The problem isn't even about wether Climate Change exists but about the cause of it, some people (not just Trumpists in USA) are so anti-science they still bring up the sun as main cause even tho scientific data indicates since decades the planet would traject towards another ice age (in a way slower tempo than the opposite that we have caused) if we weren't emitting ridiculous amounts of carbondioxid and other gases into the stratosphere, or they bring up average temperature increases in pre-historic times even tho our planet hasn't seen such drastic changes in global temperatures and climate for a continued time and in this fast tempo (the asteroid impact that extincted almost all dinosaurs except birds caused a few impact winters), the climate change after huge volcanic eruptions, which created the syberian traps went through 100.000+ years to kill almost all non-microbe life on earth.
This climate change happens so damn fast and even faster than predicted by scientists that not only animal life, but us humans have too much trouble to adapt fast enough, this is the actual biggest danger and not that climate change happens, that indeed happened throughout the existence of this planet we call earth.
This climate change happens so damn fast and even faster than predicted by scientists that not only animal life, but us humans have too much trouble to adapt fast enough, this is the actual biggest danger and not that climate change happens, that indeed happened throughout the existence of this planet we call earth.
In my view, the climate consequences that are being felt by humans must have a correlation with global warming, but low. This does not mean that we should stop fighting decisively against the mass emission of polluting gases.
The main factor that directly impacts the way man deals with the climate are geographic transformations, the creation of completely paved and cemented cities generating heat islands, canalization and diversion of rivers, creation of dams and now that it is a recent technology, the diversion of the course of rain and hailstorms. All of these activities generate consequences to some extent.
The main factor that directly impacts the way man deals with the climate are geographic transformations, the creation of completely paved and cemented cities generating heat islands, canalization and diversion of rivers, creation of dams and now that it is a recent technology, the diversion of the course of rain and hailstorms. All of these activities generate consequences to some extent.
I disagree with the effect of global warming being low, we are getting dangerously fast towards a point where what you mentioned wouldn't even matter much anymore. However, paved and cemented cities, canalization, diverted rivers and dams of course also play a role. That's why in China we already see sponge city experiments, but we certainly need to change how we build cities and live fast since our current urban ways just won't work in a heated earth except near northpole, New Zealand or south argentine & Chile.
The issue is that the adoption of measures that combat pollution emissions and drastically transform nature, generating these consequences that in the long term generate damage to humanity as a whole, are measures that generate high costs for states and large companies, ending up limiting your profit potential as well. A company that adopts these measures ends up having a higher cost that is passed on to its product than others in the market that do not adopt these ecologically sustainable measures. And then they end up dying in this market eventually. Currently, the only way I see to impose the adoption of measures is through state intervention in the production of those products that most impact nature. But not all states follow this marketing policy for reasons of competition with other states/nations, and to obtain higher levels of productive growth.
It's that old discussion between short-term benefits for a current government vs permanent benefits for the state in the long term, but which requires a certain initial sacrifice, which politicians in general are not willing to pay.
It's that old discussion between short-term benefits for a current government vs permanent benefits for the state in the long term, but which requires a certain initial sacrifice, which politicians in general are not willing to pay.
