If global warming was a real threat wouldn't the government be taking serious action?

Question

If global warming was a real threat wouldn't the government be taking serious action?

Answer 1

`of course global warming is a real threat the government isnt taking serious action becasue they care more about money and oil than the well being of our environment. i hate global warming. die global warming. STOP DRIVING. START BIKING. WALK. FLY LESS. WATCH YOUR GLOBAL FOOTPRINT.

Answer 2

President George Bush suspended all action on it for the duration of his Administration.  He turned out to be a bad choice.  When he's gone there will be serious action.  There are now many article about projects starting or re-starting that were stonewalled while he was prez.  Hallelujah!

Answer 3

With one of the democrats going into office now, our new president is sure to take much more action.  There already have been laws/bills passed such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Car Standard, etc.  The government has been taking action, upping the standards for eco-friendliness.

And yeah, it's a real threat.  Al Gore made it look ridiculous but it's not called global warming, the problem is climate change.  Humans are polluting the Earth and it's stupid to believe 'we're going to die because it's getting warmer' no that's natural, but the toxing and chemicals humans and machines produce are destroying nature, polluting the air and waters and causing the climate and nature to go crazy.

I'm praying for Obama [OR Clinton, I guess] to really step up to the plate on environmental issues.  With Bush out of the way, you'll most likely be seeing a lot more serious action, hopefully starting with the Kyoto Protocol.

Answer 4

The real danger is they might try.  Clearly there is a political movement from the left seeking to distort the dangers and push their leftist agenda under the guise of saving us.  The danger is being ignorant and gullible enough to fall for it.  The left cannot win in the ballot box.  The only way they win is through ambulence chacing courts and government mandates and dumbing down our populace with propaganda starting when you turn on the TV to reading the newspaper to sending your kids to public schools.

Answer 5

one would hope so...

Answer 6

thats because its not a threat.

the guy who came up with global warming admitted he made the theory up just to get money, and he dosent even belive in it.

the goverment just say give money to save the earth, right......

Answer 7

It's not a threat now.  It might be in 1000 years, though, unless we change our ways.

Answer 8

The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, usually over thousands of years.  We might be in a warming cycle or not.  Only thirty years ago scientists were warning of an ice age.  The current warming trend is temporary.  It provides propoganda for pollitical pundits.  Believe the trend (but it won't last long), deal with the practical problems created by it, and don't panic because of the propaganda.

Answer 9

thats a good point...if it was so serious why wouldent people be going mad over it

Answer 10

They are all around the world. Even China has agreed to take action. The US is being hampered by special interests who want to rake in as much profits as possible before their industry is revamped.

Answer 11

they are - by not signing treaties the force wealth redistribution!

temp have not risen in 10 effin years!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

Answer 12

most governments in the world are.

when the current oil lobby leaves on jan 20, then our government will also.

Answer 13

Yes, super serial action.

Excellsi-our!!! (flys away).

Answer 14

Governments are too scared to take appropriate action as they will be kicked out of power.  It needs everyone to change their behaviour, which they don't want to do and politicians can't make the changes needed without getting the people on side.

Things will start to change increasingly as peak oil is reached and people can't afford to waste the remaining hydrocarbon resourses of the world.

Answer 15

They are taking serious action, here in the U.K.

Petrol, Gas, Electric, Food, Transport, have all gone up, all in the name of global warming, it has nothing to do with the huge amounts of money

being raked in through taxes.

Global warming only started when governments realized how much money they could make on it.

Answer 16

The problem is that is it's a real thing. The other problem is this has happened before in history and is reoccurring naturally.

To make it a political vice was the worst thing to happen.

Al Gore's an idiot.

"the guy who came up with global warming admitted he made the theory up just to get money, and he doesn't even believe in it."

Actually the "guy" is a Canadian scientist that drew back his claim after further study.

Answer 17

Not if the president were from a party that hated America and American values.

I don't recall the Bush administration taking the threat of terrorism seriously until they blew it enough to let it happen.

I don't recall the Republicans taking Katrina seriously or the fires in California las summer. Yet those were real threats.

There are a lot of real threats to our security which are being ignored by those with a vested interest in ignorance.

Answer 18

Lets review the past, has the government ever fixed anything ?  Just name one thing ?  The majority of the worlds politicians can't make the cut in the business world. They are elected for one reason, to get reelected.

Answer 19

Is this serious enough for you?

U.S. experts will stage climate war game

http://www.upi.com/International_Securit...

"U.S. foreign affairs and military experts will stage a war game this summer to study and highlight the national security threats posed by global warming.

The exercise, being staged by a coalition of seven think tanks and other non-profits called the Climate Change Consortium, will get technical assistance from the U.S. National Laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tenn., a statement from the organizers said Tuesday.

It said the exercise would be held in Washington July 27-28 and would be the first of two."

Why is the government practicing deploying own troops on our own soil (which was banned by the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 following the Civil War, but has quietly been overturned in recent years)?  Here's one scenario that the Pentagon has studied for possible global riots and anarchy in about 12 years:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/...

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

---

The Pentagon isn't saying that it's the most likely scenario for 2020, but they don't seem convinced that we have the will to adequately reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the two largest sources, China and the U.S., so we do may have a fairly bleak outlook for the future, whether it's 2020 or some other date.

So why are countries not all working towards reductions?  This study from MIT points out that all are needed to be on board, and that the U.S. must make bringing all of those developing countries on board a key component of its strategy:

"Our results confirm the well-known fact of global climate change: to meet temperature or concentration goals requires concerted efforts from much of the world over a substantial period of time. With rapid growth in developing countries, failure to control their emissions could lead to a substantial increase in global temperature even if the U.S. and other developed countries pursue stringent policies.

It is useful to evaluate the global costs and global benefits of achieving such targets, as difficult as that is to do. However, it is not possible to connect specific U.S. policy targets with a particular global concentration or temperature target, and therefore the avoided damages, because any climate gains depend on efforts in the rest of the world. And unfortunately, absent a global agreement a country’s best strategy in terms of its own self-interest is to do little and freeride on the actions of others. Of course, if all behave in this way very little mitigation will be achieved. If a cooperative solution is at all possible, therefore, a major strategic consideration in setting U.S. policy targets should be their value in leading other major countries to take on similar efforts."

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJ...

Self interest will encourage countries and people not to participate in the solution, but everyone is needed in order for the solution to be effective.  It is imperative therefore for all countries and people to be involved in the solution, or they will use each other as excuses not to participate.

The U.S. strategy of holding out for full participation may not be popular, but it may be necessary for us to get developing countries to agree to save themselves in order for us to have a global solution that might actually work.

Answer 20

One would hope so, but unfortunately short term economical interests and the wish for popularity among the people makes this more difficult to achieve. Still, most countries are trying, but they want every (rich) country to play by the same rules before they take actions that's strong enough to eliminate the threat.