View Single Post
Old 09-27-2002, 12:58 AM   #54
K T Ong
Symbol of Cyric
 

Join Date: January 27, 2002
Location: Plateau of Singapore
Age: 62
Posts: 1,230
It really should be a matter of common sense that the continued release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in exponentially increasing amounts will eventually precipitate adverse effects for the global environment. Even if we grant that there may be many hitherto unknown mechanisms on the planet (as many ecologists actually admit, BTW) which may counterbalance the warming-up effect, it is folly to think that they can absorb an increasing amount of punishment indefinitely.

The word 'exponential' calls for a bit of attention. Basic arithmetic dictates that a numerical quantity, when doubled again and again (2, 4, 8, 16, 32...), quickly becomes extremely large. It has been calculated that if you took a piece of paper (approx. 1/254 inch thick) and doubled its thickness 42 times, it would bridge our planet and the moon. 50 doublings would almost reach all the way from us to the sun.

It is honestly difficult -- and foolish IMHO -- to believe that whatever coolong mechanisms there might be on our planet can put up with this kind of abuse in the long term. Besides which there might also be yet other unknown mechanisms which might exacerbate the warming, not reduce it.

Ultimately, the only truly incontrovertible evidence you can produce to state a case against cutting back on greenhouse emissions is as follows:

Find say a dozen Earth-like planets (good luck finding them).

Keep pumping greenhouse gases into their atmospheres for several decades, maybe even a century plus. Like what we're doing to our planet now.

After all that, examine the climate and ecosystems on these planets. Are they still largely unaffected? If yes -- okay, then I shall willingly admit defeat and accept that we can indeed continue along our present line with reasonable confidence that nothing bad will come of it.

In the absence of any such hard evidence, I would consider it more prudent to stay on the side of caution.

Unless you want to experiment with our planet to see the outcome. Do you?

Remember, what is at stake is the survival of billions of people. People with families and kids, just like you and me.

Nor do we have another planet to escape to if we mess this one up, as far as we know.

Technology? I suppose I'm prepared to grant that it can buy us some time, but it can't be the final solution.

After all, if we use advances in technology to cut down by half the amount of pollution cars produce, and then merrily proceed to double the number of cars, we'll return to square one.

In the end, we'll simply have to reduce our emissions, and eventually abandon the whole ideology of indefinite growth as well. If we want to stand a good chance of surviving, that is.

My two cents. Take them. Or leave them.

[ 09-27-2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]
K T Ong is offline