If global warming is so dangerous...?

Question

We have two options:

1. Cut back on the usage of gasoline and greenhouse gases, which the world is too lazy to do.

2. Or just stop people from using cars, maybe even electricity all together. If it saves the planet, I think its worth it, what would we do?

What would you do if it was up to you to come up with a plan for global warming? And would option 2 work?

Answer 1

people aren't going to do either one.

Answer 2

People just don't get it!!  That's the be-all and end-all.  We are too accustomed to having it easy.  That's why we are too fat, too lazy, too tired to do anything.  We still have people saying Global warming doesn't exist.  It's this way of thinking that is going to destroy the planet.  Seriously!!  OK, so for those people who believe it doesn't exist, fine.  But they can still work towards making our planet better and less toxic instead of sitting on their almighty hands as if they are better than everyone else.  I went to a natural resources tech college 20 years ago, we were learning of this stuff then.  It appalls me that we are just starting to think about doing something now.  People see this issue as work.  Therefore, as everyone is overworked already (thats what we think), its just one more thing to remember to do.  And no one notices if we aren't, so where is the incentive?  There is soooo much each and everyone of us can be doing.  But as the results are intangible, we have nothing to show for it, no gratification, we chose to do nothing.  So, if we had no electricity for cat scans etc, more people would die.  That would help with the population problems.  That is the biggest problem right there, population.  We are inevitably destroying ourselves, and don't seem to care about it.  How righteous.  What would I do - start community groups and get moving.  Its like we are all waiting for the gov't to come up with a plan.  We'll still be waiting when there is no food on the shelves at the grocery store.  What are we?  Puppets on a string who can't think and act for themselves?  Letting the gov't solve the problem.  Gimme a break.  Make up a flyer of info that any person can do and start to distribute it yourself.  Give enviro tips, contacts for more info, get your kids involved.  DO ANYTHING INSTEAD OF JUST SITTING THERE!!  As long as we act, things will change, if we sit, we're gone!  I could go on forever.  Cut back on everything to start.  Reuse reduse recycle is one of the best ever!  We keep waiting for the big corporations to change their ways, the gov't to change their ways - put pressure on other countries, etc., everyone but ourselves, it is ourselves that outnumber everything else, it is the force of many that gets things done.  Pressure, pressure, pressure, keep demanding for it and it will happen.

Answer 3

I think you mean:  If global warming is so dangerous, AND if CO2 is a large contributing factor, AND if man contributes a significant percentage of the total atmospheric CO2, AND if natural factors don't alleviate the warming trend on its own, AND if cars are the main source of human CO2 emission...THEN AND ONLY THEN would we have three options:  1, 2 and 3...Do nothing.

I choose #3:  Do nothing....at least until the question is proven valid enough to warrant attention.

Answer 4

First of all, no, option 2 wouldn't work. Why? Because people are LAZY. They don't want to go the extra mile just to save future generations. Sayings like "Live in the moment" encourage this tyoe of behavior. If it were u to me I would:

1. Make recycling a law

2 Charge people money per bag of garbage

3. Renew and reuse the resources we have now, so we can save and replenish for later.

4. Plant trees and sanctuaries for animals that have lost their homes

I have more ideas, but there isn't enough room in the world to write them down.

Answer 5

can you say pipe dream?

if global warming was so dangerous then they wouldnt make the things that are supposed to help the earth so f'ing expensive so that only the rich can afford to save the planet. everything from solar power to hybrid cars are way too expensive for middle/lower class people to afford, no matter how bad they want to help.

to the person who disputes my statement..that doesnt really mean anything, economy of scale?? is the earth going to burn up or isnt it? if it is, then money doesnt mean squat. so give us what we need so we can "cool" the planet.

Answer 6

It would be nice if it were that easy, but people need fuel to survive.  Conservation is a good step, alternative fuels (especially from flow resources like wind, solar, waves) is good.  Geothermal, nuclear, biomass may even help.  But we need fuel for transportation too.  Electricity (and assisted) and hydrogen fuel cells are promising.  Better stewardship of our lands would help. Better forestry and ag practices, reduced landscape losses and restore sites stripped of vegetation  (urban areas, surface mines, sprawl).  A lot has been done to partially restore these areas, but more is always possible.

Answer 7

Option 2 is out of the question. People are too dependant on these things to go abot their daily lives. Most people won't be willing to give up their cars and electricity. Plus, electricity is absolutely essential for normal life in almost every part of the world (Life-support systems, for example, and for cooking food). Option 1 is currently in effect, yet it won't be enough to save the planet. People are accepting of Option 1 as it's an easier, less demanding method to tackle Global Warming. People need to realize that the world will require the full utilization of Option 2, and way sooner than anyone is read to accept yet. It's coming - are we ready??

Answer 8

I don't think it's fair to call it laziness that poor people in India and China want a better standard of living, which is why they now use so much more oil and coal than they used to.

How many people do you think global warming will kill? Because half the people on Earth would die if all of our agricultural equipment sat idle and we no longer had electricity for heating and cooling.

