Bertros Bertros wrote: Sadly if the green agenda is to succeed quickly it will need other appeal.
That being said whilst the effort being made locally or even nationally gets better this isn't reciprocated internationally. The US are still dragging their heels, India and China are industrialising rapidly, without a fully global consensus on action we are definitely pissing in the wind making a few windfarms or boycotting flights.
Just to point out, when I talked about these future measures that might be taken, I didn't mean on a voluntary basis, so I'm not suggesting anyone boycotts flights, for example - that's just useless and ineffective. So far as I can see, some form of coercion, probably through taxation is the only thing that would be effective. (There's also the idea of carbon rationing amongst individuals, which would be far fairer, but that strikes me as a pipe dream.)
I don't think people will ever really accept the kinds of taxes and constraints on their lifestyles that some people have mooted. So I think softening the populace up now for what is to come is the best thing that can be done at the moment.
(Also, yes, I'm only talking about these measures in the context of a post-Kyoto agreement. Without one, no, it's completely pointless.)
Bertros Bertros wrote: So that being said should we not be looking now at how to handle the changes a warming climate will bring about, compensate for rises in sea level for example or prepare for more arid conditions? There is an unfounded and almost unspoken arrogance in the prevailing attitude that humans caused the current global warming and that we could be able to stop it happening. We are capable of mitigating the effects, however this could lead to some tough international situations and I think there is every chance that in 50+ years time it will be water, whether that be lack of it or too much, not oil that we are all fighting over.
Not having read much about the idea of actually letting global warming happen, and then mitigating the effects afterwards, I can't speak from much of an informed position on this.
But my knee-jerk reaction is that most of the people who will be most affected by any climate change would be in Africa and Asia, that is, the poorest nations on Earth. The richest nations would have less severe effects, and cope better (Katrina notwithstanding). So effectively, if all the predictions became true and are human-induced, the poorest nations would have to deal with the effects of the pollution of the richest nations - such as the more arid conditions you mention. I certainly can't see the EU or the USA handing much out in the way of aid for the damage they have caused. The third world can barely prize open their fists as it is.
Also, the possible effects are so complicated, and lie on such a range of probabilities, I'm not immediately convinced that planning for these outcomes can plausibly be done. It strikes me that prevention would be better than cure. But, like I say, this is just my knee jerking.
