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

[Zakharra]

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.

The polar icecaps would only affect the water level if it's the ice that is not already floating that melts. what's in the water won't affect the level at all.

More violent storms? Possibly. We'll see.

Winter would still happen. You'd just have hotter summers.

The last is more or less impossible. The amount of outgassing for that to happen would be the result of many volcanoes going off. Which is more likely to plunge the planet into a ice age. We are a little to far out to be like Venus.

[Zakharra]

Even if climate is not caused by human made pollutants or even if climate change is not occurring, there's no harm and alot of good in developing clean fuel and energy.  Solutions are being worked on and they can be implemented without damaging economies. 

People and governments are acting to prevent climate change.  Even if we can't see a clear solution now, it's only a matter of time before one is workable.  Reducing polluting emissions is a positive goal.  The Kyoto Treaty is a crock, not a way to work towards that goal, and no country should be thought of poorly for not joining it.  Many countries, including the US are voluntarily trying to reduce emissions without giving foreign bureaucrats an excuse to interfere.

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?

I agree with most of those statements. Good and sensible.

[Caehlim]

The earlier arguement that "America can do whatever it wants regardless of the rest of the world's feelings on energy" is ignoring a simple fact.

America has few natural high-energy resources. It doesn't have oil, coal, gas or radioactive materials in anything like the ammounts required to power itself without a lot of imports.

America can only be as non-green as the resource producing countries allow them to be. If the rest of the world gets serious about climate control, then they may not just limit their own emissions, but also limit the emissions that they can be secondarily generated through their exports of fossil fuels.

In which case like it or not, America will have no choice. (Other than war, but as recent events have demonstrated it has a nasty effect on their economy and international reputation).

[Zakharra]

 

America has few natural high-energy resources. It doesn't have oil, coal, gas or radioactive materials in anything like the amounts required to power itself without a lot of imports.

That is patently false. The US has huge amounts of coal reserves, there is a massive amount of oil as well within our borders and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California. If we can just be allowed to use it. Which most environmentalists object to.

Until there is a sustainable and cheap replacement for oil, there will not be any easing in oil production or use. The world's economy runs on oil. Fact.

[Moondazed]

They object with good reason.

[Zakharra]

 Not really. The solution many put forth (reduction or elimination of fossil fuel burning) is an impossible task.  Unless we take a step back to what the world was like 200 years ago. Which I would not want. Oil is the fuel that powers the world economy, and no wishing otherwise will change that in the next 50+ years. World demand is going to rise, not decrease. There is no replacement for oil and coal at this time. Until there is one that is cheap and easy to make, there will be a demand for them in the near to far future.

Also, the US is a very clean nation in building new power plants. When was the last time there was any problem with any of the nuclear plants in the US? We can build very clean burning coal plants is allowed. There is no other way to get the electricity that we need. Solar cannot supply the demand now for residential needs. Industrial, it would fall far short. So the only sources for electricity is oil, coal fired power plants and nuclear plants.


All that being said, I am for exploring alternatives for cleaner energy. More efficient fission reactors and research on fusion reactors, better solar panels and a way to more easily crack hydrogen from water. For fuel.

[Zakharra]

 How comparable to oil is that and can it be turned into gasoline or diesel?

[Zakharra]

 Sounds interesting. what is the cost to make compared to todays oil prices? Not the speculators, but the actual price the oil companies pay per barrel of oil?

[Mia]

Well it won't be considered expensive if the rise of oil keep climbing, just remember that it wasn't long ago a price over $30 a barrel was considered high.

[RubySlippers]

I did see a fuel of this sort actually made small scale by a local green technology proponent and noticed the formulation he used required a very caustic acid, so I'm not sure how green this technology is. To be green ,truly green, wouldn't any technology have to be completely self-sustaining using purely natural reoccuring compounds?

As an example passive solar power from the sun beaming down on us is green but you start with solar power systems to create electricity then you need plastics, glass, process metals, acids in batteries and the like.

Now the huge problem how must oil does the United States on its won USE per day do you really think you can cannabolize enough sources to fill that need of so-called clean fuels?

Another example of the green technology pipe dream not what is able to be done or that is practical in the near to intermediate future. Natural crude oil and coal are still the cheapest and easiest to use sources of energy on the planet and will be for decades at least. If we are to maintain the high standard of living in the United States we need lots of cheap energy. We can't get that from turkey grease and solar power yet. Maybe in a century or two we will.

