Does it even matter if man-made global warming is real or not?

Question

With China expected to surpass U.S. emissions in 2009, how is anyone in America, on the individual level to do anything about global warming if it really is caused by humans? Ive decided it doesnt matter what you believe. If its happening, there is nothing we(in america) can do about it now. If it isnt happening, then everything will be back to normal when another global coldspell starts, and the propaganda will stop. It just seems like everyone wants to be right. But we forget to realize there isnt a thing any one of us individuals can do to "Save the planet".

Second, there are too many possible scenario's that will ruin the quality of life in america anyways, has anyone else realized we have been living during a period with optimal conditions? So many people take for granted, the things we have these days. Its drastically different from the things we had 100 years ago. Who says we will be able to continue like this?

Answer 1

I agree there is nothing we can do in our individual lives that will significantly change things, except for one thing and that is to acknowledge that action needs to be taken immediately to completely update the way we use energy. China agreed to cut it's CO2 by 20% in coming years. But to really make a difference we need to totally overhaul our technologies. Part of the problem is the ever present voice of people trying to mislead the public into thinking that it's more contraversial than it is. As a result, people shrug their shoulders and government isn't inclined to institute changes. So the one important thing we can do is acknowledge that it is important, and that we care about it. What we've already pumped into the air will linger for hundreds of years even if we stopped CO2 output today. The question is, will it be merely a major disruption that alters our way of life or a tragic mass extinction? We have one planet and as far as we know this is the only life we'll know about in the universe.

Answer 2

china and india are just as threatened by the problem as any other nation and they are starting to realize this

china is building 40+ nuclear power plants and india is constructing 8 right now - keep in mind that each nuclear power plant produces the same electricity as 3 coal fire plants (on average).

Meanwhile in the US we haven't really built any since the 80's  - this is leading to more coal plants - red tape in the US regarding nuclear power plant construction must be removed. The US policy on nuclear energy has led to increased nuclear waste and made nuclear plant construction incredibly expensive.

Answer 3

Volcanic eruptions is indeed a way of increasing the global temp, but it is not what the deadly global warming is. And what ever volcano may erupt and causes some minor weather changes is not global warming that is dangerous.  It may be fine to say that, why should i care about it when I can't even do anything about it because other people are doing it a thousand worse than I can ever do. You may be right, but remember all starts with 1. So if there is no 1, how can there be a thousand?

Answer 4

The ignorance or aaron and pantu is staggering.  What is sad is that they vote and we are all probably going to pay for the ignorance of the left.  They pretend that China saying it will cut 20 per cent means something.  They are a dictatorship and can say what they want and it means diddly squat.  Pantu sees conspiracies around every corner and he is convinced the oil companies just want to ruin the world as if that would make them sleep better at night.  In truth, if we stopped emissions of CO2 right now, it would probably have almost no effect.  The likely effect of our addition to the atmospheric CO2 is that it might have increased the moderation in the temperatures albeit very slightly.  The temperatures will increase more in the night and winter days more than summer days.  I for one don't see that as the end of the world.  Not only is there nothing we can do about climate change with current technology and knowledge, it is debatable if the changes are necessarily that bad.  The reason we have so much more than we did a hundred years ago is our advancement in technology and certainly our ability to use more energy has helped.  The left feels threatened by our success it seems and seems to want to put us back a hundred years where we are all walking to work and riding horse, except I am sure they would probably not stand the horse riding for long so better get used to walking.

Answer 5

Humans have to fix what we did. No matter if you did it or not. It has to be fixed. Population-look at how many people were killed in 1816, 17 and 18. If we do not fix our problem, earth will. Just look at the bulge coming up under Yellowstone, she is going to pop her top again. Do we have food stored for 3 years of famine? The USA did! Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 6

Weather you believe AGW or not; the solution to that, regular pollution issues and dependence on foreign oil are all basically the same. We need to develop other means of energy production that is friendlier to the world around us. We cannot do nothing and hope for change from the other countries. We need to be like the older brother and set the example.  If the US considers itself the greatest nation it has to be the one that starts the change and hope that China, India and Russia follow suit. If we don't start the change now, we will be caught with our pants down when oil prices spiral out of control, or if we are hit with a shortage again. A lot of our oil comes from Canada, but the other countries that provide us with our addiction really don't like us. it is only time before they decide they would rather do business with India and China and boycott us. We have reached the point where we can develop other means to produce the energy we need and we should save the petroleum for the things we cannot get by natural means.

Answer 7

The only ones that want to continue things as they are,are the big oil companies,and the oil futures traders,car manufacturers,and their corrupt politicians! I see religious dogma now being used to deny any effect we might have on the planet. Like somehow the understanding of global climate change is a threat to their belief system. I feel sorry for those folks.  If the fear of the unknown is the worst fear,then those folks are scared for sure!

Answer 8

Sure it matters if it is man-made. It even matters if it isn't man-made, but in that case there is probably nothing we could do about it.

