Ecocentric

Why We Don’t Care About Saving Our Grandchildren From Climate Change

A new study shows that human beings are too selfish to endure present pain to avert future climate change. That's why we need win-win solutions now

  • Share
  • Read Later
Attila Kisbenedek / AFP / Getty Images

Some 30,000 people demonstrate in the center of Copenhagen on Dec. 12, 2009 to turn up the heat on world leaders debating global warming at the U.N. climate conference

You want to know what the biggest obstacle to dealing with climate change is? Simple: time. It will take decades before the carbon dioxide we emit now begins to have its full effect on the planet’s climate. And by the same token, it will take decades before we are able to enjoy the positive climate effects of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions now. (Even if we could stop emitting all CO₂ today, there’s already future warming that’s been baked into the system, thanks to past emission.) But we will feel the economic effects of either emitting or restricting CO₂ right now, in real time. While we can argue about the relative cost of reducing CO₂ emissions now — just as we can argue about the economic effects of climate change in the future — it should be clear that any attempt to restrict CO₂ emissions enough to make a dent in future climate change will cause some present-day economic pain. The global economy is still so dependent on relatively inexpensive fossil fuels that a quick transition to renewable sources would likely be costly in the short term. (See Naomi Klein’s 2011 piece in The Nation for a fairly clear-eyed view of what truly radical climate policy would mean.)

What that means, in effect, is that climate policy asks the present to sacrifice for the future. Human beings tend not to be very good at that kind of planning, even when their own future selves stand to benefit — a study this year found that just 10% of Americans have saved enough in a 401(k) or individual retirement account to put themselves on a track to retire. When it comes to climate change, the worst effects will be felt years after many people today are long gone. From a self-centered perspective, that makes strict climate policy like saving for a retirement you know you’ll never live to see.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that a new study in Nature Climate Change confirms the fact that the kind of long-term cooperation demanded by effective climate policy is going to be even more challenging than we thought.

(MORE: Cold Years in the Future Could Be Hotter Than the Hottest Years Now)

American and German researchers led by Jennifer Jacquet of New York University put together a collective-risk group experiment that is centered around climate change. Here’s how it worked. Each subject in groups with six participants was given a $55 operating fund. The experiment went 10 rounds, and during each round, they were allowed to choose one of three options: invest $0, $2.75 or $5.50 into a climate account. The participants were told that the total amount contributed would go to fund an advertisement on climate change in a German newspaper. If at the end of the 10 rounds, the group reached a target of $165 — or about $27 per person — they were considered to have successfully averted climate change, and each participant was given an additional $60 dollars. (If the numbers seem rough, it’s because I’m converting from euros — the currency used in the experiment — and rounding off.) If the group failed to reach the $165 target, there was a 90% probability that they wouldn’t get the additional payout. As a group, members would be better off if they collectively invested enough to reach that $165 target — otherwise they wouldn’t get the payout — but individually, members could benefit by keeping their money to themselves while hoping the rest of the group would pay enough to reach the target. (That’s the so-called free-rider phenomenon, and it’s a major challenge for climate policy.)

Here’s the twist, though: that $60 dollar endowment was paid out on three different time horizons. In one treatment, the cash was given to the groups the next day. In the second treatment, it was given seven weeks later. And in the third treatment, the cash was instead invested in planting oak trees that would sequester carbon — but since those trees wouldn’t be fully grown for years, all the benefit would accrue to future generations, not the current players in the experiment. The difference between that third treatment and the first and second is what’s known as “intergenerational discounting,” which happens when the benefits of an action in the present are highly diluted and mostly spread among many people in the future. Which, as it happens, is pretty much how climate policy would work.

