# Why should I care about global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903 "2007-07-07T21:43:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/21 "2007-07-09T02:16:43Z")
I think I’ll bump this up a couple of notches. Moved from IMHO to GD. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/22 "2007-07-09T02:33:58Z")
[QUOTE=dalej42] I use the [book of Genesis](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=9) as one reason I should care about the Earth. [/QUOTE] I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/23 "2007-07-09T03:27:03Z")
[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner] Why on earth should I care, or do, anything about global warming? [/QUOTE] You shouldn’t, as it simply doesn’t exist. 30 years ago we were told to worry about global cooling. A couple hundred years ago we were told to worry about witches, same thing. Meh. ---
**Author:** ![valleyofthedolls](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a4c791/32.png) [@valleyofthedolls](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/valleyofthedolls)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/24 "2007-07-09T05:39:41Z")
[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner] 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. [/QUOTE] So by your premise: Trying to stop global warming = stifling economic growth = ensuring standards of living for people in Africa, East Asia etc. will never improve? I really think books could be written on why this is wrong and ill-informed. Just for starters, Africa has done pretty much zilch to try and prevent global warming. By your reasoning, therefore, the entire continent should be doing great economically…except really not so much. Lack of stable governments will do that. As for East Asia, what parts of East Asia? Japan? I really doubt the people there need your concern for their standards of living. China? China is an environmental mess and its economy is booming so that will make you happy. It probably doesn’t make the 750,000 people who die each year from pollution too excited, however. [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8f40e248-28c7-11dc-af78-000b5df10621.html](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8f40e248-28c7-11dc-af78-000b5df10621.html) They do have to cut their population down though so maybe you are on to something. [QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner] And also the only way of funding said dealing with consequences. [/QUOTE] So you don’t want to prevent global warming because it will stifle economic growth and you need economic growth to deal with the consequences of global warming…locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen comes to mind. And you still haven’t explained how global warming inhibits economic growth. I think the bottom line here is you just don’t want to give a rat’s ass. That or you’re afraid that your shop will be taxed and people will be taxed and they won’t buy tchatzkahs in your shop because the money they would ordinarily spend on your tchatzkahs would be going to taxes and then your economic growth would be inhibited and you wouldn’t be able to buy tchatzkahs in other people’s shops. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/25 "2007-07-09T09:27:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Just for starters, Africa has done pretty much zilch to try and prevent global warming. By your reasoning, therefore, the entire continent should be doing great economically…except really not so much. Lack of stable governments will do that. This is a crap argument. Is **SBSO** claiming that global warming is the _only_ thing inhibiting economic growth. No. ---
**Author:** ![Mellivora\_capensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mellivora\_capensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mellivora_capensis)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/26 "2007-07-09T13:33:24Z")
[QUOTE=valleyofthedolls] … Just for starters, Africa has done pretty much zilch to try and prevent global warming. … [/QUOTE] Whoa, hold on a second, that’s a little unfair, don’t you think? Africa has a whole bunch of Kyoto signatories, which may or may not be worth much in practice, but at least it’s a step in the right direction. > **[List of parties to the Kyoto Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories)** > > As of June 2013, there are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which aims to combat global warming. This total includes 191 states (189 United Nations member states as well as the Cook Islands and Niue) and one supranational union (the European Union). Canada renounced the protocol effective 15 December 2012 and ceased to be a member from that date. With the Protocol's 2008-2012 commitment period expiring, the Doha Amendment to the Kyo... ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/27 "2007-07-09T14:21:57Z")
[QUOTE=Operation Ripper] You shouldn’t, as it simply doesn’t exist. 30 years ago we were told to worry about global cooling. [/QUOTE] [The Global Cooling Myth](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/28 "2007-07-09T14:52:19Z")
Britain & most of Northern Europe won’t necessarily get warmer due to global warming. [Increased melting of Arctic ice can affect the oceans’ salinity–possibly shutting down the Gulf Stream](http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/people/abrupt_climate_change_event.htm). > [@](#): > > Researchers from the UK’s National Oceanography Centre say currents derived from the Gulf Stream are weakening, bringing less heat north. > > Their conclusions, reported in the scientific journal Nature, are based on 50 years of Atlantic observations. > > They say that European political leaders need to plan for a future which may be cooler rather than warmer. > > The findings come from a British research project called Rapid, which aims to gather evidence relating to potentially fast climatic change in Europe. Ready for a new Ice Age? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/29 "2007-07-09T15:13:22Z")
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke] Ready for a new Ice Age? [/QUOTE] _buys gloves_ ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/30 "2007-07-09T16:06:00Z")
