Question: What Should Humanity Do About the Threat of Climate Change

Let's ignore the questions of "if climate change is occurring" and if it is happening, "what is causing it" and consider the situation from the perspective that climate change is actually happening. Let's also suppose that the change is detrimental to life on Earth in general and especially to human beings.

Now, accepting that Earth's climate has changed, will change and is changing right now as a fact, what should human beings do to help keep climate change from being a threat?

Most of the proposed actions to combat climate change suggest that the solution is primarily with stopping the human activities that have altered the chemistry of the atmosphere. But what will this really do, stop climate change? Regardless of the contributing factors involved with a changing climate, it will eventually change with or without our help.

I propose that human beings should do little or nothing to try to slow down or stop climate change, it is a battle lost before it has begun. But I don't believe that humans should do nothing at all. Humanity must find ways to adapt to whatever the climate brings because there is no stopping it from changing over time. Climate change has driven numerous plants and animals to extinction because they couldn't adapt to the changes and it will do the same to humans if we don't adapt.

As these changes occur, we can do common sense things to accommodate the situation right now without waiting decades to find out if we can change the climate to a more desirable one. If larger and more violent storms are a part of these changes, then don't build on the flood plains or right on a shoreline. Create building designs and city planning that resist the damage of larger storms. If the glaciers and polar regions are melting off, get to the high ground or start living on the water. If droughts and wild fires are the results, don't live in those areas or be prepared to eventually get burned down and driven out.

IMO the money and time is better spent on adapting and surviving a climate change then trying to alter the changing climate to suit our needs. We should do something other than reduce carbon emissions and plant forests to survive a global climate change, we should adapt. The only other choice is to leave the planet and survive in a far more hostile environment than what we have on the Earth. Of course our Earthly environment will change eventually and possibly become as hostile as any place else in our solar system given enough time.

I say we do absolutely nothing and history can sort it out. If climate change destroys civilization as we know it, then future humans will be smarter. If it doesn't, future humans will know the climate change hysteria was manufactured. I'll be 46 next year. There's no chance I'll be alive even when it matters.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I think the forces involved are too great for puny humans to do much about it. The Earth does what the Earth wants to do.

Example: Child of Krakatau

I agree with BrianFlanders and LookingAtMars, except that B. Flanders may live to see a sharp turn to the cold side.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

History has shown when life fails to adapt to a changing environment, that life goes extinct. Adapt or die is my real point here.

Humans are highly adaptable, however we would rather try to change the world than change ourselves. That would be our down fall if threatening climate change is ignored. We egotistically entertain pie in the sky ideas and disregard the obvious at our own peril.

Yes, we can try and undo any damage we may be instigating, but that will likely not get done even if it did actually solve the problems of a changing climate. I won't disagree with the idea that the world would be better off if we really took good care of it, but changes will happen even if we manage to stop doing major damage.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

What should be done?
Two of the greatest contributors to atmospheric pollutants are Airplanes and Super Tankers.
www.quora.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

1. Stop funding climate research scams
3. Nothing.

-Chris

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

What should be done?
Two of the greatest contributors to atmospheric pollutants are Airplanes and Super Tankers.
www.quora.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

We could change that, but realistically we won't. Would it really help that much in the long run? Not if we fail to adapt and survive whatever ends up happening.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You are correct. Humans can and do adapt. I live in the remote out back of West Texas. A lot of interesting adaptation going on out here, like building with adobe because its a better insulator.

But.......technology is also adapting to resolve problems. This is way cool! What was old is new again.
www.autoblog.com...

I've always agreed with what George Carlin says about climate change and trying to save the planet.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Learn to adjust to the changing environment so humans can survive in the new world. A fair portion of the climate issues is coming up from the sea floor and we can't stop that.

Tax those with the biggest, most numerous houses first.
Then give it a couple of years and see if they still think it's a thing.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck


Humanity's biggest problem is that we're arrogant.

We believe our own hubris.


We play with some numbers for a few years and determine that the sky is falling.


The earth was once flat. SCIENCE!
The sun rotated around the earth. SCIENCE.
Witches are evil, burn the witches. SCIENCE.


Humans are mayflies relative to the lifespan of our planet. Our impact is minimal and won't impact the planet in the long run.


We will all die long before any impact is even perceived.


Any attempt to "change" things is akin to yelling at the clouds and telling them not to rain.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Let's ignore the questions of "if climate change is occurring" and if it is happening, "what is causing it" and consider the situation from the perspective that climate change is actually happening. Let's also suppose that the change is detrimental to life on Earth in general and especially to human beings.

Now, accepting that Earth's climate has changed, will change and is changing right now as a fact, what should human beings do to help keep climate change from being a threat?

Most of the proposed actions to combat climate change suggest that the solution is primarily with stopping the human activities that have altered the chemistry of the atmosphere. But what will this really do, stop climate change? Regardless of the contributing factors involved with a changing climate, it will eventually change with or without our help.

