Should politicians highlight Global Warming as the biggest threat to Humanity?

[Undesired Walrus]

I was watching an interview with John McCain on the Charlie Rose Show, and in the midst of a charming interview, McCain noted that the:

biggest threat facing humanity is the threat from Radical Islamic Extremism.

(I've mentioned elsewhere my dislike of the above phrase)

McCain's comment is not simply his alone, it is shared by those on the right and the left. So the question posed is this: should politicians begin to portray Global Warming as the major security threat to their country?

If they do this, should they begin to see major polluters in the same light as they see contemporary terrorists? If China continue with its high levels of pollution, is it right to portray that as terrorism? If the USA did the same, would it be homegrown terrorism?

The problem -of course- is that you cannot excite anybody in the major cities with images of preserved rainforest. You can only excite and motivate them by showing images of destroyed urban landscape and the potential of major wars fought in global warming's 'name'. As it currently stands, the prevailing image (In my view) that puts off this motivation is frankly annoying enviromentalists championing GW as their cause. It should be a matter for us all (urban or rural) should it not? This is, presumably, where the politicians can step in.

I confess I'm uneducated on the topic, so I'd appreciate some literature (preferably online) that can explain how grave the threat is.

 

[Beerina]

Global warming is not the biggest threat to any country whatsoever.

As usual, dictatorships and oppressive governments are far more damaging to the longevity and quality of life of citizens.


Far and away.



Which would end up with far more quality of life after 100 years? A throbbing, free economy with 100 years of slowly rising seas, or a dictatorship that did everything right, green-wise?


These are not unlikely ivory tower scenarios, but very and murderously real-world. 100 years of US-style economy, you'd have more people "pop out the other end" with higher seas and warmer temps technologically far more advanced than, say, even a European-style economy that was 100% green, which, as we know, it is far, far, far from being.


So in summary, the greatest threat to humanity is oppressive government, even with "well meaning" environmental regulations, which will slow development, leading to a lagging quality and length of life, over a throbbing and free economy with global warming.


Any questions? I hope you've all studied hard because massive environmental regulations for "global warming" will end up making life far more miserable than not. It's simple science. You know, observations, which lead to theories that make predictions which come true time and time again. Science. That stuff we around here like.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Terrorism is more immediate and as difficult as it is to fight, it is simpler than fighting the climate. The main fight on GW if you think drastic action is necessary will be the battle to gain support for that kind of action.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

As usual, dictatorships and oppressive governments are far more damaging to the longevity and quality of life of citizens.

Yet presumably, a global drying that creates vast crop failures and thus a huge food deficit (on a planet of 9 Billion Humans), would pose far more of a strain on international security between nations and within nations? Regardless of the brutality of a dictatorship, such a food deficit would be far more indiscriminate in the deaths of its citizens.

 

[moon1969]

Many politicians are still Global warming skeptics. Plus conspiracy theorists say that global warming is the way to control people and NWO. Alex Jones even interviewed David Mayer de Rothschild. Just google david rothschild Alex jones interview if you don"t believe me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Global warming is not the biggest threat to any country whatsoever.

As usual, dictatorships and oppressive governments are far more damaging to the longevity and quality of life of citizens.


Far and away.

So in summary, the greatest threat to humanity is oppressive government, even with "well meaning" environmental regulations, which will slow development, leading to a lagging quality and length of life, over a throbbing and free economy with global warming.

I think the problem is that the root cause of Global Warming, expanding human population, is being completely ignored due to political cowardice. For two generations, the concept of ZPG has been banging around, and has received lukewarm support, though Mao and his group got serious about it. (Goes to show how damned hard it is to get a behavioural change put into place if the grass roots support isn't there for it.) For whatever reason, be it education or philosophical agreement, "The West" has followed that objective with some vigor, as a whole (yes, that's a bit of a generalization) but many social bodies not "The West" have not.

At the risk of an Ivory Tower moment, who makes the assertion, or assumption, that the ever expanging human population is not the most significant threat to human population?

We, the humans of planet earth, have met the enemy and he is us. Going forth, being fruitful, and multiplying may have a limited application in orders of magnitude.

This smacks, I realize, of neo-Malthusianism, with energy rather than food as the significant constraint. When you look at how savagely humans have depleted the some of the best food resource of the oceans, (cod, blue fin tuna, etc) you begin to realize the ever increasing demand has a cost. See also the past twenty years concern with desertification in various parts of the world due to water and agricultural factors.

Who decides what the optimal population for the planet is?

Good question.

Is four billion Goldilock's just right number? Seven billion? Three billion? Ten billion?

That question needs answering, if it can be practically answered. (Perhaps it can't.) It certainly needs answering before macro level policies are attempted, since increasing demand will frustrate the best laid plans of mice and men.