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke] Britain & most of Northern Europe won’t necessarily get warmer due to global warming. [Increased melting of Arctic ice can affect the oceans’ salinity–possibly shutting down the Gulf Stream](http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/people/abrupt_climate_change_event.htm). Ready for a new Ice Age? [/QUOTE] I think the current thinking on this is that, while some weakening of the Gulf Stream is very likely, it is very unlikely to shut down completely (at least during this century) and the effects of such a slowdown are not likely to be enough to lead to net cooling in Northern Europe. In particular, here is what the latest IPCC report says on the subject in the summer for policymakers: > [@](#): > > Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. The multi-model average reduction by 2100 is 25% (range from zero to about 50%) for SRES emission scenario A1B. Temperatures in the Atlantic region are projected to increase despite such changes due to the much larger warming associated with projected increases in greenhouse gases. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/31 "2007-07-09T17:34:46Z")
[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner] It seems to me a lot cheaper to deal with the consequences of global warming than preventing it. [/quote] On the basis of what evidence do you claim this? The impact of limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 is calculated as follows: > [@IPCC](#): > > ```auto > > ppm CO[sub]2[/sub]-eq Median GDP reduction Range of GDP reduction Reduction of average annual GDP growth > 590-710 0.2% -0.6-1.2% <0.06% > 535-590 0.6% 0.2-2.5% <0.1% > 445-535 not avail. <3% <0.12% > > ``` The source for these figures is [Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Summary for Policymakers](http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf) PDF (page 16) Another relevant quote from that report: > [@IPCC](#): > > Although most models show GDP losses, some show GDP gains because they assume that baselines are non-optimal and mitigation policies improve market > efficiencies, or they assume that more technological change may be induced by > mitigation policies. Examples of market inefficiencies include unemployed > resources, distortionary taxes and/or subsidies [3.3, 11.4]. In other words, it is fallacious to assume that out current economic system is perfectly efficient and some of the actions taken to limit GHGs will make us more, not less, economically efficient, and will therefore contribute to economic growth. By way of comparison, the UK expended 1% of its GDP on gambling in 2004, about as useless an economic activity as one can imagine. > [@](#): > > If you go back, you will be aware that in 1998 BISL commissioned KPMG to undertake the first study. In that study we looked at percentage of leisure spending. About 10 per cent of GDP we spend on leisure, and 1 per cent of GDP on gambling. Quote from an [examination of witnesses by Parliament](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtgamb/63/4011304.htm). The belief that limiting GHG emissions will break the economy indicates that gambling **has already** broken the British economy - something no one seems to believe. Contributing to the elimination of poverty is laudable, but it’s a false dichotomy to say that you can either reduce poverty or reduce GHG - you can do both. The image it brings to mind is some plaintive future Englishman standing next to the shore of the Congo in Kinshasha, telling some poor villager as he’s swept away by a flood that it was either giving him a mosquito net or cutting back on carbon emissions. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Small\_British\_Shop\_Owner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@Small\_British\_Shop\_Owner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_British_Shop_Owner)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/32 "2007-07-09T18:11:14Z")
[QUOTE=wevets] On the basis of what evidence do you claim this? The impact of limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 is calculated as follows: The source for these figures is [Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Summary for Policymakers](http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf) PDF (page 16) Another relevant quote from that report: In other words, it is fallacious to assume that out current economic system is perfectly efficient and some of the actions taken to limit GHGs will make us more, not less, economically efficient, and will therefore contribute to economic growth. By way of comparison, the UK expended 1% of its GDP on gambling in 2004, about as useless an economic activity as one can imagine. Quote from an [examination of witnesses by Parliament](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtgamb/63/4011304.htm). The belief that limiting GHG emissions will break the economy indicates that gambling **has already** broken the British economy - something no one seems to believe. Contributing to the elimination of poverty is laudable, but it’s a false dichotomy to say that you can either reduce poverty or reduce GHG - you can do both. The image it brings to mind is some plaintive future Englishman standing next to the shore of the Congo in Kinshasha, telling some poor villager as he’s swept away by a flood that it was either giving him a mosquito net or cutting back on carbon emissions. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] I have not read that cite, but I must point out that in my opinion the effects on the British economy are not that important. What are the consequences for African economies? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/33 "2007-07-09T18:51:29Z")
