A multitude of Global Climate Change solutions have been proposed. Which do you support?

Question

This is going to be a long, laborious process. In answering this question, feel free to go beyond token mitigation measures that attempt to staunch the bleeding, as it were, and share some of the bolder approaches that will change the business-as-usual way of life that got us into this mess. Share some of the innovative, sustainable proposals that will promote new, greener technologies. A technological revolution to mop up problems associated with the industrial revolution, perhaps?

Answer 1

All you global warming fanatics can live your short lives in fear of events that have gone on since the beginng of time. Me, Im going to enjoy mine and not worry about the dumb things politicians invent to give themselves more power.

Answer 2

None! It is all a crock. The sun controls the climate not humans.

Answer 3

A modern version of Feudalism seems to be the approach most support.

Collective farming, local guilds, no electricity, the enlightened ruling class makes all decisions for you.

It is very hard to have business develop solutions under the threat of higher taxes (stifles growth and innovation when your fruits are just going to be robbed), and governments become bogged down in bureaucracy and nepotism to accomplish much else.

Answer 4

Make factories provide their own clean source of energy from power grides of solar power to wind mills and geothermal ground drilling.

Houses have to provide their own power source, from roof's of solar power grides to what was mentioned above.

Use the septic system to provide gas, they have been doing it in Japan.  Then have cars or trucks that run on propane or this natural gas.  We could easily provide enough power for all the cars.  Because of the gripe the oil industry has on the country they are not exploreing new ways to produce power.

They have come up with new ways and the oil industry keeps it as more of a curiosity than a real solution.

First put in a president who doesn't have any connection with the oil industry.

Answer 5

I support increasing the number of pirates in the world.  That seems the most feasible of the lot.

Answer 6

I support energy conservation first over efforts to substitute other forms of energy, such as atomic or ethanol. I believe geometric reductions are possible in our use of energy without serious loss of quality of life. Ford bringing out a 2008 Thunderbird, with 300 horsepower days before the President begs Saudi Kings for cheaper oil is criminal, in my opinion. The US car fleet of SUVs and gas hogs makes us pigs in the world's eyes.

Second, I support population control and population reduction before aggressively funding unproven technological changes to further reduce our use of polluting energy sources.

Third, I support public examination of our core values, to find ways to support all of these changes needed to protect our earth. Without an understanding of this, it's not likely we will be able change our ways without a Police State, which is far less desirable than the enthusiastic and proactive support of the people.

After these measures are embraced, I support evolutionary changes that might involve new technologies. But what I find now is that radical technological changes are frequently proposed today, by sophisticated scientists, without the slightest thought about what their collateral effects on the earth might be. It's like hopping from frying pan to fire. Ethanol is but one example of this, which has the potential to seriously harm the environment (and the world's food chain). Another is to seed the oceans with iron to produce an abundance of algae that would reduce CO2. What are they thinking? Or not thinking (about ocean fisheries).

Answer 7

The one that does not tax the American people, does not raises the cost of energy, food, and does not hurt our economy and at the same time ensuring we are a free nation.

Answer 8

Zip!!!

Cut down your personal emissions everyone (you know, the natural ones) and try to stop the sheep that are destroying our air quality with their personal emissions!!!!!!

Answer 9

We could go with Bob's idea of following the Stern plan, but, that relies heavily on biofuels, and hence it's a few months behind the prevailing politics.

Maybe we could just wait and see if atmospheric CO2 really does correlate with warming.

Answer 10

The greenhouse gas theory of heat trapping gases is seriously flawed. Why would we worry about heat trapping gases while we generate heat close to boiling temperature on the surface of the planet?

Do you want to stop global warming, then stop generating heat atmospherically with development. Architects design buildings to "blend" with natural surroundings, did you know that all of the design is done in a calculator?

Use low-e exterior finishes, functional landscaping to keep solar radiation from scorching the earth.

Have you ever watched construction development? We scrape the earth of anything living to put up dead, absorbent development and solar radiation is causing the developed finishes to generate extreme heat.

Go to the following link and see what is going on outside the calculator. The most advanced temperature imaging applications in the world was used to actually show temperature performance of buildings. Thermografix Consulting Corporation completed several years of seasonal work showing the effects of solar radiation all year round. Go and see what how California is being knocked off the grid treating heat symptoms. This information and applications are coming to academia so we can give professionals the ability to see temperate beyond our visible spectrum. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h...

Answer 11

None of them.  Global temperature change is a natural phenomenon which has been happening for four billion years.  There is no proven connection between human activities and such change, and all of the proposed "fixes" are costly -- and some are dangerous.

Answer 12

The green house gas is not there. Gore made the hole thing a lie with his movie.

Answer 13

You don't even have to parlay about climate. Most innovations came about 20-30 years ago, they just weren't implemented. Now we are seeing another supposedly grassroots movement, that nobody is going to be able to afford. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there ~149 US nuclear plants still operating on old technology? Why don't/haven't these @ least been updated to reflect the current pandemonium. I would see this as being a no harm no foul implementation.

Answer 14

http://www.socyberty.com/Activism/First-...  Global Warming is'nt caused by man. we dont have the technology to weaken a certain part of the forcefield where the suns peering down on earth, but not allowing our atmosphere to escape or allowing outer space to enter making our planet's atmosphere smaller and only allowing the solids to penetrate, but not the non-solids which decipate close to earth in the thinned air. now what we as humans need to do is manual action. only Governments talk because they dont know anything about G.W. and wont listen to us little people. Thats whats probley going to destroy all life on EARTH. The idiots that we vote in office that are'nt smart enough to take action by listening to the people that put them there, and the societies that say I'm one of the smartest people on earth. can only tell it like it is. do to lack of wealth. If all would check my experiment in my link, i'd get a salvage license and extract the sands of time and your license will allow you all to keep the treasures you find that man has never touched forever and put the sand on the beaches for a extra level to stop our continents from being engulfed by the sea and at the same time your helping us to find certain locations to put the mineral to allow nature to return to normal naturally and if you dont find them at least we'll know where their not and their's only one kind of location left to delete global warming. the mineral will disslove the devises that are weakening the invisible forcefield and guess what, i think I have found a location not far from where i live where the mineral is just laying above ground. it seams we ourselves use this mineral, we injest it, but its plentiful in America. but still  their's the locations. I also have the knowledge to extract the fresh water from the saltwater and allowing the underwater

Answer 15

It's pretty simple.  Mostly we need to replace fossil fuel energy with nuclear, solar, wind.  Conservation will help, also.

If people think fixing this problem is expensive, it's NOTHING compared to the cost of not fixing it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...

I support this plan, worked out by a large team of good climatologists, engineers, and economists.  A few guys can have biased ideas, a large team tends to sort things out more objectively.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.h...