(MORE: The Hard Math of Flood Insurance in a Warming World)

Unsurprisingly, the more delayed the payout was, the less likely the experimental groups would put enough money away to meet the goal to stop climate change. Even among those who knew they’d get the payout the next day, only seven of 10 groups invested sufficient funds, while none of the 11 groups who knew their endowment would be invested in planting trees gave enough money to “stop” climate change. While this is just one experiment, the results do not bode well for humanity’s ability to come together to stop climate change. As the authors write:

Applying our results to international climate-change negotiations paints a sobering picture. Owing to intergenerational discounting, cooperation will be greatly undermined if, as in our setting, short-term gains can arise only from defection. This suggests the necessity of introducing powerful short-term incentives to cooperate, such as punishment, reward or reputation, in experimental research as well as in international endeavors to mitigate climate change.

Fortunately, short-term incentives for fighting climate change do exist. It takes decades to benefit from reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions, but phasing out fossil fuels like coal and oil can bring immediate improvements in air pollution. And air pollution has turned out to be even more dangerous than experts thought, with the World Health Organization last week declaring that bad air is a leading environmental cause of cancer, comparable to secondhand smoke.

The Nature Climate Change study also underscores why “win-win” climate policies — like innovation investments that can lead directly to cheap clean energy, rather than policies that make dirty energy more expensive — are likely to be the most effective ones. Barring a species-wide personality change, few of us will be willing to endure present pain so that our grandchildren won’t have to endure an unlivable climate. We’re likely better off tailoring solutions that work with our selfishness and brief attention span, rather than hoping we suddenly become better, more farsighted people.

MORE: The Benefits and Perils of Energy Abundance

312 comments
hellonorbu
hellonorbu

The problem is modern Western philosophical traditions that don't understand reincarnation.  From a Buddhist (or Hindu or Taoist or Indigenous) perspective, not planning for our future lives is insane because we will have had and will have many thousands of lives on this planet.  Why sacrifice all of that for just this one?


This is also the reason why we have difficulty defending our traditions in the short term - because Western systems encourage reckless and aggressive behavior that is not restrained by common sense.  They destroy the sacred visions of the world and leave no thought for the future.  This leads to a sense of arrogance that is entirely misplaced, since they are destroying themselves as well as others.


Facing this problem requires calm deliberation and an attitude of overcoming these dangerous delusions while saving those who practice them.  The only thing we have on our side is time.  We can keep some coherence from life time to life time, like societal secret agents, whereas unfortunately many of those with a Western view often fall into lower states such as animals or persons without much power.  Sadly, planetary disruptions like climate change mean time is of the essence.

SustainLandDev
SustainLandDev

We Do Care!

The mission of Archangel Ancient Tree Archive (http://www.ancienttreearchive.org/) is to:

Propagate the world’s most important old growth trees before they are gone.

Archive the genetics of ancient trees in living libraries around the world for the future.

Reforest the Earth with the offspring of these trees to provide the myriad of beneficial ecosystem services essential for all life forms to thrive including releasing oxygen, sequestering carbon dioxide, providing beneficial aerosols and medicines: essentially a global warming solution.


In addition to our everyday activities, our major accomplishments over the past year include:

  • Cloning ancient Champion Coast Redwoods and planting them in six different countries around the world
  • Establishing the world’s 1st cloned Champion Redwood and Sequoia grove in Oregon to assist migration during climate change
  • Global media messaging reaching over two hundred million people in one hundred fifty countries
  • Rolling out an international organization by beginning to establish a registered charity in Europe
  • Initiating an effort to write K–12 educational curriculum inspired by the book The Man Who Planted Trees: Lost Groves, Champion Trees, and an Urgent Plan to Save the Planet

RosanaLeite
RosanaLeite

When the water gets to the neck, people learn to swim.

dilip
dilip

Wrong! Sorry if that is a bit abrupt but there it is ! "It will take decades before the carbon dioxide we emit now begins to have its full effect on the planet’s climate."  If that was really the case 'fracking' would not occupy the importance in the economy that it does at present. Fracking is an act of desperation. Each well needs between 1 million to 5 million gallons of fresh water. (The equivalent of 3.5 million to 17.5 million litres!) The sad part about it is that the water used for fracking cannot be used again for any useful purpose including agriculture, it is not economically viable. About 80% of the water that is used returns to the surface with the oil or natural gas, and then (ideally) has to be sequestered for the next two thousand years. What happens to the twenty percent of the contaminated water that remains in the ground is anyone's guess, but horrific stories of devastated prime farm land seem to indicate that it is nothing good. If any nation can think that fouling our fresh water sources so that they can never again be used is worth the fuel, things have reached a sorry state.