[Mia]

I can only tell you what is going on here. According to the latest data from the energy department here we will get about a third of our power from wind power in around 2020 (the goal is to stop using oil and coal before 2030). The fastest growing industry that is on our export at the moment is clean tech I can wager you can guess who is most interested... Asia.

[Moondazed]

Wow, how exciting!  It would be awesome to find a way to EMPTY landfills instead of keep filling them! 

One thing that bothers me about nuclear is that none of the figures take into account the lifecycle analysis cost of nuclear waste.  It doesn't go away.

Also, plastic can be made from other things besides oil... corn and hemp, for instance.  Put that together with reducing packaging (many things are double packaged for presentation and marketing and no other reason) and plastic reduction could go WAY down.  There are a few colleges already using plasticware, including cutlery, that's compostable and then selling the compost back to the community, which is an awesome idea if you ask me!  There are also plastic garbage bags that biodegrade over time.  They're not quite as strong as the strongflex bags you can buy from Hefty, but there's no way that I would buy anything but biodegradable knowing that it exists.  It's environmentally irresponsible, imho.

The area I live in only recycles #1 and #2 plastic, which I think is disgraceful.  If it can be recycled it should be, and you can buy things like toothbrushes and hairbrushes that are completely recyclable (and made of recycled materials where possible, although the toothbrush bristles aren't made from recycled materials).

I think there's a lot of hope for consumers influencing the market regarding such things.  I know that when my son was little I had to mailorder compostable diapers and now they're available in most healthfood stores and even in the Krogers in the college town where I work :)  They cost more, but not as much more as they did when my 6 year old was a baby, which is a great sign of market influence :)

[Zakharra]

 Nuclear waste can be rendered into a harmless solid, and can be launched into the Sun for disposal in the future.

[Mia]

can be launched into the Sun for disposal in the future.

I think they haven't done that so far is that it is considered to dangerous. Not to say that it is probably the solusion to the problem.

[RubySlippers]

Lets see we need corn for human food, animal food, ethenol (dubious on this the increased crops also increase pollution from farming) and now plastics- ummmmm didn't you notice prices already going up sharply from just dabbling in ethenol for this food product? Get this straight even if we converted all corn we could grow just for ethenol you would get around 25 to 30% of our current oil use just for fuel covered. That leaves nothing to eat, feed animals and then make plastics.

For diapers cloth diapers are reuseable why not all babies get stuck into those again and wash them alot?

Nuclear waste can be recycled but produces high level weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct, but this we are actually working to fix. France already does this but this also is a finite resource unless we find more in space.

And again must I point out that using current energy needs, oil use and coal and the growing Chinese and Indian industrial base most of these gree technologies are nowhere near ready. And all are being held up by public grants and funds, not what I call a free market approach its government again wasting MY tax dollars to create a market that is not there for a need that is not shown itself. I again point our if the projections are true by 2100 we will have to go green we will have no choice then the free market will create the demand and solutions on their own. And pollutants will drop from natural causes just like the green folks want. So why scare everyone now its not going to do any good not with big business and self-interest of the big three polluters running the show your wasting your time. I for one never supported the Kyoto Treaty and will be here to support us not signing anything else that makes no sense for the United States to sign.

Humans will survive we survived the last ice age. global plagues and major wars we can surely survive this there will just be some losers, that is natural selection. Countries that are poor with bad geography are just going to get hit hard why is that our problem in the United States? Take Bangledesh they are whining now they will be all underwater if the global warming projections are true in that case they must move or perish. Its as simple as that.

Who says global warming is going to be bad it might be the tool of nature to balance out the global overpopulation and bring balance, its not evil its natural and expected that our species is tested once in awhile. We like all other life must adapt and that we are very good at, and as the dominant species if our survival means other species perish then so be it.

[Nitewalk]

For anyone interested in the history of societies that have exhausted their natural resources, and the consequences of it, read Collapse by Jared Diamond. Very, very good book. But what you get out of it will vary, of course,  depending on whether you believe global warming is caused by humans or caused by other factors.

[RubySlippers]

If the US had to we could lock down our borders and use military force to secure ourselves, we are still in a strong position with ample natural and human resources to stand alone although it might be a bit difficult. I'm not extreme just pragmatic the US and other major polluting nations cannot do what the rest of the world wants we would destroy our economies. In several decades the technolgy may meet out needs that is cleaner that is not now. In the here and now and immediate future the US and China will have to keep going as we are and so we must prepare for the worst globally. But there are many other areas that may best use our time and energy to fix that will save and aid people immediately. Some areas we could look at:

- Bioengineering crops that can grow in unfavorable environments that can produce food.

