Here is Andrew Revkin's latest post at Dot Earth. I'm not convinced that the globe is warming, and nothing I have read suggests that, if it is, human beings are the cause. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that (1) the globe is warming and (2) human beings are a significant part of the cause. Nothing of a normative nature follows from these facts. Certainly it doesn't follow that we should impoverish ourselves for the sake of future generations; nor does it follow that Americans should impoverish themselves for the sake of nonAmericans. China and India are going to continue polluting no matter what we do, and it is highly unlikely that they are going to limit their industrial activity by signing a treaty to that effect. To unilaterally stifle our economy, when it is going to make no difference, is worse than idiotic; it is suicidal.
Addendum: I might add that global warming would do a lot of good as well as bad, by human standards. It would enhance biodiversity, for example. How many people die of cold, as opposed to heat? How many people suffer as a result of cold, as opposed to heat? Change is never all to the good or all to the bad. The question is whether the good of a given change outweighs the bad. I have seen nothing that suggests that the changes brought on by global warming would be a net detriment to humanity (or to sentient life generally). There is reason to believe that they would be a net benefit. If so, then perhaps we have a moral obligation to increase global warming. Get in your car right now and take a long drive. Stop at a drive-through and let your car idle for a while. You may be saving someone's life.