DallasSnellSr.
DallasSnellSr.

Just as natures slug leaves behind a trail of slime mankind creates trash and toxic pollution.  Why does a slug leave a trail of slime?

DallasSnellSr.
DallasSnellSr.

Since mankind is part of Nature and our nature is found on this planet we can say global warming is a natural event. Period. 

StevenEarlSalmony
StevenEarlSalmony

The AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population was founded in 2001. Since that moment I have seen it as a moral imperative to continue the work I’ve been doing for many years now: getting the message out and explaining to as many people as possible that human overpopulation of the Earth is occurring on our watch, that it poses profound existential risks for future human well being, life as we know it and environmental health, and that robust action is required starting here, starting now to honestly acknowledge, humanely address and eventually overcome.

beancrisp
beancrisp

FACT: Human activity does not cause or affect climate change.

solvealltheproblems
solvealltheproblems

NOT BUYING IT.  Most studies at universities use student participants - young people in their teens and twenties. In this demographic, self-centredness is 'developmentally correct' behaviour.  I would be more interested in the results of a study comparing these results to the same experiment run using subjects who are parents. 

AnthonyGumbrell
AnthonyGumbrell

America (which is us) is hugely wasteful. We can cut carbon emissions right away by curtailing waste. The Europeans know this and have been doing it for years. Americans are exceptional i.e. puerile. Americans actually enjoy inefficiency and waste. It is called conspicuous consumption and conspicuous waste. Monster trucks, huge SUVs, and humvees driven for personal transportation, i.e. just to get from point A to point B, are prime examples. In Europe where gasoline may cost from $8 to $10 per gallon it is a whole different deal. The squandering American wasteful party needs to be over. Americans are like spoiled children who want corporal punishment because they are so selfish and immature.

karenatwork1
karenatwork1

But even the money argument doesn't add up as we can enjoy immediate benefits and savings of about $5,000 per person per year right now just by going green. Logic favours going green right now  for enormous savings, better health and longevity.  Sheep take a long time to change direction.

AndrewBoggs
AndrewBoggs

Climate change is no longer an ‘if’ or ‘when’, it is a now - and for as many years as we have poured CO2 and other toxic pollutants into the air we breathe is as long as it will take to remove it from the atmosphere. Corporations are aware of it as much as we the public are aware of it. However greed of corporations and an easily bought conservative politicians wanting to do the biddings of corporate bosses don’t want you to know we can ’power’ our world and repair our atmosphere. It was a long hard and dangerous struggle to bring both solar and wind power to the forefront, and still very dangerous to develop ’magnetic power generation’ - oh not for the technology itself, but because the corporate big wigs and their conservative political lapdogs don’t want it to happen - and will stop inventors by all means possible, including murder to keep the technology hidden. Actually, power companies would profit because they would no longer need to deal with the cost and uncertainty of finite fossil fuels and the storage of radioactive nuclear fuel rods that will take thousands of years before being rendered safe. Right now, the Pacific Ocean is being saturated with radiation from the damaged power plants in Japan that are dumping millions of gallons of radioactive water into the ocean. Our food supply from the oceans are in danger and so are we. We also are damaging our fresh water supply with toxic waste from fracking. This must stop - and yes, its effecting us now - this is not fiction or ‘down the line’ predictions from climatologists - but it is now - and we will not escape its wrath! Whatever it takes, we need to leave nuclear and fossil fuel production - because if we don’t - future generations and including us in the here and now, will suffer from the acts of our greed! 

