Should we take action now? Some of the reasons that make this a difficult decision are briefly outlined below:

• high cost of addressing the problem: we are highly dependent on fossil fuels as a source of energy
• the consequences are seen to be far into the future (100 years from now)
• scientists can't predict with absolute certainty how serious the impact on climate and human society will be.
• polluters and victims are removed in space: the victims of global warming will most likely be citizens of poor, fast growing, developing countries located in the Tropics and Subtropics.  These countries are more sensitive to changes in climate and are more vulnerable because of their low capacity for adaptation.  Take the example of the Maldives Islands in the Indian Oceans that we saw in the NOVA video.  Rising sea levels could be a huge problem for the people living there in the future. Not having the economic resources to build dikes, they will be forced to move. The polluters are the richer nations at high latitudes. Some of these nations might even benefit from global warming (Canada might get warmer).

• conservation of energy; 
• increase in energy efficiency; 
• slow down tropical deforestation;
• switches to alternative energies (non-CO2 generating) such as nuclear (but: problem with disposal of wastes), wind power, solar energy (both of these energy sources require large areas); biomass-based power (from fast-growing plants); tidal power; geothermal power...

Other, so-called "geo-engineering" solutions are much more controversial because they are generally very expensive and could have a number of unintended side-effects.  Some of the more sound geo-engineering solutions currently under investigation include: seeding the ocean with iron to stimulate the biological pump taking up CO2 from the atmosphere;  direct injection of CO2 in the deep oceans; sequester CO2 in ocean trenches, used oil wells where it could be converted to carbonate sediments by algae. 
 

 Last Updated:
12/10/2001