Robert Samuelson, July 5 WashPost:
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.
Global Warming
July 5, 2006 at 11:56 am (J333)
David said,
July 5, 2006 at 7:56 pm
It is moral. Any time we (“we” being both individual and communial i.e. corporations) put ourseleves and our gain in front of our neighbors, that’s moral. We are playing a game of chicken, hoping our neighbor will blink first, be the first one to give up economic gains in an effort to curbe green house gas emmisions. “Only when my neighbor does it will I follow suit”, is a morally wrong attitude, at numerous levels. The attitude is wrong, and the result may be devestatingly wrong. Sure it’s an enginerring problem, but it’s also a moral one. I doubt there are very many things that are not moral. Nearly everything contributes to the common good, or detracts from it, brings glory to God, or detracts.
fernando said,
July 6, 2006 at 5:14 am
I read that article and it was a good one. It made the point that we need to deal first of all with the technological problem. All the best moral intentions won’t actually fix the problem unless we have better technology to provide, maintain and efficiently use power.
But the imperitive is still moral and it is a pretty dangerous to push that reasoning too far. There is a point at which reducing issues down to simply technology, medicine, science or economics becomes a sell-out to a sub-Christian and sub-theological outlook on life.
In the end, either God calls us to care for the environment or not. If God does, then it is always a moral issue, even if we choose to address the issue with technological solutions.
Samurai Theolgian said,
July 6, 2006 at 5:35 am
It is also moral to improve the lives of the poorest. And modernization and globalization have done much toward that end. It’s in the countries that have rejected globalization that we see the worst cases of poverty and disease.
So as stewards of God’s resources, we cannot simply put global warming as the highest priority. We have to be creative in finding a balance between what is best for people and what is good for the environment.
Thing is, most crusaders for Kyoto-like solutions, only focus on the environment and think that involutary wealth distribution is the answer to poverty.
chris brandow said,
July 13, 2006 at 8:51 pm
as someone who believes that it is indeed a moral issue, it does not change the fact that, yes, it is an engineering problem. The needed outcome for this problem is quite straightforward: produce all of our energy without producing CO2. That is ~12 terawatts. So, yes, it is an engineering problem. The greatest engineering problem that we have ever faced.