AndrewBoggs
AndrewBoggs

Climate change is no longer an ‘if’ or ‘when’, it is a now - and for as many years as we have poured CO2 and other toxic pollutants into the air we breathe is as long as it will take to remove it from the atmosphere. Corporations are aware of it as much as we the public is aware of it. However greed of corporations and easily bought conservative politicians wanting to do the biddings of corporate bosses don’t want you to know we can ’power’ our world and repair our atmosphere. It was a long hard and dangerous struggle to bring both solar and wind power to the forefront, and still very dangerous to develop ’magnetic power generation’ - oh not for the technology itself, but because the corporate big wigs and their conservative political lapdogs don’t want it to happen - and will stop inventors by all means possible, including murder to keep the technology hidden. Actually, power companies would profit because they would no longer need to deal with the cost and uncertainty of finite fossil fuels and the storage of radioactive nuclear fuel rods that will take thousands of years before being rendered safe. Right now, the Pacific Ocean is being saturated with radiation from the damaged power plants in Japan that are dumping gallons of radioactive water into the ocean. Our food supply from the oceans are in danger and so are we. We also are damaging our fresh water supply with toxic waste from fracking. This must stop - and yes, its effecting us now - this is not fiction or ‘down the line’ predictions from climatologists - but it is now - and we will not escape its wrath! Whatever it takes, we need to leave nuclear and fossil fuel production - because if we don’t - future generations and including us in the here and now, will suffer from the acts of our greed, now!


pacific1waters9
pacific1waters9

Look at the evidence, not the computer models. The computer models are consistently unable to predict climatic events and yet that's what you depend on to cll for the destruction of he world economy. Face the facts, not the computer models. Anthropogenic climate change is nothing more than an excuse for the redistribution of world wealth.



wismer_mike
wismer_mike

Or, more likely, people know that the benefits of using fossil fuels responsibly far outweighs the consequences.

ForestTrees
ForestTrees

I love how the oak is used here as the long term outcome.... 

There is a simple solution for most of our problems, RE FORESTATION. it sequesters carbon, provides biodiversity, cleans air, produces rain, provides medicine and the list goes on, but more importantly it reconnects us to our environment and makes us less monetary focused and more life quality focused. People are afraid to lose their quality of life, what the irony is that we have no quality of life without forests. Forest feed the oceans, fish feed us, its all interconnected. Money does grow on trees, and so does a billion other organisms. Plant one tree and you provide enough oxygen for two people, that money can't buy. What money can't buy trees provide. We can't buy biodiversity which we need to survive but we can replant our forests. 


people need to stop arguing their points, and simply start talking about planting, and PLANT TREES!


kick
kick

Belief in global warming from increasing CO2 gas in the air is a new religion.  


If it seems as if people with the strongest belief in global warming from CO2 gas have the least amount of knowledge of scientific method it is because they do.  

The fall and rise in Earth's average temperature is the result of the increase then decrease in predictable cycles of solar flares and nothing else.  

The scientific evidence of rising amounts of CO2 gas in the air over the last 15 years with no increase in average temperatures proves that the claims of so called "climate scientists" are false.  

Yet hundreds of millions of people around the world still believe which makes their faith in something that can't be proved a religion.  

The Supreme Court ruling of Separation of Church and State should have protected Americans from government funds being used to inculcate new members into CO2 gas cult but it hasn't.  

It hasn't because so many millions of American government employees including judges are faithful to the dogmas of their Mystagogues including Al Gore and Barack Obama.  

Gore and Obama are unabashed left over Marijuana Marxists who among many others started this new religion when the Socialist government of the former Soviet Union went bankrupt and was abandoned.  

Their goal remains what it has always been to curtail or destroy Capitalism by any and every means. Including the new religion of belief in global warming from CO2 gas.  

