Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?

[Moondazed]

I saw a program where a person made biodiesal at a Green Expo, yes I went to some of these, and they need a toxic and highly corrosive acid as a component so that is hardly bio-friendly. Pure ethenol uses a great deal of potable water to make but is cleaner and runoff in Brazil is a fertilizer.

And yet with a few modifications (that a few people I know have done, none of them being car mechanics) you can run strained french fry oil as fuel... no toxic and highly corrosive acid in that process, other than that oil contributing to the average Americans craptastic dietary habits.  And I do believe that you will find that processing oil both uses and creates many nasty substances.

Now to my question again all these are mute points without China joining in who according to a newspaper article and that is supported by other sources is intending to build one dirty coal power plant a WEEK and will destroy any Kyoto gains very quickly and then some. If the US can't afford to switch to Green Technology widely what about them? And India? Why then should the US cut off our economic growth with more government regulation and government domination which I oppose on principle if China and India won't?

Fatalistic of you, RubySlippers.  Again you suggest that if we can't have it all why bother... perhaps because it may have positive impact on our populace?  Perhaps because paying improving our own circumstance might just make them realize how bad theirs is?  Truth is I don't give a flying f--- whether or not they follow suit, that has no bearing on what the right thing to do is.  And implying that Green Technology is going to cut off our economic growth and help the evil overlord gov't eat our babies is... you guessed it... pretty damned fatalistic.

And I don't know why you are concerned according to most experts oil and coal and other resources will end by the year 2100 then humans will have to use other forms of power, and global warming will eventually reverse after that. The natural balance will restore itself regardless at some point. So I say we should use more oil and coal and other energy sources and use it up faster. The sooner we stop having access to it the sooner the free market will create alternatives.

I'm going to pretend that you're kidding, because I don't think even you could say that with a straight face.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Go Cindy and Moondaze.  I soundly support your points of views.

I do have one question to throw into this.  What is crude oils purpose.   I do not mean industrial, I mean in nature.  What is its purpose in the scope of nature.  How did it fit in.  Surely the earth did not create oil because cars would come in the 20th  century. 

I mean what was it purpose, to lubricate earths plates or such.

[Jefepato]

Go Cindy and Moondaze.  I soundly support your points of views.

I do have one question to throw into this.  What is crude oils purpose.   I do not mean industrial, I mean in nature.  What is its purpose in the scope of nature.  How did it fit in.  Surely the earth did not create oil because cars would come in the 20th  century. 

I mean what was it purpose, to lubricate earths plates or such.

Why do you assume it had a specific purpose?  As far as I know, the Earth doesn't make conscious decisions about its mineral composition.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Why do you assume it had a specific purpose?  As far as I know, the Earth doesn't make conscious decisions about its mineral composition.

Not assuming anything.  Just asked if it had a purpose.   Apparently thou you do not know. 

[Sugarman (hal)]

As one who won't live to see the total effect of the changes to come, I only hope the children of the world will learn from greedy mistakes. Because bottom line, what we are doing is tied to making BIG profits.

[Jefepato]

Not assuming anything.  Just asked if it had a purpose.   Apparently thou you do not know. 

You didn't ask if it had a purpose, you asked what its purpose was.  The two questions are very different.  However, both imply a viewpoint that I don't really understand.

What purpose does anything have "in the scope of nature," and what gives it that purpose?

[Moondazed]

In my opinion, things are often interconnected in nature so their 'purpose' can often be to support a larger ecosystem.  I'm not saying that's the purpose of oil, simply clarifying how one could think that oil might have a greater purpose in nature.

That said, I don't know if it has one or what it is... time for research! :)

[Elven Sex Goddess]

You didn't ask if it had a purpose, you asked what its purpose was.  The two questions are very different.  However, both imply a viewpoint that I don't really understand.

What purpose does anything have "in the scope of nature," and what gives it that purpose?

Actually your toying with semantics to be a smart.  Regardless how it was asked.  An answer of;

As far as I know, the Earth doesn't make conscious decisions about its mineral composition.

No that is not an answer, it is just a attempt to belittle the question.   I am sure the planet did not plan on the iron deposits in the bodies of water to rust.  Thus in the 2 billion years the waters changed from green to blue and slowly during that time our atmosphere was developed.   

Now the question is has any one ever did a study to see what if, or if any purpose in earths balance does it provide while still in the ground. 
That being oil still laying in the pockets space in the earth.

For perhaps the taking of the oil, can attribute to the most movement of the magnetic north compass in history the past one hundred years  as it resides now some where in Siberia.   As per example of a possible event or effect caused.  It is hypothetically thrown out as suggestion.

[Zakharra]

For perhaps the taking of the oil, can attribute to the most movement of the magnetic north compass in history the past one hundred years  as it resides now some where in Siberia.   As per example of a possible event or effect caused.  It is hypothetically thrown out as suggestion.

