[url=http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/05/05/3207844.htm]Floating your boat in climate change[/url]
Hulme offered a sample of six different ways of framing climate change.
1) A market failure
In this view business emits carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for free but there are ultimately costs associated with that waste disposal. So to ensure the market is operating efficiently carbon dioxide emissions should be priced.
2) A technological hazard
Like asbestos or nuclear waste carbon dioxide emissions are a potentially toxic side effect of our modern technologies. This view advocates improved energy technologies to allow us to continue our modern life but without the hazardous side-effects.
3) A global injustice
Climate change when viewed through this framework is seen as a problem where the West dominates and controls the global agenda leaving the developing world out of the picture. A solution to climate change for this world view would involve what Aubrey Meyer describes as ‘contraction and convergence’ or an equal sharing of the carbon dioxide budget between all countries regardless of their wealth.
4) Overconsumption
If our environmental impact is a function of our consumption our population and the technologies we use then solving climate change through this framework would involve finding a path to a prosperous but non-growing economy or improving contraception.
5) Mostly natural
If climate change is mostly natural then the solution in this framework is to spend money on adaptation to the new environment.
6) A planetary tipping point
And finally if climate change is viewed as leading to a planetary tipping point at which life on Earth becomes untenable then no holds must be barred and solutions would include massive geoengineering projects.