But that plan is based on the supposedly rigid inevitability of narrative logic, and not on the more flexible not-quite-inevitability of rational planning for likely consequences.
A decade from now is too late, so apparently the prediction is conservatives of the world will in the next half-decade do a voluntary about-face and become uber-conservationists?
The notion that there is some cut-off after which apocalypse is inevitable is false. The apocalypse comes on a sliding scale from "mildly unpleasant" to "planetwide extinction event."1 We're already some way past the point where "mildly unpleasant" has become inevitable, but not even the most pessimistic modelling assumptions forecast that climate change will lead to global human extinction.
And the notion that there is some cut-off after which apocalypse is inevitable is unwise as well: We may have reached a cut-off point where it will be impossible to preserve species X and Y in their natural habitats, but we may be able to preserve species Y in artificial habitats and preserve species Z in its natural habitat. To simply throw our hands in the air and despair over that which it is too late to salvage is to abscond from our obligations to that which remains salvageable. (And, incidentally, to insist that the sky will fall if we do nothing NOW is apt to be "disproven" when we do nothing and human civilisation does not end - even if it continues in a poorer and much diminished form.)
The analogy with peak oil is appropriate, I think: Twenty to thirty years ago (the replacement time scale for most infrastructure), we reached the point where it became too late to take the easy way in dealing with declining future oil production. If we want to take the hard way, we'd better get started right about now. But even if we let the window of opportunity for dealing with peak oil the hard way close on us, there will still be a choice between more or less painful ways of dealing with it. Dithering may have ensured that there will be pain, but that does not mean that expeditious action won't prevent even greater pain.
- Jake
1Technically, we're already living through a planetwide extinction event - humans are an invasive species that displaces local fauna and alters habitats to an extent that causes mass extinction. But that is only tangentially related to the discussion of climate change. If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
By itself, climate change does not threaten human extinction. That is, we are not going to fry to death on a 200 degree earth. However, the side effects are likely to. I'm sure you're aware of that people like Frank Fenning, James Hansen, and James Lovelock, reputable and knowledgeable scientists, do discuss openly the likelihood of a massive human extinction event within the lifetimes of people alive today.
http://www.physorg.com/news196489543.html
The problem is that there is so much inertia in the systems, both political and atmospheric, that quite drastic decisions made today can only lessen the horrors of 2100.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/climate-change-commitment-ii/
There is an interesting point here about risk management: Is it better to tell the whole truth, and risk panic, or is it better to tread a careful line and hope to convince people to do what is needed, even after the point of no return has been reached?
asdf:
To convince a person, you have to meet them where he or she is, not where you are. So unless you are in the privileged position to talk to humanity all at once, I do not think that really is choice. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
