How big an issue is climate change/global warming to you?
 

I know it's not easy to talk about this subject without getting political but I'm curious to see where the board breakdown is now on global warming.

I have read enough scientific articles and watched enough documentaries that I feel like I have a pretty decent handle on global warming and what's going on with it.

As a fiscal conservative, for the longest time I thought of this issue as less than paramount. The research wasn't quite there yet to back up making the kinds of massive changes that were proposed, and the backers were Green Party advocates and far left liberals who were crying over about a million things. This didn't endear me to the cause.

In recent years though, I have become much more enamored with the outdoors and natural beauty. It's really an amazing planet we have. And the evidence now seems overwhelming that we are the cause of the global warming and extreme weather trends we are seeing. And the impact of this and in the very not so distant future appears to me to be immense.

So my questions for discussion for you all are:

1. Did you believe before (let's say 10-15 years back) that humanity was the cause of global warming?
2. Do you still believe that human activity and global warming are unrelated?
3. Is global warming happening?
4. What do you think needs to be done?
5. How quickly do you think it needs to be done?

To me, this should be the top issue in front of us. Not economics nor wealth disparity, not race or gender or sexual orientation equality, not trade or budget deficits, definitely not immigration or gun rights. Maybe not even terrorism, although I still place the U.S.'s geopolitical role very highly as a matter to be debated.

The Earth has a way of taking care of itself. I think it will kill off a bunch of humans and then regulate itself back to normal. Whatever that is for the Earth.

Strangely enough, I agree. And I think that the result will be millions of deaths and billions impacted, in the long run. Do you see this as unavoidable or an acceptable loss for continuing as we are, without making an effort to mitigate it or prepare for it?

I used to not care then I had kids.

It will be a global event. And it will be ugly for a lot of people.

I think if we change it will hold the event off for awhile. But I dont see that happening for long,

Look at all the weather events lately. Tsunamis, floods. tornadoes, etc.

The world is speaking.

Regardless of whether you believe the changes are man made or not, if humans have the ability to slow this and prevent billions of deaths, do you believe
we should do that?

dola, sorry, just saw your answer after I posted, never mind!

This is the single top issue facing any developed nation today. Like tarcone, I believe that the earth will take care of itself, eventually killing off most of the human race, with the current path that we're on. But I believe the problems that will cause that at the current time are man made, and I believe we can take action to limit the destruction as much as possible. I fear we've passed a point where we can just fix everything, and that now we may already be in damage control mode. But still, we should aim to do as much damage control as possible.


As far as what to do - Get the entire world on renewable and clean energy. It's a massive expensive undertaking - one that would boost infrastructure and new industries and create countless jobs. Aggressively pursue Lab grown meat. Carbon Taxes! I'm sure there's tons more, I'm sure there are huge nuances to much of this as well. But its THE top issue facing our nation, and right now very few people in power act like it is, so just getting to that point that everyone agrees we need to do SOMETHING is the critical first step (that i doubt ever happens).

The thing that pisses me off is majority of the people who deny climate change, or at least the severity of it, will be dead in 10-15 years.

Imagine the jobs that would be created if the world went green. And imagine what the companies that control the world would do. Too bad big oil, big banks, big pharma and big insurnce wont let that happen.

I'll start of by saying that I don't think climate change will be as catastrophic as many people say it will be.

Also I don't think either political party is competent enough to do anything about it. Nor do I think people will want to tighten their belts enough to really combat it.

1. Did you believe before (let's say 10-15 years back) that humanity was the cause of global warming? No, this is something that I've come to believe as more and more research and observation has come to light.

2. Do you still believe that human activity and global warming are unrelated? No

3. Is global warming happening? Climate Change is happening. It's more than just warming, it's a catastrophic change from mass extinction that we're seeing to wilder shifts in weather patterns from the norm.


4. What do you think needs to be done? Global commitments from the nations largest governments to not only reduce emissions, but commit global money and research to future tech that can mitigate future damage. Plus a bunch of stuff that I'm not smart enough to think about.


5. How quickly do you think it needs to be done? It needs to be done and under control in my lifetime. So I guess pretty quickly, because my life is just a blip on the global scale.

1. Definitely "a cause", probably "a major cause" but not "the only cause"
2. No, there is definitely a relationship
3. Yes. I do debate internally about how much is attributable to mankind vs. natural cycles but enough
4. I like to think the world can come together to combat this but don't think there is enough will. So I'm leaning towards "greeness becoming more profitable" and thus encouraging more adoption of greeness (go Elon Musk!)
5. Sooner the better, my guess is greeness will continue to become more and more mainstream, hopefully with critical mass in 20-30 years

I'm struggling with the idea right now that everyone who doesn't have climate change as their #1 priority is kind of a climate change denier.