Answer 9

China will work to reduce emissions.  It's dawned on them that ruining the world's economy with the effects of global warming will not be good for business.

Negotiations won't be easy (they'll seek competitive advantages) but the bottom line is - they want to fix this too.

Answer 10

you cover on some points. The real question should be what is the optimal level of pollution.

If you ask environmentalist with economic background they will yell zero! Yet, in fact it is not so.

We need some kind of pollution.

The optimal level of pollution is the maximum amount we can pollute but still maintain a sustainable environment.

We have to pollute to live.  So we just make sure our marginal costs do not exceed our marginal benefits.

Pollution is positive for society as a whole.

Answer 11

- it does matter.  if it is, then it's much more likely we can fix it.  btw, the Nobel Prize affirmed that it's us.  isn't it interesting how many people can "do their own research" and find them wrong?  don't buy that "global cold spell" lie.  it ain't happening.  unless we really mess up the Gulf Stream, and completely freeze northern Europe and Asia.

- there are large arid areas in the US that are absolutely useless for growing stuff, where one could put solar arrays.

- many houses in the US could use solar panels to provide their own power.  no space at all, just the roof.

- you can use wind generation on top of cattle ranches.  2 uses, 1 space.

- nuclear clearly will be increasing.

- many of us realize that we're living in an unusually good time in earth's climatic history.  it'd be good if we didn't upset that apple cart.

- much of what we have today that's better than 100 years ago is the result of energy availability.  is it our place to deny China that same change in the quality of life?  or would it be appropriate for us to help them manage that change w/o building 300 coal fired power plants?

- population is clearly a major problem.  one that China is addressing more aggressively than any other country on earth.

EDIT.  my dear shape,  first, you might note that when answering a question, only the original post is visible -- not the additional comments.  i think i did address most of the original post.  however, to continue:

<<Its not my research, its the research of reputable scientists that dont believe in AGW.>>

make up your mind.  "reputable scientists"?  or people "that dont believe in AGW".  you can't have it both ways.  virtually all the reputible scientists support AGW.  those that don't generally consist of either professor ??? emeritis, who isn't allowed to teach any more due to dementia, or the likes of Lindzen who's paid by the energy industry to lie.

<<First of all, you cant predict the future, so you cant say whether it will be warmer or colder in the future no matter what the "nobel prize" says.>>

neither you nor i are climate scientists.  however that does not mean that no-one else is, and that they cannot make reasonably accurate predictions of what is likely to occur.

<<Help them not build 300 coal plants? We cant even help ourselves off of coal>>

excuse me, it's not that we cannot get off coal, we choose not to get off coal.  France generates 80% of it's electricity from nuclear power.  we choose not to do that.  there's a wide difference between choice and ability.

<<And apparantly china isnt addressing a population problem.>>

China's 1 child policy is, by far, the most ambitions population control policy of any nation on earth.  apparently you'd be satisfied with nothing less than Germany's method of approaching the problem.

<<And I dont think you realize the implications of Chinas development. If they do surpass us, then we could have zero emissions here and it wouldnt make a difference.>>

- i agree with you, that is correct.  (surprised?)  you might note, if you chose to do so, that i did not say, or imply, that the US should cut emissions, and ignore what is happening in the rest of the world.  in fact, i think i said that we need to help China do the same.  it's only a few lines up, do i need to point it out again?

<<so once again, to emphasize on my original question, does it even matter if its real or not? If it is, WE CANT STOP IT, unless you are suggesting we kill everyone off.>>

- you'll note, that's your suggestion, not mine.  i didn't say it, you did.  if there's a lie here, it's not mine.

- it matters -- oh, let me go back and look at the FIRST LINE of my post.  "- it does matter.  if it is, then it's much more likely we can fix it."  all of the reputable science says it's real, and indicates we need to dramatically reduce our use of coal and oil.  i understand that's not what you want.  but your not wanting it does not make it any less true.

<<I just dont understand what it is people like you (linylons) want? Other than to be right. what do you want?>>

- truth would be good.

- responsibility would be good.

- thinking about the world your and my children and grandchildren will inherit would be good.

- and you?

finally, we may agree on one point.

<<In my honest opinion, the world would be better off with under 2 billion people.>>

- i think i'm on your side on this one.

<< So why should any of us care about this problem now if there is nothing we can do?>>

- because it's the right thing to do.  even if we can't completely solve the problem, maybe we can find others who can do more than we can.

<<This population increase happened before we were born, why is it our fault?>>

- it's not our fault, any more than a hurricane or earthquake is our fault.  but that does not mean we shouldn't care.

<<before we were born>>

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopu...

you'll note, if you care to, that there are a billion more people today than in 1992.  i'd presume that is not before your time.

there are 2 billion more than in 1980.  is that before your time?

there has been more than a 50% increase since 1975.  is that before your time.

- clearly it's not "your fault".  nor mine, or anyone else's alive today.  however, that does not mean that it's not our problem.