|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 1, 2007 16:54:53 GMT -5
To what extent should the country do something (if anything) to stop global warming?
Should we simply try to make things more efficient or do small fixes to our society like just increase mpg or installing more solar panels or do something more radical and long term like fixing consumer culture? What would be acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 1, 2007 17:22:20 GMT -5
Recycle more tires into wargames terrain. XD
Seriously though, global warming should be slowing down over the next few years, stuff is getting more efficient. The big contributors that I know of are ships and of course cars. The latter is mostly a problem because the US refuses to up it's standards for air emissions which are far behind I believe Japan's (could be China's, can't remember right). Ships are a big polluter as well, the Long Beach port is reknowned for giving people lung problems if they live in the vicinity (which luckily I don't). I'm sure it wouldn't be that big a problem to slowly up polution standards for large freighters and such over a long time span.
This isn't my area of expertise at the moment though. I'll probably have to get back to you after I get into sustainable design a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Jun 2, 2007 0:03:32 GMT -5
I think a good idea is to put a price on clean air and set up trading systems. European countries are already doing something similar where companies can "sell" cutbacks in emissions to other companies.
It is hard to put an exact price on something intangible as carbon emissions, because they affect the whole globe and we do not yet know exactly how much each cubic centimeter will change. However, if there is a definite price that will inspire our capitalist society to react more. This is why it is also important that climatologists and other scientists keep researching the effects more and bringing new data to the public eye.
To answer Jeff's question, I think we should do everything, small or large. That way we're not as screwed if some of it doesn't work. The single most important thing is educating future generations to respect the Earth, and integrating that value into every aspect of society (school, television, religion..)
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2007 0:44:36 GMT -5
I think the problem with doing everything small and large is that some of the "solutions" can instead just cause more problems. Youve got to choose solutions that really solve the problem, not alleviate its side effects. Like at one point I read that someone wanted to shoot billions of microscopic mirrors into clouds in order to reflect some of the sunlight back before it hit the earth. Thats a solution I dont want to see. Also, I think by and large, the US has it lucky. As is, climate changes havent been that drastic there. Australia really has a crisis though. We have been in drought for the past 11 years, and agriculture just about everywhere is failing, and huge rivers are drying up. Some areas of Australia you arent allowed to water your garden except for on a specific timetable, you cant wash your car, and all of your water gets recycled to be used for watering the plantations and crops.
I dont think it will slow down nick. China is just starting to industrialize and so 1/3 of the worlds population is all of a sudden demanding more goods, more cars and about to start consuming a hell of a lot more. I think to solve global warming people will have to make a huge effort and change partly the way they live. Global warming isnt just about Carbon emissions, its about the waste we put out, and the negative effects we have on the environment in general.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 1:04:29 GMT -5
There is no conclusive evidence for global warming being caused by humans. The media has presented global warming in rather a strange way, making it seem like it has been proven that global warming occurs and is the direct result of human action.
Have you considered that there may be nothing we can/should do?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 2, 2007 1:51:04 GMT -5
Global warming is occuring. Average temperatures have risen over time due to natural cycles and human activity. The second one is a bit debatable, but it is happening nonetheless.
Personally I feel that even if we are not responsible. We should be more efficient and clean for no other reason than we can. It won't kill us to do so.
It is similar to the idea of keeping one's house clean. I mean it is legal to make a mess, but why would you want to?
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 2, 2007 2:18:35 GMT -5
I seem to recall something called the 'greenhouse effect.' Was this disproven while I wasn't looking?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2007 12:05:21 GMT -5
what henry is saying is that he seems to believe the propoganda spread by the White house. there will always be scientists who disagree with the current theories. That doesnt mean that the theories arent true. I think that wether or not humans are directly responsible for global warming, we are still responsible for quickening the process.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 13:15:47 GMT -5
I seem to recall something called the 'greenhouse effect.' Was this disproven while I wasn't looking? The greenhouse effect refers to how certain gases, which occur naturally in much greater amounts than humans can output, tend to prevent heat from escaping the atmosphere. It is a widely accepted phenomenon and is not at issue. What is at issue is whether human output of greenhouse gas is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. This has not been proven in either direction. Global warming is occuring. Average temperatures have risen over time due to natural cycles and human activity. The second one is a bit debatable, but it is happening nonetheless. Global warming is occurring, this is an observable fact. The cause is unknown. It seems extremely likely that humans are causing it, due to the correlation of human greenhouse gas outputs with rising temperatures. It is not proven, not even in a scientific sense. As for the rest of your post, I agree entirely. However: Have you considered that the global warming craze may be the result of a propaganda machine set in place by politicians and hybrid vehicle manufacturers who stand to gain from consumer/voter reactions?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 2, 2007 15:46:41 GMT -5
"Propaganda machine" theories turn out to be nothing more than paranoid piffle 99% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 15:59:09 GMT -5
Where did you get that number?
You're just pulling it out of your propaganda encrusted brain.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 2, 2007 16:06:47 GMT -5
Perhaps an exaggeration, but nonetheless validated by my experience. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 2, 2007 16:36:56 GMT -5
Have you considered that the global warming craze may be the result of a propaganda machine set in place by politicians and hybrid vehicle manufacturers who stand to gain from consumer/voter reactions? I think there is far more money involved in standard cars and oil than in hybrids ones. People will be more inclined to vote for the guy that doesn't want them to change their lifestyle and increase pollution controls. Saying warming doesn't exist is more profitable.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 16:37:45 GMT -5
For some people. Other people don't have ownership in those companies, and they still want to make money.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 2, 2007 16:38:22 GMT -5
How will they make money off of global warming?
|
|