What should happen next is that a Federal judge should order the Mystagogues to cease and desist inculcating new believers with government money and on government property including and especially public schools.  

Americans have the right not only to be free from religious cults but also to be protected from them. 

giesche
giesche

process of nürnberg about enviromental issus

that's why we need a process of nürnberg about enviromental issus !

what about a tribunal of denhag against thoes who work in favour against life ?

like thoes who work for more consum ,

we need aswell one-million workers in the nucluaire waste industrie for the next one-million years,

 which accept to die premature, because the nucluaire industrie want work anymore if their will be no-more benefics.

we need to clean the ocean of the world

and all this with renouvable energie with technologie without raw materials

that's why we need to clean up the minds

and open the discussion about the real reason

why so many fortunes come from bad staff.

 that's why we need a process of nürnberg about thoes who work against life ! ! !

ralfy
ralfy

Oil prices are three times higher than they were years ago, and the effects of the 2008 crash remain.


Juan'tAjob
Juan'tAjob

Of far more dire consequence, is our out of control National Debt, which now exceeds $17 TRILLION!!  The current occupant of the White House has added over $7 Trillion, in less than six years.  At that rate, our grandchildren won't be able to afford paying attention to the weather.

Now, that non-ideological scientists agree the earth is in a cooling period (no measurable increase in average temperature for 15 years), perhaps it's time to address the REAL crisis...before it's too late for our grandchildren...

Tomster
Tomster

To me, the most interesting part about the living not caring about future generations is that almost every statement from every politician of every stripe has to include caring about families.  I am single and don't have children(I want both), so I notice it.  Politicians seem not to care about people without a family or children.  Every obituary or news story about someone who dies lists the person's surviving children, and how many grandchildren and so on.  But according to this article, people don't really care about their children or especially their grandchildren.  It also seems like the more conservative a person is, the more they claim to care about their families and children, but also fight doing something about climate change tooth and nail.     

GregVezina
GregVezina

There is a viable way to deal with the carbon and other chemicals in petroleum that has been known by the scientific community since 1967. A better way to use coal and other petroleum resources has been know for almost fifty years.

According to the Nov. 2102 "IEEE Dual Fuel Strategy" we can convert hydrocarbons into NH3, urea and char, thereby eliminating the carbon and other toxic chemicals instead of burning, flaring or venting them and it is much cheaper than dealing with emissions after combustion.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6235977

We can convert carbon fuelled power generators to use NH3 and oxygen, increasing the efficiency by as much as 50% and eliminating 100% of the emissions.
http://www.academia.edu/1093080/Experimental_and_numerical_study_of_ammonia_combustion

We can deep inject urea and char instead of other ammonia or phosphorous based fertilizer, increasing yield, reducing input costs and eliminating the phosphorous and nitrogen pollution.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SR07109.htm

We can utilize the existing NH3 industrial capacity by integrating or substituting alternative or off peak energy at the manufacturing stage. KRES- 5 makes more ammonia by energy substitution.
http://iclib.nipc.net/pubs/new-articles/90-06/En-90-06/820.pdf

Finally we can utilize the distribution infrastructure for fuel instead thereby supplying up to 10% of our fuel demand and use existing pipelines to move more energy stored in NH3 than can be moved as hydrocarbons, safely, with little or no long term or catastrophic consequences from any accidental spills.
http://nh3fuelassociation.org/tag/infrastructure

There have been 10 annual ammonia fuel conferences and there is a US based association. http://nh3fuelassociation.org 

And a Canadian company drove a 1981 Chevrolet Impala powered on ammonia across Canada in 1981. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vwmzkn0paM

And recently converted a Dodge Ram top run on a diesel/NH3 multi-fuel system. http://nh3fuel.com

zugzwang
zugzwang

Most serious environmentalists are not God centered but are animists or atheists. Ergo they contradict themselves getting in a lather about this. Except, they need funding for research and conferences etc so they put out this dire warning and their lemming-like followers exert political pressure and viola' the environmental-government complex goes to work.   

zugzwang
zugzwang

Why does any sane person give a rat's ass about this topic?  In 100 years everyone reading this will be long gone and the problems we think are important today will in all likelihood be solved or superseded by others. This whole issue is driven by the hubris of scientism and the well off worried well. 