Somehow I seriously doubt that oil has anything to to with magnetics or changes in magnetic north. Oil, as far as I know, is unresponsive to electro magnetic energy.

Currently mn(magnetic north) lies  north of Canada, not Siberia.
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/northpole_e.php
http://deeptow.whoi.edu/northpole.html

[Moondazed]

I believe she stated that it was thrown out as an example?

[RubySlippers]

Moondazed and others here who are critical of my positions I really don't care what you think of me. Your the one dreaming of some ecological utopia where we will all give up our economic advantages for the rest of the world. China is not going to. India is not going to. And without us all on board your in some private world that makes no sense. I quoted above China is building if it can one coal fired powerplant a WEEK that is not a lie but a real statistic. They cancel out alone all gains of Kyoto in the EU.

And yes I was serious regardless of what we do in a century oil and coal will become scarcer, or go away and well before then its going to be obvious to everyone in my country, then we will have to work on new technologies. And no matter how bad the Greenhouse Effect is once we are forced to stop using "dirty" technologies the sooner we will stop polluting and the planet will be free to balance itself back. It may take several hundred years but if your correct its going to happen at some point. See let me spell this out: We use up our fossil fuels faster its good for your position because it will force us to use alternative technology, and once we do then greehouse gases stop being produced, and the planet will clean itself, eventually.

So I'm serious if you want what you want using up more fossil fuels in the long run is better for the planet so leave the US and our polluting friends alone and we will eventually have to get onboard with you at some point. And I think some technologies aren't that bad wave motion energy for example has a great deal of promise as does using natural currents to produce power. Just that for now with our current lifestyles in the US asking us to use such technologies (including other green technologies) exclusively is not an option we can consider. The cost to benefit analysis benefits coal and oil. Someday the free market will tip in your favor and businesses will work on creative ways to develop power and market them.

As for adapting to climate change humans have done so for many thousands of years we can survive this. In the US we can simply over a hundred years or so relocate people to higher elevations, if sea levels rise doing so will just happen naturally. Hydroponic farming could feed our people using less water, land and fertilizers and its a real technology we already have in our hands. We could develop excelent mass transit and redevelop our waterways for travel and moving goods over roads we used to do that a century ago. By you know no one in my country in power will start these things until we have no choice.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Trouble is as the developing countries become urban as we are... its going to be much worse. Can you imagine China with two car in every garage? God help mother earth.

I am sorry but I don't see a way out... we should have started 30 years ago to greening our economies.

[Zakharra]

I believe she stated that it was thrown out as an example?

It's a rather bad example.

[Moondazed]

Newsflash: I don't care what you think of me either. 

Have a nice day.

[Mia]

My comment and input in it all:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

[RubySlippers]

The reoly above misses a huge point even IF we went 100% cold turkey on polluting technologies that influence Global Warming all the scientists I have heard agree that Global Warming would Continue for several decades.

As for alternative energies some look promising but hydrogen doesn't, ethenol is worst than the current problem (it uses up food crops, water and causes additional use of fertilizers and that can add to pollution) and most won't meet our massive current energy needs. The only transportation technology that makes sense is electrical power. At least that is a technology to power cars we have ready access to. Hell we had workable electrical cares in the 1990's.

As for Global Civilization dying the human race can and will survive this in some form we are pretty damned tough to eliminate and the leading nations like the US are good candidates to survive. We have like I pointed out many advantages to do so- population size, political systems, military power, large natural resources base, de facto self-sufficiiency (if we have to) and scientific expertise. Europe, China and other nations are also so advantaged. The poor nations as a rule are not and they in the end are not our concern.

If we do nothing and continue using Fossil Fuels eventually they will become economically less advantaged and the free market forces will adjust adopting what technologies are most cost effective to make up the slack. Need is the mother of invention and right now we do not exactly need alternative technologies. Not with cheap oil and coal.

[RubySlippers]

Oh please I looked at the numbers Gore used in his movie even if they are true, and its a worst case scenario, we have ample land useage yet. And since we are talking over several decades or even centuries we are not looking at mass exoduses in months or a few years but a gradual relocation to higher ground. If we plan for it now it won't be that bad.

As for food production hydroponics a technology we have and uses little water and pesticides could be developed large scale for many base crops, my own garden for vegetables and strawberries in my backyard produces year round in a greenhouse, quite well, three cycles a year. Organically. If I can do that using old pipes, used materials for the plants to grow in and some creativity surely full fledged production is possible.

As for the rest of the world feed who we can starting with China so they stay friendly and forget the poor we can't help everyone in that case.

[Mia]

Oh please I looked at the numbers Gore used in his movie even if they are true, and its a worst case scenario, we have ample land useage yet. And since we are talking over several decades or even centuries we are not looking at mass exoduses in months or a few years but a gradual relocation to higher ground. If we plan for it now it won't be that bad.