> [@SBSO](#): > > I have not read that cite, but I must point out that in my opinion the effects on the British economy are not that important. What are the consequences for African economies? The consequences of warming for most African countries are [predicted to be significantly worse](http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/113-8/spheres.html) than for most temperate-zone countries such as Britain and the US. They will be subject to much more drastic changes in drought and flooding, for example, with correspondingly severe impacts on agriculture. As [this November 2006 article](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/11/africa_global_warming.html) notes, > [@](#): > > A UN report released earlier this week confirms the findings of numerous studies before it, forecasting that the continent will suffer extreme environmental upheavals as a result of rising temperatures, rising sea levels, and variations in precipitation. Here’s a snapshot: > > An estimated 30 percent of Africa’s coastal infrastructure will be lost to rising seas by 2080. > > As much as 40 percent of species’ habitats may be altogether destroyed. > > Arable land, 65 percent of which is already wrecked by degradation and drought, is expected to further decline, worsening already serious food shortages and intensifying hunger and malnutrition. > > In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70 percent of the people are farmers, crop yields are expected to fall by 20 percent. > > Rainfall is predicted to decline by 10 percent by 2050. By 2025, 480 million people in Africa could be living in water-stressed areas. Developments like these will prove extremely expensive for African countries to cope with. ISTM difficult to picture a realistic scenario where limiting anthropogenic climate change would turn out to be **more** expensive for Africa than dealing with the effects of unchecked climate change. Even if draconian emissions-reduction efforts produced a severe world-wide depression (and AFAIK, no such extreme economic consequences are being seriously predicted for the climate-mitigation scenarios that the IPCC has proposed), it’s not clear to me that even that would be more costly for Africans on average than coping with widespread climate disaster. In fact, since Africans on average produce far less greenhouse gas emissions than people in developing nations, global climate mitigation efforts might even be a net economic positive for them, if the industrialized world follows the recommendations on technology transfer, investment in sustainable development, and other forms of aid that have been put forward by analysts. Africa could conceivably get more out of having industrialized countries subsidize clean-infrastructure development for them than they would lose in having to reduce their emissions. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/34 "2007-07-09T18:54:18Z")
[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner] I have not read that cite, but I must point out that in my opinion the effects on the British economy are not that important. What are the consequences for African economies? [/QUOTE] The British economy is considerably more carbon-intensive than African economies (like all industrialized nations), so there will be less of an impact on African economies that attempt to limit carbon emissions than on the British economy. For example, it’s much more likely that the average Briton will own a car and have to consider how to use less gasoline than the average African. Sorry about the misconception, the OP makes it sound like you are much more concerned about Britain than Africa. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/35 "2007-07-09T19:12:56Z")
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke] Britain & most of Northern Europe won’t necessarily get warmer due to global warming. [Increased melting of Arctic ice can affect the oceans’ salinity–possibly shutting down the Gulf Stream](http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/people/abrupt_climate_change_event.htm). Ready for a new Ice Age? [/QUOTE] Isn’t it a myth that the Gulf Stream really affects the UK’s climate, though? I swear I read a paper once, to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/36 "2007-07-09T19:32:16Z")
> [@Dominic Mulligan](#): > > Isn’t it a myth that the Gulf Stream really affects the UK’s climate, though? I swear I read a paper once, to that effect. Nope. The misunderstanding seems to come from the popular misperception that the Gulf Stream is the **only** thing making the climate of Western Europe warmer than the climate of some other regions at comparable latitudes (like the Atlantic coast of North America). Without the “overturning (thermohaline) circulation” associated with the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic would not turn into the North Pole, climate-wise. But that’s not to say the Gulf Stream actually has zero effect on the region’s climate. [This report](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=159) about recent concerns over a Gulf Stream slowdown notes (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > Convective chimneys in the seas bounded by Greenland, Iceland and Norway occur when intense cooling of the ocean, usually associated with a low-pressure system passing through, breaks down the normally stable ocean layers and causes the now colder, denser water to convect and mix down to a relatively deep layer. This area of the world is one of only a few places where the underlying ocean column is marginally stable enough that this process can occur in the open ocean and lead to convective chimneys going down 2000 to 3000 meters. The deep water masses formed in this way are then exported out of the area in deep currents that eventually make up “North Atlantic Deep Water” (which also contains contributions from the Labrador Sea and entrainment of other water masses). _This process is part of what is called the ‘thermohaline’ or ‘overturning’ circulation and is associated with a significant amount of heat transport into the North Atlantic, which indeed keeps Britain and the rest of the North Atlantic region 3 to 6 degrees C warmer than they otherwise would be._ […] > > This heat transport is often associated with the Gulf Stream in the media and among the public. However, my pedantic side obliges me to point out that the Gulf Stream is a predominantly wind-driven western boundary current that moves up from the Gulf of Mexico along the US coast to Cape Hatteras, at which point it heads off into the central Atlantic (see also this letter by Carl Wunsch). It then turns into the North Atlantic Drift which is really the flow of water responsible for the anomalous northward heat transport in the Atlantic. There is good evidence from past climates, theoretical studies and climate models that large changes, a slowing down or even a complete collapse, in the North Atlantic Drift and the thermohaline circulation can happen. Indeed climate models generally (though not exclusively) forecast a slowdown in this circulation by 2100. This occurs mainly as a function of increased rainfall in the region which strengthens the ocean layering and reduces the amount of convection in the region. It is probably futile to insist on it at this point, but a collapse of the overturning circulation is not the same as a collapse or reversal of the Gulf Stream (which as I mentioned above is predominantly wind-driven). