The right questions on global warming (second question)
My first question is, “Is global warming occurring at all?” Suppose the answer to that is, “Yes.”
Second question: Is global warming harmful? The usual answer is, yes, of course, what kind of denialist are you that would question that?
But really, as the saying goes, ’tis an ill wind that blows no one good. Global warming could hurt some people and help others. If the harm affects only a small group (people who live in areas that are already almost awash) and the benefit accrues to billions, the moral calculus is quite different than if the harm affects billions and the benefit accrues only to a few. That is an issue that should be considered and studied instead of assumed.
Of course, one must also consider the animals. I certainly am not one to say, let our animal cousins die so long as we’re okay. However, an awful lot of our animal cousins are endangered right now because of us. If, for instance, global warming improved growing conditions in the temperate zones that are already farmed, it might be possible to feed the existing human population with less impact on animal species. Again, it’s possible that some few will be more endangered but many more will be less endangered, or vice versa. But, again, that is an issue that should be considered and studied instead of assumed.
Moreover, with respect to animals, there seems to be quite good evidence that glaciers have advanced and retreated quite dramatically even in historical times, implying that the Little Ice Age and recovery therefrom are by no means unique. Yet cold-climate animals continue to exist.
Again, I am not callously indifferent to the harms that could come from global warming, but I recognize that there might be benefits too which should not be summarily dismissed.