[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>As I replied in an email message to you, most of the species 
>that have ever existed are now extinct, and they went extinct 
>before man ever walked on this planet.  We shouldn't 
>deliberately drive species to extinction, but we also 
>probably should not intervene to prevent species from going 
>extinct that are not fit for survival.

No one has deliberately driven a species to extinction.  The moa 
became extinct because it was good to eat.  Ditto the sea cow
--its "fatal weakness" was that it tasted like beef.  The passenger
pigeon because it was numerous, and its feathers were attractive.

Species that become extinct due to human activity become extinct
not because we want to wipe them out, but because we are too
stupid (sometimes) to change our behavior until it is too late.

I'm sorry we've drifted off onto this side path, though.  My view
of climate change is not that it's bad because a few species might
become extinct--that was almost meant as a side comment.  My view
is that it's bad because we don't really have any idea what the
consequences for the natural environment will be.  What little we
do know seems to me to be mostly bad, and the prudent thing to do
seems to be to ease up on the accelerator (burning fossil fuel)
instead of flooring it.

So let's try to get back on track, shall we?  There are many other 
examples that could be made, rather than the extinction of a few 
Australian species (my original remark).

- Ocean current circulation may shift until the climate in Europe
is like that in Canada.  This would be an economic disaster.  I've
mentioned this before, and you haven't gone on and on about it
like you have about species extinction.  Why?

- Floods and droughts resulting from changes in evaporation and
rainfall patterns could seriously disrupt global agriculture.

- Tropical diseases appear very likely to spread (the World Health
Organization and World Meteorological Organization have already
issued a report warning about the consequences).

- Temperate and boreal forests could be damaged by temperature
changes, accelerating natural CO2 production and increasing warming
beyond the levels predicted.  (It's worth remembering, the IPCC
prediction is as likely to be wrong on the low end as on the
high.  What if we wind up with a 3.5 degree C (6.3 degree F) 
average warming by 2100?  Do you seriously think this is not
something we should alter our course to avoid?)

Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association

PS Support renewable energy!  Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:

        http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html

Interested in energy and the environment?  The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news.  The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

For a subscription, send me an e-mail request.  Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tomgray@econet.org>





Follow-Ups: References: