The problem with global warming is that the only rational solution is surprisingly totalitarian. As far as I can tell, the goal has to be 100% compliance with a whole new way of looking at energy consumption--otherwise there won't be a tipping point.
To put it another way, while it's really important that my city is doing everything it can to reduce its carbon footprint, at the same time it doesn't matter that NYC is greening up if Boise or Guangdong Province or Jakarta or Toronto isn't pulling their weight too.
What does this mean in terms of our late-modern American culture that is relentlessly obsessed with individualism and its benefits: ignorance of world affairs; individual choice; free will; the sense that government's role is to leave you alone and let you do what you want?
Although this is an interesting and fruitful question, I think your underlying assumption is flawed.
I think this because my dad, since he retired from his job as an aerospace engineer, has been studying all the available data on global warming for the last decade or so. He has determined a few things:
1) The dire predictions of exponential global warming rates used by Al Gore and accepted by the media are based on data which excludes the most accurate data we have, which is the data collected by satellites. Satellite data shows a much more modest rate of warming compared to surface data, and is much less likely to be compromised by inconsistent measurement methods and human error.
2) The cumulative margin of error in data used to determine global warming rates is much higher than the overall margin of error in the 'final results', which means that those 'final results' are entirely meaningless.
3) There is not remotely enough petroleum left on the planet, according to the most optimistic calculations, to produce the kind of global warming rates that would cause the catastrophes now being predicted. We will run out of oil well before the global warming curve hits an exponential rise.
My own view is that global warming fears can and will help us make a shift to greener energy sources, force us to cooperate, and get us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, all of which are excellent things. But fomenting hysteria as a means of implementing totalitarian 'solutions' is irresponsible and counterproductive. I optimistically hope that the balance of tensions between political action and economic reality will cause us to muddle through to a set of responses that is both environmentally beneficial and economically productive.
Incidentally, I'm in favor of a hefty gas tax. Nothing caused us to reduce our petroleum consumption until the price of gas hit $4/gallon.
Posted by: Pretty Lady | 02/24/2009 at 11:24 AM
Your article is very interesting and useful for lot of us. I'm sure that many people agree with me.
Posted by: Cazare Rucar online | 10/26/2011 at 08:50 AM