Al Gore stated that we face a choice regarding whether the earth’s ecological system will remain viable for our species. He cites the carbon that is frozen in the permafrost in the north. As the permafrost melts, carbon is added to the atmosphere, making it “difficult” for the human species to live. I am not a scientist so I have no means of knowing what the state of the research is on these matters. Nor am I particularly interested in debating it. In my view, if there is a chance that we could be effectively ending our our species, we ought not to be held back from acting in a prudent fashion even if it is “just in case.” I understand the economic costs, and that some are particularly attached to short-run costs (and less enamoured with long-term benefits). Still, that the debate itself would be allowed to stall even a “just in case” response reflects badly on our species. At a worse case, it could be something like two parents debating which of them will get their baby out of their burning house. Meanwhile, the baby burns. We would call that a dysfunctional family, would we not? Still, no such appellation goes to those involved in the continuing debate on climate change.
The full essay is at "Climatic Presumption."