I propose that human beings should do little or nothing to try to slow down or stop climate change, it is a battle lost before it has begun. But I don't believe that humans should do nothing at all. Humanity must find ways to adapt to whatever the climate brings because there is no stopping it from changing over time. Climate change has driven numerous plants and animals to extinction because they couldn't adapt to the changes and it will do the same to humans if we don't adapt.

As these changes occur, we can do common sense things to accommodate the situation right now without waiting decades to find out if we can change the climate to a more desirable one. If larger and more violent storms are a part of these changes, then don't build on the flood plains or right on a shoreline. Create building designs and city planning that resist the damage of larger storms. If the glaciers and polar regions are melting off, get to the high ground or start living on the water. If droughts and wild fires are the results, don't live in those areas or be prepared to eventually get burned down and driven out.

IMO the money and time is better spent on adapting and surviving a climate change then trying to alter the changing climate to suit our needs. We should do something other than reduce carbon emissions and plant forests to survive a global climate change, we should adapt. The only other choice is to leave the planet and survive in a far more hostile environment than what we have on the Earth. Of course our Earthly environment will change eventually and possibly become as hostile as any place else in our solar system given enough time.

morn' mich'gander from downstate....

I've not put more on mankind increasing or decreasing the "that which is normal and expected climate change"...other than maybe 35%?...But, thats either too low or higher than man's effect on it.

Still, humanity's and industry's effect on it plus(+) or minus(-)...is hugely significant ...either way...and changing how we affect it...would restore "normal climate change"...to a degree and maybe not enough to re-balance it's dynamics we've always expected.

I'd hope it would...but we've done so much to throw it out of balance already...

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I doubt we can do much about climate change, though there have been attempts at manipulating the weather, cloud seeding for example.

What we could do is cut down on destroying the environment with toxic chemicals and aim for a sustainable economic model rather than one that requires constant growth and expansion. We could stop making and throwing away so much useless plastic, and if we have bio degradable plastic it should all be made that way.

Make things that last and that a repairable, rather than rubbish that is only fit as rubbish.

I've commented on several threads that we need to find a way to discourage the growth of the world population. I would go even farther and say that we need to reverse the size of the population. It is admittedly a very controversial solution and I am not sure how we could go about it short of world wars or disease.

The optimal world population has been estimated by a team co-authored by Paul R. Ehrlich. End-targets in this estimation included:

- Decent wealth and resources to everyone
- Basic human rights to everyone
- Preservation of cultural diversity
- Allowance of intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity
- Preservation of biodiversity
- Based on this, the estimation of optimum population was to be roughly around 1.5 billion to 2 billion people.

That's quite a drastic drop from the current 7 billion or so. Again, I don't have the answers, but it seems to me that curbing and even lowering the amount of resource devouring humans on the planet would solve a lot of problems.

Population planning that is intended to reduce a population or sub-population's growth rates may promote or enforce one or more of the following practices, although there are other methods as well:

- Higher taxation of parents who have "excess" children
- Contraception
- Abstinence
- Reducing infant mortality so that parents do not need to have many children to ensure at least some survive to adulthood.
- Abortion
- Changing status of women causing departure from traditional sexual division of labour.
- Sterilization
- One-child and Two-child policies, and other policies restricting or discouraging births directly.
- Family planning
- Create small family "role models"
- Changes to immigration policies

The method(s) chosen can be strongly influenced by the religious and cultural beliefs of community members.

Just throwing out ideas for discussion.

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Over population is often thrown out as the cause of our woes or future woes but while it is an issue it’s really just a bogeyman thrown out there to deflect from the real issue which is wanton greed. Profit is everything and time and resources are focused on generating as much profit as possible at the cost of the environment and people. It’s attitudes that need to change primarily.

Humans will do what they always do. Wait until changing our ways is absolutely necessary. No matter how small that change may be. Alternative fuels, cost a bit more. PV costs a bit more. Reducing energy use is no fun.

Trouble is global temperature is a thing with a lot of inertia behind it. So, it becomes a matter of waiting until it's too late and the costs of mitigation are ever higher. Humans are good at that. Short term thinking.

OP. Nothing. HUmans will adapt to what happens.

there are just to many humans that earth can handle see it as an virus for the planet
every single human produces an amount of co2... and not only wat is coming out of an human..loll
see wat it takes for an single human to grow up... howmany trees need to be cutted douwn...the food ...the things they need…

after all... the birth controle that china had/have wassent that bad for nature at all !

the moore humans ..the moore co2 output.
and nothing can be done ...couse even producing co2 neutral products puts tons of co2 in the air
every road ore building we build couses warming up
the human balance is gone ! by getting older every year due to medication makes that there are just to many of us

see wat happens with lemmings if there are to much of that species ! you can't fool nature for ever!