How about greed enabled by materialism and markets under the respectable label of aspirational contributing to climate change.
A bitter irony that the ill effects of climate change are for public consumption while the major causes for it belong to the privileged few. More the power more the pollution.
Methane is short-lived but can create a sudden climate reset (Drias-Event - Europe froze for 800 years). At present, this reset could happen as early as 2025. 60% of methane emissions are linked to rice fields in China. No go to ask them to stop, or plant mangroves.
Natural gas producers are the best short-term solution. Here, you must differentiate between state companies like Petronas, who are a law unto themselves, and wildcatters.
The practical issue masks the ethical issue: NZ is exporting water to the ME through milk powder and lamb meat. Where to apply the rule: with the producer (few) or the users (many?)
You have the same discussion with ethical rules for access to river water. If you use the "riparian" rule, whoever borders on the river, can pump and resell (e.g. Imperial Valley US). If you use the river basin "proportionality" rule, every year quotas must devised - often impractical because of flow variability from year to year (e.g. Sacramento Valley US).
Finally, any rule must be backed by power. Collective or oligarchic rule? This year's Nobel Prize insights - Ms Goldin - are cogent.
After the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano eruption, it is estimated that an additional 10% more water vapor was added to the atmosphere, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. What are the ethics of volcanic eruptions?
I also question the validity of data used to measure ground temperatures. Up until the early 1990s, there was a fairly consistent 1200 +- weather reporting stations in the US. Since then, about a third of those stations no longer report, even though “estimated” data from non-existent or non-functioning stations continues to be reported. Image how that skews the data, especially since the US has the greatest number of reporting stations in the world. When one considers the closure of whatever weather stations the USSR maintained across Siberia that simply shut down after the fall of the USSR in the early nineties, how can one trust any reports of “climate change” when the data simply is there to support an accurate conclusion? Is faulty data a worthwhile basis for an ethical argument?
And because wealthy climate scientists like Al Gore and Barack Obama continue to purchase vast mansions near oceans and banks continue to sell mortgages for oceanfront properties, I will consider it my ethical duty to take climate change as seriously as the better sorts of people do by their actions.
Thank you Pallavi, very instructive article. Global warming is obvious, and carefully monitored. But I am with those that believe it has little to with human activity.
How about greed enabled by materialism and markets under the respectable label of aspirational contributing to climate change.
A bitter irony that the ill effects of climate change are for public consumption while the major causes for it belong to the privileged few. More the power more the pollution.
Everything thus points to a moral problem.
Dear Pallavy,
you do ask for impossible comments ))-))
Methane is short-lived but can create a sudden climate reset (Drias-Event - Europe froze for 800 years). At present, this reset could happen as early as 2025. 60% of methane emissions are linked to rice fields in China. No go to ask them to stop, or plant mangroves.
Natural gas producers are the best short-term solution. Here, you must differentiate between state companies like Petronas, who are a law unto themselves, and wildcatters.
The practical issue masks the ethical issue: NZ is exporting water to the ME through milk powder and lamb meat. Where to apply the rule: with the producer (few) or the users (many?)
You have the same discussion with ethical rules for access to river water. If you use the "riparian" rule, whoever borders on the river, can pump and resell (e.g. Imperial Valley US). If you use the river basin "proportionality" rule, every year quotas must devised - often impractical because of flow variability from year to year (e.g. Sacramento Valley US).
Finally, any rule must be backed by power. Collective or oligarchic rule? This year's Nobel Prize insights - Ms Goldin - are cogent.
Have a happy consideration day.
aldo
After the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano eruption, it is estimated that an additional 10% more water vapor was added to the atmosphere, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. What are the ethics of volcanic eruptions?
I also question the validity of data used to measure ground temperatures. Up until the early 1990s, there was a fairly consistent 1200 +- weather reporting stations in the US. Since then, about a third of those stations no longer report, even though “estimated” data from non-existent or non-functioning stations continues to be reported. Image how that skews the data, especially since the US has the greatest number of reporting stations in the world. When one considers the closure of whatever weather stations the USSR maintained across Siberia that simply shut down after the fall of the USSR in the early nineties, how can one trust any reports of “climate change” when the data simply is there to support an accurate conclusion? Is faulty data a worthwhile basis for an ethical argument?
And because wealthy climate scientists like Al Gore and Barack Obama continue to purchase vast mansions near oceans and banks continue to sell mortgages for oceanfront properties, I will consider it my ethical duty to take climate change as seriously as the better sorts of people do by their actions.
Thank you Pallavi, very instructive article. Global warming is obvious, and carefully monitored. But I am with those that believe it has little to with human activity.