Coincidentally the class I was taking that urged me to go to the David Suzuki lecture was the first time I was introduced to the concept of future generations. I can't remember but it may have been a topic covered by David Suzuki himself.
Possibly, I wouldn't be able to speak to that one way or another in a meaningful fashion. My general take on this argument is to avoid directing people anywhere that name recognition is part of the convincing argument, mainly because of the hotly-debated and political nature of the subject. After all, Darwin, Dawkins, and even Shermer are three whose writings I would recommend, even though I don't necessarily agree with all of the conclusions from their arguments on every topic they cover (though I do agree with their broad conclusions... my differences tend to be minor or a matter or degree). But while I may not agree with some small detail or some piece of an argument they may make, that doesn't invalidate my agreement with the broader arguments which their writings address. I can't speak for the situation you found yourself in and the impression Suzuki's speech gave you, but I would guess that he was recommended in much the same way that I would recommend Dawkins to someone regarding evolution or the possibility of existence of the divine, or Shermer in addressing Holocaust denial, the probability of UFO abductions, or Creationist arguments.
My own personal philosophy is that relying on future generations is foolish. It is our responsibility to respond to problems as they arise. There is no guarantee future generations will be able to solve the problem. We know with some certainty however that actions we take now will have a positive effect. This represents a "sure thing". Given the stakes involved it is the most responsible response to problem at hand.
I would tend to agree.
The question then becomes to what extent. The proposed responses run the full spectrum. From cessation by way of reversion to a "green" pre-industrial farming society to some minimum reductions implemented on a case by case basis. There's no obvious answer and no single solution. All I know for certain is that improvements have been made here in Canada. In the next few weeks I have the opportunity to be part of a presentation by the Government on the steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in my industry, electrical power generation.
I hope after which I am in a better place to speak to your point on power production. I honestly don't know to what extent it contributes to greehouse gas emissions. I know it is a major contributor, I know it is a future consideration and I know there are major areas for improvement. I also know any changes to be made will have to come about through rethinking how we produce, deliver and use power here in North America.
Again, I agree with much of what you're saying here. The logical answer for "to what extent?" is basically "what we are able to economically accomplish without negative consequences." Of course, that's an answer that brings into play a whole separate argument on its own-- and, in my opinion, one we
should be having right now-- and this question is likely going to be fielded or dealt with in the presentation you'll be attending. I know someone who attended a similar convention here in the States, and the company he worked for had a few solar and wind pilot projects to test feasibility for bolstering their production. I never got from him the results of the testing, but in an interim update he told me that their location wasn't optimal for wind and that they were trying to reposition both it and the solar set-ups to try and optimize output (which was relatively low). Many power companies and other corporations in the power production and distribution business are chomping at the bit to both cash in on some of the alternative energy subsidies that are out there, as well as have added options for increasing revenues by utilizing newer technologies. On the down side, though, very few are enthused at the prospect of making sweeping changes to the existing infrastructure, primarily due to the up-front costs, which is currently one of the leading obstacles to the implementation of more alternative energy sources in North America. What makes this change part of the hot-button arguments that abound are that the changes that many are trying to work out will have a significant outcome on both the level of emissions that are put out, as well as seriously disrupting the demand of the current fuels used in energy production-- we want cleaner energy, but crashing the oil or coal market in the process would have negative consequences. There are other programs out there not specifically related to power companies, like the pilot program that is set to be tested in Israel that would utilize electric cars where the goal is to try to turn the batteries running the electric motors into a subsidized commodity similar to the way gasoline is currently a subsidized cost in the combustion engines. These are just some of many in the marketplace of ideas right now, and currently the two questions that aren't at the heart of the debate
but should be are "to what extent?" and "which options are best?"
As for migration and food production I remain somewhat indifferent. Migration is nothing new to the human species. In fact it has only reached a steady state in recent history. In Canada I believe it still represents our chief means of population growth. There is no shortage of inhabitable land here in Canada or the United States. Our population density is no where near that of the "Old World". If there was to be a massive migration due to climactic changes we have the capacity.
Which brings me to the production of food and feeding the population. Genetic engineering has dramatically improved crop yields and growing season for crops like corn, wheat and soya beans. Perhaps more importantly greenhouses (the irony) have drastically improved what we can grow and where. Our current methods already seeing us take on migrant workers from countries. Would an influx of migrants really mean an increase in the cost of food commercially grown? I'm inclined to believe it wouldn't. Most of the greenhouses are desperate for workers from. areas of the World most likely affected by any increase in global temperature. This migration is already upon us, the only difference is that it is seasonal. Most return for a short period between growing seasons. Many do so only because they are either required by law or because they wish to return to their families. If given the choice most would remain on a permanent basis.
I'm not really of the opinion that migration on its own is necessarily a bad thing for any nation or people, but it would mean changes that will directly affect Canada. It may not significantly raise the cost, but it will increase the amount of poverty, which carries with it baggage that will have economic costs.
The last issue is perhaps the question of fertile land available for farming. I recall an interesting bit of trivia I heard several years ago. It's with regards to the amount of land needed to sustain the World's population. I can't recall the exact figures but the amount of land between the East bound and West bound lanes of the Trans Canada highway from Halifax to Victoria is enough to sustain the entire World's population in wheat. Simply put most of the farmable land in this country isn't utilized properly. Much of what we produce is wasted or fed to livestock. If we as a society were actually pressed to feed the hungry mouthes of the World we could easily do so. And sometimes I wonder why we allow people to suffer through drought and famine when they could be brought here to live heathly and productive lives. I wonder if global warming wouldn't force us accept the changes that are already necessary.
I can understand and sympathize with what you're saying. A lot of work and study has gone into sustainable farming that keeps useful land fertile. However, just a few changes in temperature globally is going to make a lot of those techniques less effective.
I also wanted to thank you for the approach you're taking and the questions you're asking. In all honesty, these are what the argument that's currently raging should be about. It's a shame that this isn't the focus of the current debate in all of the threads that pop up on the subject.
