A_Wanderer said:
An unfrozen North Pole would have effects, the sea ice would not contribute to rising sea levels, a northwest passage would reduce freight costs and the ammounts of fuel used for goods being transported. The continental ice and the carbon trapped beneath it would both effect sea levels and cause a feedback mechanism driving climate change.
Perhaps the big questions such as how much human beings are changing global climate, can we stop it and what can be done that will actually have positive change are more important.
There is no turning back from the tipping point by just curbing emissions, rather than shoot for futile central planning perhaps concerted climate engineering programs should be launched. Do something but don't just do anything.
the 'shrinkage' in the north pole is not the major problem (except if youre a polar bear), it is a symptom.
the carbon emissions are an issue. they should be reduced, but how do you replace such a significant energy source? that is where alternative energy (i am including nuclear, ill explain later) and new transportation technologies come in.
firstly, most alternative energy sources are uneconomical at the moment. wind energy is widely used in denmark, but the industry needed subsidies to get off the ground. the key is the size, economies of scale. if you build immensely large wind farms and supply electricity to whole europe, that would be a lot more economical than solely supplying a small country like denmark. the same goes for solar and hydroelectric.
then there is hydrogen. iceland is doing a very interesting experiment as of late. the whole country is shifting away from oil towards hydrogen. hydrogen cars, hydrogen-fueled power plants etc. its a small country and their cars never leave the island, so it is possible to experiment with this technology on a small scale. they are producing hydrogen by employing the hot steam coming from the many geysers and volcanos on the island. very intriguing, at the very least.
then there is the issue of going nuclear. chernobyl showed how dangerous it could be, but there are improvements. google 'pebble-bed' reactors, you'll find out they are inherently more secure than the average power plant. with the emergence of such new technology and the ever-elusive fusion technology, nuclear is going to become a viable and sensible option.
of course, there are also very economical cars like the magnificient 'prius'. these could help immensely with conservation efforts and reducing emissions. driving an SUV is not a natural right, if a viable alternative is available, there is no excuse for polluting the air which happens to be common property.
by employing such environment friendly practices the world can be pushed towards greater conservation and slow or halt global warming and climate change, even if no reversal is possible. we owe this to ourselves and the generations after us. i dont feel comfortable leaving such a fucked up world behind, although the previous generation probably didnt mind.