TeslaBerry
TeslaBerry

how is that every 'consensus' article basically calls for more taxation as the means towards the action to stop climate change. 

MORE activity required to generate more money necessary to provide more TAXES. to fund increasing government action. 


how is it that MORE activity and action on the part of the public and private sector , activity which itself is dependent on energy consumption---transportation fuel and electricity-------is going to help global warming? isn't TOO much consumption that is the cause of high C02 emissions?

this is a question of whether the means justify the ends. 

the means always justifies the ends when it comes to an ideology or religion preaching a vision of the future , or a vision of moral righteousness. if 'SCIENCE' says global warming is a problem, but then 'SCIENCE' says the means must justify the ends to solve this problem, isn't science starting to make value judgement?al gore himself justifies his outrageous jet setting around the world and king level personal consumption rates as 'necessary' to stop global warming. al gore is a preacher who has blatantly co-opted the story of 'science' to his own ends. knowing that 'science' gives instant legitimacy to an argument, al gore and his ilk have suckered many a sheep into thinking that global warming 'science' has an opinion about means and ends. it does not. 

value judgements are the provenance of ethicists, ideologues,  religious leaders, philosophers; NOT science practicing scientists. there is no empirical controlled experimentation in the debate about means and ends, there is no science of 'right' and 'wrong' . the debate about 'right' or 'wrong' is not itself the provenance of science. and thus, there is NO science involved in a call to action requiring the means themselves be in direct contradiction to the ends sought. science can NEVER tell you the means justify the ends. at best, a gambler can tell you the 'statistics' may favor the desired outcome, but it is always a gamble. it is the preacher, the preist, the rabbi, the climate alarmist that will tell you YOU must take that gamble. you must first lose so that you may gain. when that person tells you this is 'science' , that person is lying. 

 global warming alarmism becomes a  deceitful religion when it asks you to take it on faith that the means they ask for , justify their ends , because 'science' says so, when in fact , 'science ' absolutely says nothing about that. 'science' just declares that there is some amount of man caused greenhouse gas heating of the planet. it doesn't say exactly how much let alone the scale of the disaster that might unfold in the future , let alone exactly how to stop it, LEAST OF ALL that you must follow a laundry list of expensive prescriptions and donations and taxations and give up your liberties in order to pursue  outcomes which can and will stop this projected disaster from unfolding. 

'science' says none of that. and anyone who tells you otherwise is a true believer. 

next time a true believer approaches you , politely tell them there are MANY ways for a call to action to advocate change, namely by command and control government action as well as changes in personal behavior---- these methods require NO expenditures,  these behaviors are comprised not by  an expansion of government and private sector activity and by your donation but by a contraction of taxation and spending, a contraction of activity, a contraction of consumptions , donations, and activity in general.

in other words, if you are going to waste your c02 emissions speaking to a true believer, tell them to stop wasting theirs and shut up. 



ConwaytheContaminationist
ConwaytheContaminationist

@AnthonyGumbrell Well, I, for one, don't own a monster truck, a SUV, or a Humvee. I drive a clapped out old Ford sedan that's pretty good on gas, and easy for me to fix.

I do agree that most Americans are mindless drones addicted to consumption, which is obtuse.

ConwaytheContaminationist
ConwaytheContaminationist

@AndrewBoggs All of us suffer in one way or another from the actions of our ancestors, physically and mentally.. Look  at race relations for starters.

