Global warming analogy

[Fresh_Start]

A car is driving 60 mph toward a cliff of 3000 feet elevation. If the car goes over the cliff, the car is certainly destroyed and the probability of survival for the driver is nil.

1) If you try to stop the car starting 10 miles away from the cliff, the driver can't see the cliff but a warning sign saying cliff ahead is a low cost solution to prevent disaster to the car and the driver.
2) If you try to stop the car starting 1 miles away from the cliff, the driver may still not be able to see the cliff but a warning sign saying cliff ahead is a low cost solution to prevent disaster to the car and the driver.
3) If you try to stop the car 1000 feet away from the cliff, the driver might be able to see the cliff but depending on the conditions (for example, surface/weather/visibility/distraction, a small number of cars+drivers will drive over the cliff but most of the time, mere application of brakes will be sufficient to stop disaster.
4) If you try to stop the car 200 feet away from the cliff, many car+driver will drive over the cliff. In this case, mere application of brakes is not sufficient. The driver must take other affirmative action to prevent driving over the cliff.
5) If you try to stop the car 100 feet away from the cliff, most car+driver will drive over the cliff. Brakes won't be sufficient, steering most likely won't be sufficient. It would take something like deliberately driving into a tree or wall to stop cars from going over the cliff. Car and driver are likely to suffer substantial injuries.
6) If you try to stop the car 10 feet away from the cliff, its too damn late.

Basically its a 'stitch in time saves nine'.

[bryant69]

1. It's a good analogy

Makes sense to me.

The problem is getting a sense of how far away from the cliff we are - certainly we should start doing something now; but do we need to start aiming for a tree or breaker wall or will the brakes be enough?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[phantom power]

2. It is definitely "aim-for-the-tree" time.

Maybe. It's also possible that we're already sailing through the air like Thelma and Louise.

[bryant69]

3. So how would you respond to someone saying

"Oh, Phantom Power, sounds like we are royally fucked. So why bother? Let's just enjoy the few years we have left till the seas rise and we all die."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[phantom power]

4. I would reply that we still get to choose how many people survive.

And what kind of quality-of-life the survivors have.

We no longer get to choose to avoid climate change. The climate is changing, and positive feedbacks have already begun. We might eventually scrub CO2 from the atmosphere and reverse it, but not the biosphere we know has been ravaged.

The survivors can still learn how to live in the new world, and maybe put some of the pieces back together. I'm an advocate of nuclear power, as the best tool for preserving the most civilization possible, and eventually undoing whatever damage we can undo.