Before I did anything that drastic I'd want to be sure of three things.

1. is the planet going to continue warming up for the next few hundred years? The most dire predictions of the AGW 'enthusiasts' is that within 20 years we'll be so inundated from melting glacier ice that life as we know it will end no matter what we do now. That is unlikely. Most of the AGW crowd believes it will take much longer than this.

2. is there anything we can do about it? First you need to know how much input human activities have into global climate change. That's very hard to quantify. Then determine what we can do to reverse it short of returning to a Stone Age lifestyle burning nothing more than firewood. No, wait, that emits CO2, too, I guess we'll just have to adapt to the cold.

3. will more people die from efforts to 'erase' our carbon footprint than will die if the AGW theory is correct? That is also unknowable at this time since CO2, the main culprit they point to, is actually so good for plant growth. Bumper crops might be a small price to pay for a warmer planet. Any solution currently proposed would either devastate the global economy or be too late to save us if they are right about AGW.

All three of those points can and have been debated but the problem is very complex and easy solutions are in short supply. If global temps rose by 5 or 10 degrees F over the next 100 years, as some predict but most think is unlikely, even that won't make us hotter than at many other times in Earth's history and the climate has always been self-regulating. Sometimes that's over the long-term and may be unfortunate for us but at least the Earth will still be here.

Answer 9

neither one of them are feasible with out significant among of time to put them in to action slowly. the problem is very complicated. there are many factors to include in order to find a solution.

Answer 10

I would publicly humiliate all AGW fanatics for their ignorance. Once they stop telling lies about it, then the entire AGW problem disappears.

Answer 11

you been brainwashed by a science teacher congratulations..

global warmning, as we know it, is a MYTH

Answer 12

Option 2 would definetly NOT work.

Why, you ask?

1) Human beings have become to dependent on cars and electricity. Not enough people would know how to suvive without it.

2) How many medical procedures involve the use of electricity? Well there's artificial hearts, chemotherapy, CAT scans, ultrasounds, Xrays, life support, ect. You name it.

3) Do you really think everybody on the whole planet would really want to quit using cars and electricity? Even if the whole intire USA decided not to use it anymore, what kind of message does that send to other countries? "Hey here we are we dont use modern technology anymore, our millitary dosn't have cars or electricity, come kill us!" I dont think I want to send that message.

WHAT'S THE USE OF  SAVING THE PLANET IF EVERYBODY DIES ANYWAY?

Answer 13

Provide state and/or federal incentives to price the old, dirty technology out. Just as with all new technology (just look at LCD televisions) the price will come down and we will rid ourselves of harmful emissions.

Answer 14

you assume fossil fuels spur climate change and don't bother looking at any other more feasible reasons...

Answer 15

To the person who said green stuff is for rich people

As far as green things being expensive, have you ever heard of something called economy of scale?  You know, things get cheaper as they become mass produced.  Hybrid cars are not sold yet in the numbers that non hybrids are and it is new technology that $$ was spent to develop.

Why do you think organic food has been so expensive compared with the normal stuff full of chemicals and stripped of nutrients .  Why is unrefined grain more expensive than whole grain/

Economy of scale, the unrefined stuff far outsells the good stuff.  And the refined stuff requires those extra steps to bring it to market, more labor, energy etc, so why doesn't it cost more?  Economy of scale and an economy that favors the biggest players.

  Imagine if Tesla's electric luxury roadster, which sells competitively with Porche and Lotus in comparable cars, had the economy of scale that bigger auto makers have.  They are already about the same price as the other two I mentioned who have been building cars for a long time.

  You're suggestions are extreme, though well intentioned.  Conserving is a very good thing though.  People do drive more than they need to.  

I'm sure it contributes to our obese society.

Part of the problem is how we build communities and shopping areas, to accomodate cars and not pedestrians.   This is more noticeable in the west where things are farther apart.  Areas get built up on a non human scale because it's all is designed for driving.   A good example, though not directly related to cars, is Marina Del Rey, CA a huge marina south of LA.  It's only saving grace is that is holds a lot of boats, but the scale and lack of any kind of intimate setting makes it very unappealing and other wordly.  I see the same thing across America in other settings.  It's almost like you're damned if you're not driving.

Answer 16

Yes, option two would work if there were enforcements. We would need to have, like, round the clock guards or something. That would be hard.Otherwise, people would cheat and it would not work. And, it is almost impossible not to use ANY electricity. Think about it. You are probably using a lot of energy right now. Option one is the easiest way, after making sure everybody is aware of the problem. The best things you can do are:

1. Turn off ALL lights and appliances when not in use

2. Carpool or drive/bike ride

3. Buy less. It may seem like a money tip, but it takes a lot of energy to make it. Instead, create a lending library with your friends.

4. Recycle. Paper, plastic, glass, cardboard. Anything.

5. Use less. Use scrap paper for things that doesn't need to look great.

6. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: TELL YOUR FRIENDS! MAKE THEM AWARE! IF THEY KNOW MORE PEOPLE WILL KNOW ABOUT THE BIG PROBLEM.