Speaking of nuclear energy, please notice that no one EVER talks of the poisoning of the earth due to atmospheric nuclear testing, which was initiated by GOVERNMENTS, first and foremost the United States government. Strange, those actions were put into motion by those considered "liberal", i.e., FDR and Harry S. Truman, and continued by Eisenhower, JFK,  LBJ and Nixon.

Learn that they are ALL enemies of the people, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

ecosteps
ecosteps

@kick 

wow, you're off on so many issues, where to start. It's ironic that you use the religion card when your right wing friends have been using that tactic to affect laws for years. Logic and evidence is not a religion, just facts. Loss of Arctic sea ice is an overwhelming indicator of the GLOBAL nature of the problem. We are not talking about the weather in your neighborhood. As with every long term large scale study there are variations and peaks and valleys, it's the big overall averages that are important and reveal patterns. It's called science, you should try to understand it. I have seen the presentation from the solar cycle guy and he is simply zooming in on a detail of a graph to show where it goes down, not up, but the overall is up. If you ever canoe a river that flows north, you will spend time heading every direction as it bends, but the end result and overall pattern is North.

I also see you bought the karl rove dictionary for words to use about anyone who disagrees with you. very smart.

In the end it's not a belief or religion and it's not even opinion. It's simply fact. Now, do we care enough about our children to leave them a decent place to live. Do we care enough to open our eyes and honestly see the signs in the natural world. Can we be honest enough to acknowledge that releasing 100 or 1000 years worth of sequestered CO2, in the form of fossil fuels, back into the atmosphere in a single day, day after day, year after year is not part of any natural cycle. It's man made, and can't end well.

The option is bury our head in the sand, or to know the truth and accept our utterly selfish behavior. 





NormanDetweiler
NormanDetweiler

@kick So you are saying that co2 doesn't build up in the upper atmoshere. And that it wouldn't trap heat.

ConwaytheContaminationist
ConwaytheContaminationist

@giesche All right  - where would we start?

Who,  exactly, would we  try?

Who would be the arbiters of such trials?

What would be the penalties?

Lastly  -  who is going  to try the politicians who have facilitated ALL of  these debacles?


rfree
rfree

@Mission_Accomplished I read the article and--as in every case so far where I check the facts claimed by climate deniers-- it unfortunately does not support your view. The increased ice cover is only a few percent, and only during the winter. What the scientist quoted in the article actually says is: this increase in ice around Antarctica is very small compared to the huge decrease in seasonal ice in the Arctic. On net balance the polar areas of the earth as a whole are losing a lot of ice.

ConwaytheContaminationist
ConwaytheContaminationist

@zugzwang I can agree with that, but there are exceptions  - I am a  convinced atheist who thinks that "climate change" or "global warming" is a complete and utter fraud,  promoted by wealthy,  power-mad, criminal politicians to further their power and control over the citizenry.

What today's "leaders" fail to realize is that, regardless of their creating an Orwellian society, revolt and revolution will eventually occur, based on historical precedent, resulting in the current regime being annihilated. They really should soft-pedal their agenda - but man always over-does things, resulting in death and destruction - it seems to be human nature.

rfree
rfree

@TeslaBerry sounds like you have an unproved belief that only contracting government is correct; no reason we should accept that on faith.

EthanB.Dixon
EthanB.Dixon

@GregVezina Surely there is some kind of drawback? If it increases efficiency by 50%, climate change or not you would think power companies would get behind this. 

ConwaytheContaminationist
ConwaytheContaminationist

@rfree @TeslaBerry Perhaps you enjoy being "governed" to death, others don't.

Interesting that those charged with "governing" the unwashed masses have the most money, the best domiciles and the best healthcare, which serves to perpetuate their and only their hegemony, with the rest of us relegated to the position of virtual serfs. They are not interested in you or me; they are interested in theirselves, and their power, which is used to control us and the rest of the population.

I invite you to prove me wrong.

It seems that most everything man touches, he ruins, including the concept of government.