There's a certain honesty about not caring about it at all, or not believing the scientific consensus. It's harder to wrap my head around the idea that are people who believe that consensus, but don't have climate change as their #1 issue. They must not REALLY believe that consensus if they have it ranked as a #5 or #6 issue, as the average Democrat does.

Not that I'm an environmental saint. I love to travel and my carbon footprint is greater than most.

The economic impact will hurt us before the direct environmental impact does. How we deal with less of the earth's surface being habitable, as population grows. How we deal with environmental migrants (the migrant waves of the future). Humans are extraordinary adaptable and have the ability to figure this shit out. If it's our top priority.

I should probably answer my own questions.

1. Did you believe before (let's say 10-15 years back) that humanity was the cause of global warming?

Absolutely I did not. It was unfathomable to me that we could cause that kind of an impact on a global scale. There are probably posts by me in the Global Warming Is Bullshit thread that sound like a climate change denier.

2. Do you still believe that human activity and global warming are unrelated?

Now I feel absolutely certain that they are connected. I can allow that other non-human factors may be involved, but I believe we are the primary factor by a good margin.

3. Is global warming happening?

Clearly, yes, I believe it is.

4. What do you think needs to be done?

I fear it may be too late to do anything. I think the wisest thing to do is to get all of the biggest polluters (China, the U.S., India) on board to put in massive bans on certain products and production processes, but doing so would likely bring about a crippling global recession, honestly a new Great Depression. If we do it too slow, though, it may not matter.

5. How quickly do you think it needs to be done?

We really need to start on it now. Every day that passes we are going deeper and deeper into a hole on this one and making it more and more impossible to get out.

I suspect you are correct about us feeling the economic impact first, but I fear it will take an environmental disaster to affect real change.

I liken it to 9/11. Sure, the cruise ship and airplane hijackings of the 80s and 90s (along with Munich and Tehran) put Islamic terrorism on the political map for the first time, but even the WTC bombings didn't quite get it to where wars were launched. That took 9/11, an extreme event costing thousands of lives, to make us truly aware.

I think there will be a climate change 9/11. My guess would be a massive series of hurricanes that result in Florida being partially submerged and uninhabitable, or a similar water event deluge in lower Manhattan. But I think it might take more than one. I'm thinking parts of Shanghai becoming flooded and uninhabitable. The U.S. won't be scared if China gets hit and China won't care if the U.S. gets hit. It will take two 9/11 level climate change events to occur for the two biggest economies to get on board.

To reply, I believe there are interpersonal political issues within and outside this country which must be addressed effectively prior to successfully attacking global climate change. It's not a denial, it's that without it, you're just screaming into the void.

It's the top issue. If we don't leave our children and future generations a livable planet, nothing else matters.

I think it's certainly a top 3 issue, I'm just not sure if it's definitively number 1. I feel like the effects of automation / artificial intelligence on our society could be just as dramatic. What if a third of our population becomes obsolete in a (relatively) short time span, or even more dramatically we accidentally unleash a super-intelligence into the world?

None of the above is to say that climate change isn't certainly a massive problem over the next 25-50 years. I just feel like it's not alone.

I work in politics and public relations. It's not all I do, but a part of my job is being a spin doctor. And it always amazes me (and, frankly, discourages me) to see how both "sides" of an issue in America seem to create their talking points and arguments just to get their "side" pi$$ed off, rather than creating talking points that genuinely speak to the other "side" and encourage real, cooperative problem-solving.

And since I know one "side" of this debate is convinced this is a major problem, I would like to extend an olive branch and an opportunity to engage in meaningful problem-solving.

So, here's my question:

I'm not swayed by climate change alarmism. I've been desensitized by doomsday predictions and guilt-tripping. The usual talking points won't move me an inch. But I have genuine concern for the environment. I'm all for reducing pollution. I find the oceans of plastic in our oceans to be horrifying. And I'd love to leave my grandchildren a better planet. So, regardless of how bad climate change may or may not be ... what can you propose that we actually DO about it?

I've been turned off by proposals I've heard, led by U.N. think tanks that want to pitch wealth redistribution schemes or economy-killing restrictions. I've been jaded by lobbyist-led boons for "green" energy companies that provide more kickback and corruption than they do environmental benefit. I don't believe a "carbon tax" represents anything more than an escalation in the arms race between "big business" and "big government." But I'd like to hear some real, honest, solutions that prioritize environmental improvement over geopolitical agendas.

So, what do you propose we DO about it?

The solutions will require citizens using their power through their governments to require businesses to produce less pollution. If you are looking for an answer that does not involve any conflict between government and business, then you will be looking for a long time.

A carbon tax has the advantage of being market driven. It isn't the government picking winners and losers. It isn't trying to force people to pick a certain path. Just make carbon more expensive, and let the market figure out the best solutions to that problem.