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/37 "2007-07-09T19:58:19Z")
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan] Isn’t it a myth that the Gulf Stream really affects the UK’s climate, though? I swear I read a paper once, to that effect. [/QUOTE] What **kimstu** says. In particular, what that paper claimed is a myth is that the **only** reason or even **the primary reason** that Northern Europe is warmer than, say, comparable latitudes on the east coast of North America is due to the Gulf Stream or thermohaline circulation. They said that a more important effect is just the fact that the prevailing westerly winds mean the east coast of the continent is getting weather systems from the continental interior, which are not being moderated by the ocean as weather systems coming over the ocean are (regardless of whether the ocean is even further warmed by the warm currents). Hence, e.g., the fact that Seattle’s climate is also considerably more temperate in the winter than, say, that of Boston even though Boston is considerably further south. Another factor that comes into play is apparently that the Rocky Mountains tend to force the jet stream to buckle in a way that directs more cold air southeastward on the east side of these mountains across the central and Eastern U.S. and then tends to direct more warm air northeastward over the eastern Atlantic toward northern Europe. In fact, when I noted in my previous post that current thinking seems to be that the slowdown of thermohaline circulation will not cause net cooling of northern Europe, I think this reflects both the evolving thinking that a complete shutdown of this circulation (at least in this century) is unlikely plus the thinking that the contribution of this circulation to the warming of Northern Europe is not as great as was once believed. ---
**Author:** ![Small\_British\_Shop\_Owner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@Small\_British\_Shop\_Owner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_British_Shop_Owner)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/38 "2007-07-09T20:27:43Z")
[QUOTE=wevets] The British economy is considerably more carbon-intensive than African economies (like all industrialized nations), so there will be less of an impact on African economies that attempt to limit carbon emissions than on the British economy. For example, it’s much more likely that the average Briton will own a car and have to consider how to use less gasoline than the average African. Sorry about the misconception, the OP makes it sound like you are much more concerned about Britain than Africa. [/QUOTE] To clarify further: For Africa to come out of the third world, it must develop, and ideally rapidly. I would be very surprised if this would not be substantially easier with no thought given to carbon emissions. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/39 "2007-07-09T21:48:33Z")
> [@SBSO](#): > > To clarify further: For Africa to come out of the third world, it must develop, and ideally rapidly. > > I would be very surprised if this would not be substantially easier with no thought given to carbon emissions. Why? After all, Africa hasn’t been giving a thought to carbon emissions for the past fifty years or so of postcolonial independence, but for the most part it still hasn’t developed rapidly or emerged from the third world. I seriously doubt that continuing to ignore carbon emissions will prove to be any kind of key to rapid African development. What’s really standing in the way of rapid development for most African countries is not the burden of carbon regulation but rather a whole host of political, social, and economic issues. Large-scale (and largely decentralized) renewable energy development is IMHO arguably **more** promising as a path to African prosperity than simply locking them into dependence on increasingly-expensive fossil fuels and increasing emissions. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903/40 "2007-07-11T05:17:05Z")
[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner] To clarify further: For Africa to come out of the third world, it must develop, and ideally rapidly. I would be very surprised if this would not be substantially easier with no thought given to carbon emissions. [/QUOTE] Apparently African economic growth has followed a similar pattern to that of Vincent Schiavelli’s hair. The 1965-1990 growth rate for Sub-Saharan Africa was 0.2% (not 2%, 0.2%). The 1980-1990 growth rate for Sub-Saharan Africa was -0.9%. Cite: [http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number01.htm](http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number01.htm) Clearly, an ability to emit carbon from fossil fuels isn’t the African economic problem - there haven’t been any restrictions on emissions in the time periods mentioned. Africa is nothing but a red herring for people in the industrialized countries who want to emit carbon without regard to the consequences. African carbon emissions are negligible compared to those of the industrialized world. The burden of carbon restrictions will be on economies that emit the most carbon, not on the smallest, most globally insignificant economies in the world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-care-about-global-warming/410903.md?page=3)