×
HUG-A-BEAR. Jonah writes:
It seems to me that if A) we believe that man is responsible for the dire plight of polar bears (or even if he's not) and B) we think the polar bears are worth saving and C) we think that doing so won't have outsized negative consequences elsewhere in the ecosystem, Why not intervene to save polar bears? Would building big, free floating docks help? Would moving polar bears and their families to different areas do the trick?That seems about right. I've little expertise on the severity or reversability of the Coca-Cola mascot's plight, but this sort of thing has worked quite well in other contexts, like the replacement of destroyed of natural reefs with sunken ships reefs. Additionally, the latter are more likely to contain hidden treasure chests. It's really win-win. As a more general point, the environmental movement, for completely correct reasons, tends to focus on stopping bad human behaviors. But given that such solutions are often implemented too late -- as looks possible in the case of global warming -- more artifical, interventionistic responses may prove necessary. Global warming is, indeed, a good example. I've minimal confidence that humanity will adapt in time to stop it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it does mean that, in the end, we may need proactive measures to reverse the impact, having already missed the opportunity to abstain and prevent it. I've come across some wacky ideas for how to do that -- orbiting space mirrors, for instance -- and some less wacky ones. But my best guess is that some serious planetary engineering will become rather necessary as climate change advances.
--Ezra Klein
