Coffeehouse for desis
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


A Reagan approach to climate change

Coffeehouse for desis :: Coffeehouse :: Coffeehouse Main

Go down

A Reagan approach to climate change Empty A Reagan approach to climate change

Post by confuzzled dude Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:46 pm

“Between 1953 and 2014, the average area of the Arctic sea ice shrank by 48,000 square kilometers a year.”

“Between 1979 and 2014, it shrank by 87,000 square kilometers a year.”

“Between 1996 and 2014, the rate rose to 148,000 square kilometers.”

The accelerating rate is explained in part by the fact that ice reflects sunlight but water, which is darker, absorbs it. So as water replaces ice, more heat is retained. Heat transported from lower latitudes could also be part of the explanation.
I am also impressed by an experience I had in the mid-1980s. Many scientists thought the ozone layer was shrinking. There were doubters, but everyone agreed that if it happened, the result would be a catastrophe. Under these circumstances, President Ronald Reagan thought it best not to argue too much with the doubters but include them in the provision of an insurance policy. With the very real potential for serious harm, U.S. industry turned on its entrepreneurial juices, and the Du Pont company developed a set of replacements for the chemicals implicated in the problem along a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost. It came up with something that could be done then — not some aspirational plan for 2050. Action is better than aspiration. As matters turned out, the action worked and became the basis for the Montreal Protocol, widely regarded as the world’s most successful environmental treaty. In retrospect, the scientists who were worried were right, and the Montreal Protocol came along in the nick of time. Reagan called it a “magnificent achievement.”

We all know there are those who have doubts about the problems presented by climate change. But if these doubters are wrong, the evidence is clear that the consequences, while varied, will be mostly bad, some catastrophic. So why don’t we follow Reagan’s example and take out an insurance policy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21643059-earths-northernmost-sea-stirring-consequences-are-both-good-and

confuzzled dude

Posts : 10205
Join date : 2011-05-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Coffeehouse for desis :: Coffeehouse :: Coffeehouse Main

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum