Quote:
Originally Posted by neilzero
In my neighborhood, here in Jacksonville, Florida, the cost would be enormous to put it back exactly the way it was 300 years ago. Why would we want to do that?
|
I don't know. Why do you ask?
What I meant by my post is that if we don't start seriously curbing CO
2 it may soon be too late to prevent major economical losses (or much worse). The not at all unlikely potential losses greatly outweigh economical losses caused by environmentalism. Even if that was not the case, it doesn't hurt to think what kind of planet we leave to the coming generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilzero
For a few hundred dollars per acre, we could make the neigborhood better for present ecology which is mostly humans and their pets and giant hardwood shade trees. Environmental losses are mostly projected = have not happed yet = may not happen. Some are of the opinion that we should not barrow trouble from the future. My guess is a reasonable compromise is best. Let's fix the most obvious problems and hope for the best.
|
Hoping is a rather ineffective (and way too common) way to fix problems. We don't have to reverse our technological level, but use good sense and stop the mindless wasting. Taking care of one's neighborhood is important part of that, but not enough.
I recommend you to read Jared Diamond's
Collapse if you're not already done that. He describes rather convincingly how many of the past civilizations were destroyed because they didn't understand or want to tackle environmental problems they (or nature) had caused. Modern civilization is far more robust than the one in the Eastern Island, but on the other hand the problems (not just GW) are global.