Why is global warming a bad thing?

[Gunner]

Global warming doesn't mean every place on earth suddenly gets warmer. A global shift of only a few degrees net can (and, historically, has) caused shifts in weather patterns. Rising sea levels are only a side effect. Generally, the temperate regions will get dryer - this means the central US grain belt will get a lot closer to Dust Bowl conditions on a permanent basis, while the shorter growing season of the Dakotas and central Canada will get longer and warmer. (Ditto for Ukraine, which is central Asia's breadbasket; the growing zone will move north into what is now forested areas.)

It also creates shifts in weather patterns, so that areas used to 20 inches of rain a year might now get 10, or 50. It's not any one 2012-style disaster; it's a gentle shaking of the whole snowglobe that changes the weather and conditions in nearly every spot on the globe.

Think of it as every plat in a city being shifted ten feet in a random direction. No big deal, except that now your bedroom is on a neighbor's land and he has to cross your front yard to get to his garage. The disaster is cumulative and almost universal instead of being localized like an earthquake or even a hurricane.

Whether it's caused by human activity or is a natural change in conditions such as has happened on an almost continuous basis for eons, it's going to change the rules of food production, energy distribution, water resources and the balance of arable land in our lifetimes. It would be nice if we could get our sh!t together and deal with it instead of turning it into another politicized clusterfork.

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Gunner

The disaster is cumulative and almost universal instead of being localized like an earthquake or even a hurricane.

Whether it's caused by human activity or is a natural change in conditions such as has happened on an almost continuous basis for eons, it's going to change the rules of food production, energy distribution, water resources and the balance of arable land in our lifetimes. It would be nice if we could get our sh!t together and deal with it instead of turning it into another politicized clusterfork.

You describe the phenomenon of global warming as a "disaster" rather than the kind of change in the world's environment that has been going on for the past 4 billion years. Why? I see the world's endlessly growing population as a greater challenge in the areas of food production, energy distribtution and water resources than global warming. And I still don't see why a changing world is necessarily bad news for everyone. Why is this everyone's problem instead of the problem of those people who will be hurt the most?

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Tommy

You describe the phenomenon of global warming as a "disaster" rather than the kind of change in the world's environment that has been going on for the past 4 billion years. Why?

The world economy - and I mean the general notion of global trade rather than the simple mechanics of money - is a delicately balanced thing. If all of a sudden (over the period of a decade or two) you suddenly change all the rules, the only two mechanisms of global coping are complete cooperation, or widespread war.

Why? Envision a world in which the US loses most of its arable land in the heartland and is dependent on Canada for grains. Think that will remain a stable situation? In that same world, Ukraine, which is the breadbasket of Asia, becomes however you say "dust bowl" in Slavic and the Russians begin leveling their forests to convert them to farming. The damage cascades out from there, and that's just one consequence.

Sea levels only have to rise a foot or two to begin making major cities all over the world partially or wholly uninhabitable. Florida's the extreme case: millions of people living just a few feet above current sea level. The loss of property values there alone will be a financial mega-disaster bigger than the current bank mess.

Globally, net, it's just a readjustment. The planet has seen millions of them. However, this is the first significant change in global weather patterns since at least the Little Ice Age... and that was with a world population somewhere below a billion and before global interdependence - before industrialization at all. A shift now topples or shakes every pillar of modern living for every person on the planet.

I see the world's endlessly growing population as a greater challenge in the areas of food production, energy distribtution and water resources than global warming.

Both are looming crises; population is controllable, while global weather is not. There are also signs that population growth is flattening. There are other ways to cope with added population as well. How exactly will we cope with a Katrina or two every hurricane season, or an essentially permanent dust bowl in the central US?

And I still don't see why a changing world is necessarily bad news for everyone. Why is this everyone's problem instead of the problem of those people who will be hurt the most?

I don't care to get into this part of the argument; if you truly believe that you're just fine if the tornado leaves your house standing while it flattens the rest of your town, you'll have to find your own way in the ethical thicket. In very short: it IS everyone's problem, not just that some poor slob whose farm will dry up and blow away in the next five years. That slob was feeding you at controlled prices. If you want to buy your food on a panicked global market, it might just affect your entire standard of living.

[Tommy]

Gunner,
I'm genuinely impressed by the way you present your arguments. But I'm not convinced there is objective analysis to support the contention that the impact of global warming on the typical American justifies any particular level of sacrifice. I present myself as a "what's in it for me" kind of guy because I think that is what motivates the vast majority of people. So, unless someone can make the case for why some store owner in Montgomery, AL ought to care that droughts in Sudan are becoming more severe, its unlkely that store owner will lend his support to the politicians who will be making the tough decisions.