But... we aren't planning anything... just arguing about if we should plan something or not. But then if we just concentrate on US I would guess when your country has begun experiencing more "Katrinas" even you will see the error in just talking about things then actually doing it.

Luckely Australia has now seen the bigger picture as well and joined we rest of us.

[Zakharra]

But... we aren't planning anything... just arguing about if we should plan something or not. But then if we just concentrate on US I would guess when your country has begun experiencing more "Katrinas" even you will see the error in just talking about things then actually doing it.

Luckely Australia has now seen the bigger picture as well and joined we rest of us.

You mean the Katrinas that were supposed to have hammered the US in the last two years as a result of global warming? From the ever increasingly violent storms? The last two years have been surprisingly(to the experts and environmentalists..) low key. There have been some storms, but the US has not been hit hardly at all.

[Mia]

You mean the Katrinas that were supposed to have hammered the US in the last two years as a result of global warming? From the ever increasingly violent storms? The last two years have been surprisingly(to the experts and environmentalists..) low key. There have been some storms, but the US has not been hit hardly at all.

No I'm talking about the decade to come. In US there are really only two things that will cause you to change your view:

1. Change in political view (as happened in Australia)
2. Shit hits the fan and you are forced to listen to reason. Lets say extreme flooding yearly in the whole Mississippi (sp?) area and/or simular things.

[Zakharra]

 1: I don't see that happening. Nice thought though. Too many peoples standard of living would drop. Except for those conscientious people who tell us that we should be doing this. Like the wealthy elites of Al Goredom. The man won't even live under the restrictions he says we should.

2:  That would be taken care of by levees and improved river dredging. It used to flood nearly yearly before we started managing it. It will be taken care of. As the predictions say, it will be a gradual process, not an immediate deluge of coastlines vanishing.

[Moondazed]

This thread has cycled back to where it was... RubySlippers fatalism and Zakharra's pessimism and touting of the capitalist system.  Geez, can you guys try some new arguments that include actual data instead of repeating the same old lines?

[Zakharra]

 Not really pessimism, but I am not automatically accepting the theory that humanity is causing global warming. Do we have some effect? Probably, but we are not the cause. That is a impossibility.

So far many of the 'cures' for global warming mean a reduction of living standards and lowering of what we can expect. 'For the god of the environment'. Large reductions in energy use, which is not possible for a growing economy. To get to the 1990 level of carbon output would ruin any economy that tried it. There is no way to go back to that level of energy output. The economy and population has grown far beyond that level.

There are some things that can be done to help. Better more efficient energy devices, cleaner burning cars and such. But electric cars are not the answer. Electricity has to come from somewhere. Right now, that is coal fired power plants. nuclear is cleaner by far, but there are huge hurdles to overcome in building one. Solar will not fill the gap. The amount required would not be possible with solar panels.

It is possible to fix much of the problems with technology, but over time. for by force and mandates that cannot be met.
Like this..

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-kyoto3dec03,1,5795161.story?coll=la-headlines-world

http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/reality_check_kyoto.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2950

  and there are even lawsuits over the failure to meet treaty obligations,
http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061031230116.bm84p217.html

[Kradorex Xeron]

Here's my personal opinion to this item,

If we would to just "adapt" to the situation at hand and not battle it, it would effectively allow the situation to escalate, From my perspective, it would cause:

- Polar ice caps to totally melt, raising water levels unacceptably.

- Winter would no longer be possible due to heat, allowing insects to populate uncontrollably.

- More violent storms due to higher energy waters due to the warmth.

- Make summers hotter, causing people heatstroke and inability to work due to heat levels, potentially causing more heat-related deaths.

- And finally (fatally): Turn our environment into that of Venus', effectively making the planet uninhabitable due to the carbon-di/monoxide in the atmosphere.

Why not instead of requiring one or the other, combine the ideas, adapt AND battle?  It will provide for jobs, and most importantly, allow for the long-life of the planet.

Unless resolved, the result of this issue will not be political, it will be fatal to the entire planet, Not just humans. You must think longterm. not just shortterm. This idea of adaptation would work shortterm, but it would eventually cease to work.

[Ariabella]

Any change starts small. All of us can do our small part. Stop having every teeny tiny thing and every huge thing bagged in plastic bags. Stop caring that someone might stop you at the door to check your receipt. Say hi, make small talk, show the receipt and be on your way. A little human contact won't hurt you either. Carpools and public transportation. Hello, you'll save money on gas and wear and tear on the car as well. Stop littering, recycle if it's available in your area. Got stuff you don't want anymore but it's in good shape. Donate or offer it free instead of sending it to the landfill. Stop replacing stuff every year just because you want bigger and better. the whole problem with America is greed. Since when do kids need $250 toy ponies? Since when do we have to personally bankrupt ourselves with overly commercialized holidays?