiencing since he industrial revolution is anthropogenic, these leaders won’t move faster to make radical changes until natural disasters become so frequent and extreme that their economies are negatively affected. Thank god most of them are Democracies.
Examples of this would be widespread, long-term drought like we’ve seen in the western part of the US in the past decade—only larger, affecting the grain belts and causing rapid increases in food pricing, and threatening famine in the wealthier countries. Or larger, more destructive storms, affecting economic centers like NYC and London. A major, long term decrease in fish populations. Or war.
We’ve had our Hurricane Sandys before. The first that comes to mind is the catastrophic storm of 1938. The last time a storm that large and violent hit the northeast coast of the US was during the French and Indian War (Seven Years War). But only 40 years later, here comes Sandy.
During extremely warm North Atlantic Ocean conditions, London has been hit by hurricanes that were generated off Africa, ran through the islands of the Caribbean, up the US east coast, back across the Atlantic to the British Isles. It’s happened. But they are considered anomalies, flukes. When these things begin happening frequently, say every five years or less, then every mensch will know the our northern oceans have warmed significantly. And it is my belief that the frequencies of these storms will increase, and possibly already have.
When and only when these things occur, will the people of these countries insist something be done by their civil disobedience. Food riots, for instance.
Hopefully it won’t be too late for the earth to repair herself and hopefully there will be governments still intact to make the concerted effort required to put the necessary changes into effect.
Good risk management says to put more money into passive technologies, lower emissions, greener ways of doing things—and not wait for the profit motive to kick in. But I don’t see enough of that happening right now. I see more than there was three decades ago, but we’re not moving fast enough.
I see the world’s governments making plans, getting organized, making deals and sharing ideas in conferences around the world, like the recent one in Paris that our president pulled us out of. But my feeling is, somebody or some thing, really needs to build a fire under their asses. They are trying to do at this point, is to make the proper changes while maintaining our standards of living. This may not be possible. We may have to drop the standard of living part for awhile. We may have to suffer a bit now so the future generations can survive.
But who will lead in these rapid changes to save the earth, a process which may very well cause world economic depression? And who am I, a guy who has spent years observing the sea and the fish habits change, the shorelines noticeably rise, estuaries die, all of which could be anthropogenic—who am I to say that we must hurry changes so quickly that it could hurt our economies and cause further suffering of innocent people?
Good risk management dictates that we risk our economies and move faster to live more harmoniously with our home planet.
NOW.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
