Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and the environment
Amituofo,
First of all, I have to challenge and idea that is commonly accepted in our society. That idea is that climate change is occurring, because of carbon dioxide emissions (i only want to focus on co2 in this post, although there are certainly other climate issues) at an unprecedented rate, and will soon swing out of control.
It seems that humans are having an effect on climate. But I have heard many scientists (and had a university course) who say that the changes are not unprecedented and that the climate, although influenced by humans, is influenced much more by other things. I can supply evidence if people want it, but I would rather simplify this and just get you to consider this idea. The Earth's climate is incredibly complex. It has been through times much warmer and much cooler than the present. Climate has caused suffering to many living beings since the birth of our planet, and it has caused many, many species to become extinct.
The purpose of this post is to ask what you think about, given the unsettled nature of climate science, is it better to attempt to change things which we may have very little control over? Or is it better to help people who are suffering from current issues (including climate disasters) which may simply be part of Earth's natural cycles (as they may have been for 4.6 billion years)?
Either side has opportunity costs. If we find out in the future that we are severely effecting the climate, then we will wish we had done something about it now. However, if we find out that we have little significant impact on it, then millions will have died due to lack of funding, because of the billions of dollars being spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which were not spent on other things.
First of all, I have to challenge and idea that is commonly accepted in our society. That idea is that climate change is occurring, because of carbon dioxide emissions (i only want to focus on co2 in this post, although there are certainly other climate issues) at an unprecedented rate, and will soon swing out of control.
It seems that humans are having an effect on climate. But I have heard many scientists (and had a university course) who say that the changes are not unprecedented and that the climate, although influenced by humans, is influenced much more by other things. I can supply evidence if people want it, but I would rather simplify this and just get you to consider this idea. The Earth's climate is incredibly complex. It has been through times much warmer and much cooler than the present. Climate has caused suffering to many living beings since the birth of our planet, and it has caused many, many species to become extinct.
The purpose of this post is to ask what you think about, given the unsettled nature of climate science, is it better to attempt to change things which we may have very little control over? Or is it better to help people who are suffering from current issues (including climate disasters) which may simply be part of Earth's natural cycles (as they may have been for 4.6 billion years)?
Either side has opportunity costs. If we find out in the future that we are severely effecting the climate, then we will wish we had done something about it now. However, if we find out that we have little significant impact on it, then millions will have died due to lack of funding, because of the billions of dollars being spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which were not spent on other things.
0
Comments
With warmth,
Matt
I think there is a choice that needs to be made though. Scarcity of resources is a large issue in our world. So, in terms of political spending, one can only invest so much in certain issues, and if they spend that money in one issue they cannot spend it in another issue. Therefore, financing reduction of carbon emissions means less money to spend on health care, for example.
also, regarding the money issue, billions and billions of dollars are spent on war. it would be hard to criticize environmental spending as a waste of money without first criticizing military spending. i am all for universal health care (public option, etc.). that money does not need to be subtracted from environmental spending. also, a healthy population will be LESS expensive than an unhealthy population.
i also think it is a myth that reducing carbon emissions and creating new (clean) energy industries would be expensive. those new industries will create jobs. they will also be more efficient and therefore cost less money on the whole. however, certain companies would suffer financially (namely, the oil and coal industry). this is why they are fighting tooth and nail to resist any changes.
have no doubt that BP will argue (and lobby) that reducing our oil consumption is a terrible idea. Fox News will agree with them. the Louisiana fishermen and marine life will disagree.
I'm with the whales.
Even if it was the case that it is expensive to preserve our environment, what's the point of having lots of money and good health care if we don't have a planet that can support human life?
As I see it the problem is in our lifestyle and I believe the consumer culture is where we should focus on. Now all the environmental talk seems to be on the climate change and how we can keep living as before without warming up the planet. I see climate change as only one of the problems and as a problem that is difficult to reverse. We should learn to recycle and stop feeding our egos with all the new gadgets. The biggest problem is the pollution and the fact that the resources are coming to their end pretty fast.
Here's one small book about buddhism and ecology I liked:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1888375884?ie=UTF8&tag=urbaoran-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=1634&creativeASIN=1888375884
If your referring to the "hockey stick" (a graph which shows temperature being relatively stable for the last millennium, then suddenly shooting up in modern times) diagram as evidence of rapid climate change, that graph has been proven wrong. It used inaccurate mathematical programming, and the data was not applied properly. The graph was recently taken off of the environment Canada web page, but i'm not sure about other countries. My understanding is that almost no scientist will agree that the graph is significant anymore. To my knowledge there is no other reliable evidence that says that temperature is increasing rapidly, or even significantly.
I agree that humans are having some impact. But our impact is in comparison to that of the Sun's energy fluctuations, as well as ocean circulation and other things of that caliber. These areas seem to have a MUCH larger effect on climate than the small amount of CO2 that humans are pumping into the air (small relative to the amount of CO2 that has been in the air in the past, for example during the period of the dinosaurs).
My argument is asking if its worth investing into reducing carbon emissions if it will not have any significant effect. It's quite possible reducing our emissions by huge amounts will only effect temperature by small decimals. Also, decreasing the amount of carbon emissions allowed is devastating for developing nations. For example, if you say that India has to use only renewable energy and cannot go above a certain level of carbon emissions, you are saying to the people of India, you must starve, and you cannot develop industry. At current prices, they cannot afford renewable energy.
This is from their FAQ:
If climate changes naturally over time, why isn't the current warming just another natural cycle?
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane to higher levels than at any point during the last 650,000 years. Scientists agree it is very likely that most of the global average warming since the mid-20th century is due to the human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, rather than to natural causes.
While natural variations have altered the climate significantly in the past, it is very unlikely that the changes in climate observed since the mid-20th century can be explained by natural processes alone.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
OK, so the earth has warmed this quickly before. However, I find it hard to believe that our increasing CO2 output and the significant rise in global temperature is a coincidence.
It is unlikely that some world organization will impose some mandated carbon emissions reduction for India that will lead to its economic collapse. Perhaps a global effort can be made to create new clean energy industries because, yes, i believe it can be profitable for the people involved (even in India). The oil industry is still recording record profits every year, so they will fight the rise of a new clean energy industry. What should be done is restrictions should be imposed on these oil companies to keep them from running the world and raping our planet for their own financial benefit.
I think that your claim that people will starve if we attempt to reduce carbon emissions is missing the mark. There is enough food to go around. The problem is the distribution. People are already starving because the richest people and counties in the world have more food than they need and refuse to help out starving countries. This problem of starvation already exists BECAUSE of the greed of countries and corporations like oil companies. It is backwards to allow oil companies to continue their unethical business practices in order to avoid having people starve.
I heard a statistic that something like 20% of the food in the U.S. is simply thrown in the trash. It doesn't make any sense. There are people starving all around the world (including in the US).
Anyway, here is a site that would disagree with NASA:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=198
I understand the prestige NASA has drawn to itself over the years, but it is certainly not the end all of science.
Many scientists say that increasing CO2 and increasing temperature is a coincidence. There are times in the past where CO2 levels have been much, much higher than the modern day, and temperatures have been much lower. It is also true that there have been times with extremely high CO2 levels, as well as extremely high temperatures. This indicates that the correllation between CO2 and temperature is small at best. There are however, extremely strong correlations through out earth's recordable history for solar energy and temperature.
This is a video about the Sun and the climate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjQAdjaAt0s
Again, I don't think humans aren't effecting the climate at all. I'm just not sure if the impact is significant enough to make a real difference.