Please don’t address this topic in isolation.
In comparison to global poverty, terrible sanitation, AIDS, gradual erosion of freedoms worldwide…
Why on earth should I care, or do, anything about global warming?
It’s the nature of “caring” about generations of human beings to come.
If you could care less about human beings, then I’d say you can care less about global warming.
As an environmentalist, I care deeply about the health of our planet. We share the same space, and I’d love to see humans for generations to come be able to share the same space, instead of living in an acidic cesspool.
I use the book of Genesis as one reason I should care about the Earth.
In pragmatic terms, the odds seem to suggest that if the effects of global warming increase, then many of the things you mention may be greatly exacerbated (with the exception of AIDS). If you care about the things you mentioned, then you should care about not making them worse.
As said, global warming is likely to make the things you say you care about worse, or harder to deal with, or impossible to do much about. As for what you can do; not much. Too many of he powerful don’t want much of anything to be done about global warming, for one reason or another. You could avoid having children, I suppose, given how bad the future is likely to be.
Serious changes in the climate are likely to make many of these other problems even worse. Global warming is really just a part of climate change. There are also expected to be significant changes to rainfall patterns and growing seasons that can have a major impact on the ability of subsistence farmers to sustain themselves. Increased pressures on water supplies can worsen international relations, possibly to the point of war. Increased temperatures do matter - some scientists project significant spreading of tropical diseases into areas where they have not yet taken hold. If sea levels do rise, major flooding in coastal areas can create enormous numbers of refugees, again leading to general unrest and possible armed conflict. And whenever conflict increases, freedoms generally decrease. All in all, it’s not a happy picture.
The US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute is looking at these issues, as are others.
I suppose it really comes down to whether you like yourself (this part may only be relevant if you expect to live a long time into the future) or other people at all. 
I don’t have much time to reply now, so I’ll keep this brief. But the answers are all things that I accept. We only have finite resources, however, and I honestly don’t see how stifling economic growth is anything other than counter productive in this matter; instead we should be dealing with the side effects (as mentioned) of global warming.
After all, the skeptics keep coming up with reasons why global warming isn’t anything to do with man. Although they’re probably wrong, it seems clear to me that we would be warming anyway at some point or other, and it is surely only sensible to do prepare for it.
Or to put it another way: These guys are a worthy charity who I’ve seen advertised plenty of times in the Telegraph and other papers. If abandoned donkeys were the only issue that needed addressing, then I would have no hesitation in helping them with money and my time. As it is, I fell my spare time and money, such as they are, are better directed towards other charities. I feel the same way about global warming. It simply isn’t a priority.
Why is economic growth that important to you? How does working to prevent global warming inhibit economic growth?
It sounds like you should read Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist. But you must read those who rebut him too.
What makes you think global warming won’t stifle the economy ? Probably much worse than the costs of preventing it, and with more dead people.
It seems to me a lot cheaper to deal with the consequences of global warming than preventing it.
For the poster who asked why I wanted economic growth - because economic growth is the only way to permanently improve the standards of living for people in Africa, East Asia, etc. And also the only way of funding said dealing with consequences.
And Quartz, I do have that book (bought after watching a documentry by Lomberg on Channel 5 iirc), in fact it was what spurred me to ask this question. But a confession: I haven’t actually got around to reading it yet!
I don’t know, it seems like having huge cities containing millions of people underwater would have a pretty huge economic impact to me. Much more so than developing new technologies that reduced emissions or used new forms of energy.
But I’ll be dead in no more than 50 years and I will have no children. My parents will be dead long before that, as will my only sibling, who is likely to have no children. None of my friends have or will have children and are all likely to be dead within the next 50 years. No one and nothing that I care about will exist past 2060 so if the stuff I want will last until then while I do nothing then why should I do anything?
I’m confused. Are the Netherlands submerged?
This issue (caring about something long in the future) has interested me for some time. The only resposne that I can give is that the people there will care. Presumably, therefore, their parents would care about the situation. Therefore their grandparents should care, because the parents will be made to care. Therefore the great-grandparents ought to, ad infinitum.
Continuing this theme, presumably a rational being should care up until the point where their descendents have as much dna from the rational being as a random member of a group that said rational being doesn’t care about at all.
I don’t think that this would be many generations at all… how much dna do we share with cabbages?
No, but they do have absolutely gigantic flood defences, coming to an estuary near you! (Well, not you or me, but you get my point.)
Oh, I’m sure it wouldn’t be cheap, but compared to preventing greenhous gas emissions.
Thank goodness for isostatic equilibrium!
Actually, there are quite a few things that reduce greenhouse gas emissions that show a negative cost (i.e., a net benefit). There are a lot of energy efficiency measures that not only reduce GHGs, but also save the owner money in the long run. One of the things we don’t think much about is the price of something vs. the cost of it. The price of energy may be quite reasonable, but the cost can be quite high. The price is only what you see on your electric bill or what you pay at the pump, but the cost includes all the other stuff - increased illness due to pollution (other than GHGs), loss of life during mining or oil extraction (at least beyond the direct cost to the company), the need to maintain energy security via military strength, and so on. It’s not trivial to determine these costs - we’ll still have a military, people will still die of respiratory diseases, etc., even without the energy issues. But making many of these changes will result in more money into the economy. The studies I’ve seen so far indicate that there will be a decline in the economic output if we go all out to control greenhouse gases, but it’s not clear how well some of these other costs have been incorporated into the studies.
The bottom line, to me anyway, is that making many of the changes that would be good for greenhouse gas emission reductions is also good for business in a direct economic sense. The benefits are much more direct than making one feel that they have “done good for humanity.”
Not even close; we are talking about worldwide devastation, millions of deaths. Cities submerged ( and no. ot everyone can afford to but up massive flood defenses ), mass starvation due to farmlands being drowned or dried up or frozen due to shifts in ocean currents and the jet stream. Large hurricanes smashing coastal cities on a regular basis isn’t going to be good for the economy either.
And ruining their agriculture is going to help them how ? Submerging their cities and farmers ? Creating millions of refugees and starving ?