DR

 

[mrbaracuda]

So undesired this threa().

 

[Nogbad]

Why not?

We could alternate though. One year GW, next gay marriage, next nutters in caves reading quarans knitted from dried humus, next Mayan calendars etc., etc.,*

*this list is not exhaustive.

 

[Texas]

So undesired this threa().

THe gravest threat to mankind are Mothers-in-Law.

 

[Gurdur]

Global warming is not the biggest threat to any country whatsoever. As usual, dictatorships and oppressive governments are far more damaging to the longevity and quality of life of citizens.

Evidence? Compare with simple lack of clean drinking water; which kills more, lack of clean drinking water or dictatorships and oppressive governments?

Definition of "oppressive government"? As you doubtlessly know, some Americans castigate the USA govt as the last word in fascism for merely having income taxes.

A throbbing, free economy

Throbbing, eh? Standing high, proud, erect and hard or something? Blue-veined? Hairy? The world wants to know. Um, cut or uncut?

 

[BPSCG]

Evidence? Compare with simple lack of clean drinking water; which kills more, lack of clean drinking water or dictatorships and oppressive governments?

But surely it hasn't escaped your attention that lack of clean drinking water is not generally a problem for free, capitalist societies.

And surely it hasn't escaped your attention that lack of clean drinking water is generally a problem for societies ruled by oppressive governments.

There's clearly a relationship there. Does lack of clean drinking water cause oppressive government?

Or does oppressive government cause the lack of clean drinking water?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Evidence? Compare with simple lack of clean drinking water; which kills more, lack of clean drinking water or dictatorships and oppressive governments?

Also, the most powerful threat Humans have endured throughout a vast majority of their history has been the natural elements, not oppressive governments.

 

[WildCat]

I thought it was proven that Caucasians are the biggest threat to humanity?

 

[WildCat]

THe gravest threat to mankind are Mothers-in-Law.

Around here, a "mother-in-law" is a tamale on a hot dog bun with chili on top.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/southernfoodwaysalliance/2383596416/



Mmmmm....

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet presumably, a global drying

Why would global warming lead to global drying? It's likely to decrease rainfall in some areas, but could easily increase it in others. And it might make more land farmable in vast areas like northern Canada and Russia. Starvation nowdays doesn't happen because of a lack of food in the world, it happens because of violent conflicts and a lack of purchasing power. Both of those problems are under more immediate and more severe threat because of Islamic terrorism than because of global warming.

 

[Tailgater]

Throbbing, eh? Standing high, proud, erect and hard or something? Blue-veined? Hairy? The world wants to know. Um, cut or uncut?

C'mon, I know you could have worked the rising sea, pop out the other end, and European-style bits in too.

 

[Jontg]

If temperatures continue to rise at the current rate--and they won't, by the way, since they're rising faster every year--it's only a matter of time before we start seriously losing permafrost. Who here has ever taken into account what that means?
If you haven't, allow me to spell it out: Siberia alone contains a vast, frozen swamp the size of Texas, and locked inside that frozen peat is over 70 billion tons of methane. If that stuff is released into the atmosphere, it will set in motion an irreversible chain of catastrophes that will--not could, will--destroy mankind and nearly every other living creature on the face of the Earth.
Human industry isn't the first event to trigger a massive release of greenhouse gases--something very similar to what we're seeing now occurred 400 million years ago, when the Siberian Traps supervolcano erupted. The crud released into the atmosphere probably darkened the sky for a time--but when the dust cleared, tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane remained, raising global temperatures enough to trigger vast permafrost melts, which in turn raised the temperature further and melted still more, and so forth.
As the world's temperature went haywire, the oceanic currents followed suit--but then they slowed, and finally they stopped altogether. The oceans of the world literally went stagnant, becoming an anoxic, bacteria-ridden soup. By the time the water cleared up, between 75% and 90% of all life on Earth had died. This event is now known as the Permian Extinction.
Scared yet?

 

[Oliver]

I thought it was proven that Caucasians are the biggest threat to humanity?

Who invented the industrialization that leads to Global Warming anyway?

 

[lionking]

Yet presumably, a global drying that creates vast crop failures and thus a huge food deficit (on a planet of 9 Billion Humans), would pose far more of a strain on international security between nations and within nations? Regardless of the brutality of a dictatorship, such a food deficit would be far more indiscriminate in the deaths of its citizens.

Where on earth do you get the idea of global drying? Where will the total amount of water in the world go?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't know about humanity, but the biggest threat to Westen civilization will be the possibly hundreds of millions of refugees pouring out of the "middle 40" if global warming makes their marginal lives untennable.

I'm sure all the nay sayers and free marketeers will embrace their new neighbors with open arms though.