- Hydroponic farming.

- Treating various antibiotic resistant diseases now showing up with new and better durgs.

- Producing low cost drugs in poor nations for common illnesses.

- Secure fresh and clean drinking water including low cost deslination and reprocessing methods.

Just to start. I'm not in principle opposed to developing alternative sources of energy just we can't assume any will be ready to replace oil and coal in the near or imtermediate future, and there is no will to do so as long as cheaper alternatives are available. Until there is irrefutable prooof of the depletion of oil and coal reserves and we have to develop an alternative we generally won't in the US. Since you and I agree that is coming eventually we can't create such pollution anymore the natural resources won't be there to do so then in a century we will stop large scale pollution. And the planet will clean the air. Until then we must assume barring extraordinary advancements in the sciences of green technology that the status quo will be going on for a few more decades.

Anyway no one can give me or anyone a clear idea of how bad things could get with sea level rise and the like, maybe if all the scientists could agree and prove one model we could take your side more seriously. I have seen numbers from reputable scientist of anywhere from a few inches increase in sea levels to many feet and if its the later they still are talking a long time off, in that case wouldn't relocating people to higher ground may be more cost effective than ending our use of polluting technology. It might not. But no one can say and part of that is not my sides fault your the ones making the claims so prove them and give us numbers. Then we can make informed and long term plans to best and most economicaly meet the need in each afected country as that nation chooses.

[Sakujo]

This topic is quite long to read, so I'm just going to throw my ideas out there.

Firstly, as has been said on the first page here, global warming is Far more the cause of nature than it is of human influence. (Astronomically, if my Earth Science Prof is right.)

Secondly, as was also stated, we have no way of knowing what the results of global warming will be, especially since warmer water means more precipitation, which means more cloud cover, which means more cooling.

Finally, I don't see why we should cut our emissions just to satisfy standards that we have little effect over. If we're going to cut emissions, let's do it because of the harms of pollution. Furthermore, rather than simply cut emissions, let's advance toward technologies for the new century, and get rid of ridiculous things like using gasoline for cars, because we have other ways to run vehicles, several of which could probably be mass-produced if we properly invested in them.

[RubySlippers]

We already have a viable alternative one from the 1990's- electric cars. The technology was there, worked and could have been developed to be better but political forces and big business went after it. I did see the excellent documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? it seemed rather honest in its points. But people aren't convinced an electric car that can go 100-150 miles will be good enough for them I must point out that is more than enough for most commuters in urban areas.

[Moondazed]

It appears from your reply that you're implying that money shouldn't be spent on further development because of the existence of the electric car, is that accurate?

[RubySlippers]

No utilities and others are working on various alternate technologies but why use ethenol or hydrogen cells when we have a perfectly useable technology we know can work? They were driving around on the streets so it seems like a viable alternative to gasoline powered engines.

Solar power and wave motion and others are being developed by power companies. Genetically engineered trees that could absorb Co2 more efficiently and the like are also possible. But its clear the market suports the cheapest sources of power that is coal and still is oil.

But I pointed out earlier since no one can say clearly with any certainty exactly how bad things could get I have seen numbers as low as under a foot of sea level rise to twenty feet to fifty feet, and all manner of effects from Global Warming some good. Like more Co2 will help plants grow its pretty clear that could be a good effect. Since without that we cannot determine how to best use our resources and money to solve humanities problems and pan in the US for long term needs how can I support radical efforts that may not even be necessary?

Bjoern Lomburg looks at this as an economic approach and points out the displacement of small island populations to rising sea levels is not as dramatic as the need to fight AIDS or global malnutrition. He is not a scientist he just looked at the Global Warming issue and points out simply that there may be better ways to cope with it then a radical shift in energy use. For example it could be cheaper and a better use of resources to secure fresh water sources and work on better antibiotics to fight resistant diseases. Its perfectly acceptable to look at this problem in not just scientific ways. And he as do I do not deny its happening just wish to deal with it in the best way overall.

[Moondazed]

Trouble is, 'the best way overall' is subjective.

[Zakharra]

 The main problem with electric cars right now is mainly electricity. where will you get it? If more and more vehicles are electric, then huge amounts of electricity will be needed above and beyond what a modern high tech society will need for every day use. Right now there is only one way to get that much power. Coal fired power plants.  Which is bad in environmentalist books. Or some new nuclear plants, which is also bad.

Another thing I've wondered about is who will pay for the electricity? Will there be some sort of charge account the bill will go to?