I think that in a democracy and in the free market, no government will be able to make the appropriate adjustments required to halt the increase of the average temperature of the planet. Not until the actors on the market themselves, from the individual consumer to the large multi-narional super corporations, realize that neglect will cost, and cost dearly is there going to be any real change. But then again, that may actually be sooner than one would think.
After the storm Sandy, there were some that expressed concerns about the climate change and its effect on the weather patterns for heavily populated cities, like New York. So it is not entirely impossible that it can be seen as a bench mark of sorts. Maybe there is, in big business, a sense of "awakening" in light of the massive damage Sandy caused in New York. I know that the Insurance companies must be tearing their hair out in panic and trying whatever they can to get people to avoid to get damaged so much. They don't mind people buying insurance coverage for ... stuff, they just rather see that they would never have to pay any claims. This alone will set things in motion. Too expensive insurance plans for high risk places, like New York, is going to start a movement.
My guess is that once the climate changes starts to sting were it matters, it will probably lead to two things. One - big business will adjust swiftly. This will probably take place with a chocking speed. One day all the HQ:s are in cool places like New York, Hong Kong and such, and like a flash in the pan, suddenly they'll all be relocated to dorky places like Knoxville, Tennessee or Ping Pong, China. Leaving skyscrapers miles high empty and vacated. It would probably constitute the next big real estate crash, not to mention unemployment, there's nothing more discouraging, than a sign that says: "HQ Closed - moved to "in the middle of nowhere city."
The other thing would be that organizations and people with less resources would be left to their own devices, with misery and tragedy on a never before seen scale as a result. For some reason almost every densely populated area on the planet is in close proximity to the coast. That is going to cost.
Now then, when these reports come out, I always tend to think something in line with "Oh my goodness, we're all gonna die!" or something to that effect. After a while though, after the initial chock and panic have subsided and my ability to reason and observe again is restored, I start to think. There are always somebody paying somebody to do a report on something to tell somebody else... something.... because they it will help them to... ?
Achieve something?
The climate changes all the time on the planet. During the bronze age, they cultivated grapes in Scandinavia. That means the weather was a lot warmer than today. Apparently a thousand years ago in Scandinavia during the rule of the vikings, it was a lot warmer than today as well. Which in a way is kind of unfair, being that the vikings has a rumor of being these bad ass warriors totally oblivious of the elements and pains, when in real life they were like sissy livered southern europeans that get frostbites as soon as the temperature goes below the 50's. Temperatures change, and life goes on, but it changes.
It does not mean the end of the world to mankind. So there wont be any polar bears around? I don't even know a polar bear, they're kind of cute though, but there weren't any polar bears around a million years ago, so I guess polar bears come and go?
Yeah, some would say, but those changes were made by nature and not by man. By which it would follow that man is set apart from nature in this line of reasoning, right? That is, there is polar bears and whales and stuff, and then there is humans that are like UFO's or something.
This is the part that really I wonder about. This is because these people that are saying this, are mostly the same people that are saying that all living organisms have the same rights, we are all animals etc. etc... and man is not the crown of creation etc. etc.. .
We're emphatically held to be just another creature among others, i.e. when we discuss polar bears or dinner. Not when we discuss temperature fluctuations of the planet. Then we, humans that is, are automatically transformed to Dr. No or Strangelove or something. Then man and civilization becomes an abomination, a tumor, a villain in paradise and NOT a part of nature.
See, here is where it is lacking in logic. If there exists responsibility by virtue of man's possibility to choose how to act, by definition you are set aside from the rest of the animal kingdom. The wild beasts of nature never spend time on such futile tasks. Fortunately it is not my mountain to climb to fuse these two apparently opposing philosophical claims into one united idea that actually makes any sense.
