So I was browsing through Economist.com as I am wont to do, especially when I have other things that have upcoming deadlines. Usually I ignore the comments section of the articles but on this page - a survey about a response to climate change I stumbled upon a bunch of comments that got me mad and made me register and write a scathing reply. There were more than a few that annoyed me but I honestly did not have the time.
So here is the Economist.com survey and the comments that lead to my response belong to Nightscroft Squire Maldunne who probably annoyed me mostly because he sounds like an intelligent educated man.
And here is my reply.
So here is the Economist.com survey and the comments that lead to my response belong to Nightscroft Squire Maldunne who probably annoyed me mostly because he sounds like an intelligent educated man.
And here is my reply.
Sir, it is ridiculous of you to denounce certain statistics and figures without proper reason while throwing a few more in without context.
Firstly a 300ppm to 310ppm rise is not an increase of .001%, it is an increase of 3.33%.
Now to quote some real C02 stats. From 1960 to 2010, there has been a rise in CO2 concentration from 310 ppm to over 380ppm. IPCC modelling shows that under different scenarios CO2 concentration would be anywhere between 540-970ppm in 2100. That is at the very least a 100% rise, and at most a 250% rise in CO2 levels since pre-Industrial Revolution times.
Secondly, of the 4.2 billion years of Earth history that you mention - complex life on land has existed only for a few hundred million years. When the Earth did have CO2 concentrations of 6000ppm, there were any complex organisms for it to kill.
More importantly it is not the effect on human health but on human society as a whole that is a cause for concern.It is true that the rising concentrations of CO2 would hardly be toxic to humans. However the issue here is that a change in climate patterns and rising sea levels will cause unprecedented extreme weather events, flood low-lying areas, devastate farm lands, cause unparalleled levels of migration and cause regional and international conflicts for basic resources. So yes, it will be a cause of misery and will have significant economic costs associated with it.
Events like volcanic explosions and asteroids have caused some of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history wiping away up to 95% of all life. That hardly gives us an excuse to say that since something bad can happen that we have no control of, we should not try doing the little things we can do to mitigate the change we are bringing. As for our anthropocentric attitude to warming, the increase in CO2 emissions is directly related to our use of fossil fuel, there isn't another reason explaining CO2s increase to its current levels.
So please next time, do take a minute to think over this before you decide to give up and not do anything about anthropogenic climate change. And if that does not move you, think about the displaced millions, whose lands will be flooded in Bangladesh and Maldives when more polar ice melt and the sea levels rise. Human decency should motivate us all to try to soften the blow as much as possible.
Firstly a 300ppm to 310ppm rise is not an increase of .001%, it is an increase of 3.33%.
Now to quote some real C02 stats. From 1960 to 2010, there has been a rise in CO2 concentration from 310 ppm to over 380ppm. IPCC modelling shows that under different scenarios CO2 concentration would be anywhere between 540-970ppm in 2100. That is at the very least a 100% rise, and at most a 250% rise in CO2 levels since pre-Industrial Revolution times.
Secondly, of the 4.2 billion years of Earth history that you mention - complex life on land has existed only for a few hundred million years. When the Earth did have CO2 concentrations of 6000ppm, there were any complex organisms for it to kill.
More importantly it is not the effect on human health but on human society as a whole that is a cause for concern.It is true that the rising concentrations of CO2 would hardly be toxic to humans. However the issue here is that a change in climate patterns and rising sea levels will cause unprecedented extreme weather events, flood low-lying areas, devastate farm lands, cause unparalleled levels of migration and cause regional and international conflicts for basic resources. So yes, it will be a cause of misery and will have significant economic costs associated with it.
Events like volcanic explosions and asteroids have caused some of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history wiping away up to 95% of all life. That hardly gives us an excuse to say that since something bad can happen that we have no control of, we should not try doing the little things we can do to mitigate the change we are bringing. As for our anthropocentric attitude to warming, the increase in CO2 emissions is directly related to our use of fossil fuel, there isn't another reason explaining CO2s increase to its current levels.
So please next time, do take a minute to think over this before you decide to give up and not do anything about anthropogenic climate change. And if that does not move you, think about the displaced millions, whose lands will be flooded in Bangladesh and Maldives when more polar ice melt and the sea levels rise. Human decency should motivate us all to try to soften the blow as much as possible.
