As already stated, I recognize that natural climate change is inevitable and normal--with or without man. The fossil record shows that we are still somewhat below Earth's average temperature over the long term (hundreds of millions of years), so we should not be surprised to see an upward trend. But within this larger pattern appear anomalies that impact life on earth--sometimes catastrophically. The most obvious, measurable cause of change (both long-term and short) appears to be fluctuations in the composition of the atmosphere--in particular, the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas.
We see evidence that earth's temperature changes when greenhouse gas "concentrations" rise or fall, as following volcanic eruptions or dramatic expansions of life forms. To discover, therefore, that the climate has changed as a result of the Industrial Revolution is about as surprising as coming home to find that you house is sweltering because someone forgot to turn off the oven. Where, in the past 800,000 years, CO2 never climbed about 300 ppm, it has recently climbed past 420 ppm--an increase of nearly 50% in only 200 years.
Why concerns ourselves, if climate change is normal? Mostly because rapid changes in climate are more disruptive than the normally slow, natural changes to which ecosystems may gradually adapt. And, to the extent possible, because humanity must also adapt, with the result that life for many becomes more difficult and expensive. I am no economist, but those who study the expense of climate change project costs into the many trillions of dollars.
So, to the question of what I would do, I would start by recognizing that our course of action will be very expensive, whether we choose to do something, or choose to do nothing at all. For those willing and able to make the personal financial commitments, just hearing the facts and learning about solutions may drive them to act. For example, many are willing to install solar panels and drive electric cars voluntarily, and clearing the room of misunderstanding when it comes to the science is a good place to start if we hope to encourage them. But I also acknowledge the tragedy of the commons--that many will not act until they see that others are willing to ride the same boat. Why, after all, should I burn less diesel just so see someone else pour it in their truck? This is where government must step in. While less government is a good rule to go by, I do believe that government serves an important role in energy production and conservation, just as it does for defense. I would support continued efforts to subsidize clean energy. We subsidize milk and corn, so why not clean air? And we are twice served if government encourages private industry to explore new lithium deposits and battery production technology--it frees us from the stranglehold that China currently hold over our economy. Same with rare earth elements. Investment in American clean energy is a valuable and necessary as investment in traditional energy sources, military, etc. Just as our investment in space paid huge dividends, so will investment in clean energy. The last thing we need is to be the second dog on the chain behind China when it comes to this massive industry.
web.archive.org
