View Single Post
Old 09-13-2013, 05:01 PM   #913 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: World
Posts: 385
Thanks: 82
Thanked 82 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
None of those depend on "climate change being addressed".

We could address all of those (and much more) and use less resources through development and increasing wealth.

Is it really moral to spaff a sizable percentage of the world's GDP on this "problem" which (according to the original post that started this journey) it is already too late to address or which has gone away for nearly 20 years ?
They all depend on climate change being addressed. You can't have access to food and water if land that was once capable of supporting crop growing or acting as water catchment has reduced yields because the rainfall has gone away, or is now flooded with salt water twice a year.

You can't protect forests, rivers or oceans if the climate has altered so much that the plants and animals that once lived there are no longer able to.

Trying to address any of those things without addressing climate change is a tail chasing exercise; the very definition of uneconomic growth.

It's too late to avoid some of the effects of climate change; we've already seen several. It's not too late to avoid it being a complete catastrophe (at least for human beings).