If we can't adapt to rising gas prices, how can we adapt to global warming?

Question

One common argument we hear from AGW 'skeptics' is that global warming won't be all that bad and we can just adapt to it instead of mitigating it ahead of time.

However, when faced with the minimal challenge of $4/gallon gas, what has the US done to adapt to this change? We've taken no steps to find a long-term solution, like encouraging alternative fuel technologies. Everyone's solution seems to be 'drill for more oil', as though we have an infinite supply and we're just not sucking it up fast enough.

When we can't even take any serious action to adapt to rising gas prices, how are we going to deal with increased droughts, heat waves, food and water shortages, etc.? Individuals can cope with higher gas prices to some extent by driving less, but it's pretty hard to eat and drink less.

Answer 1

They've adapted to higher prices by not using as much gas, riding bicycles and commuting on public transportation.

The democrats are rewarding this sense of conservation with higher taxes on gasoline.

How very thoughtful and considerate of them.

Answer 2

You seem to have hit a nerve here Dana...

The question that most people seem to be answering is "why should I adjust..." rather than the question you have asked.

Your question is basically rhetorical but very perceptive - of course, if people cannot adapt to simple things such as gas prices then the myriad of consequences from AGW will be almost impossible to adapt to.

Of more interest to me, however, is the 'why'. Most people focused on responding re high oil prices, not adapting to AGW which is a shame.

At the time I write this, the answers fell into the following (admittedly subjective) categories:

39 INSTANCES OF DENIAL OF ANY PROBLEMS FROM AGW (mostly by ignoring that part of the question):

10 x There is no problem thus the question is irrelevant or the answer was not an answer pertinent to the question

7 x Refutation of "we can't adapt to rising gas prices" (but not answering the real question): e.g. people buy smaller cars

7 x Oil prices are higher than a true free market would suggest (i.e. someone is directly or indirectly manipulating)

1 x Offers a solution to high gas prices (but not AGW)

14 x The question is an opportunity for a political (libertarian) or social opinion: e.g. govt interferes; its all the fault of the X; the rich are different

7 INSTANCES ACCEPTING AGW PROBLEMS

4 x we will adapt, later

3 x Offered a solution or 'true' response to the question

(Total doesn't add up as some answers had multiple responses)

And, of course, there is the usual bad science:

WRONG: "Global temperatures have dropped [in the last 10 years]"

WRONG: "proponents admit [that AGW] will have zero effect"

WRONG: burning "fossil fuels [does not release] carbon dioxide"

WRONG: burping has the same impact on the environment as burning fossil fuels

WRONG: "farmland [won't be] destroyed... from the current temperature or even a much higher temp" (talk to Australian farmers for a start!)

DUBIOUS: "CO2... encourages growth in vegetation" (article is old, USA only and respondent only accepts half the information. CO2 may encourage plant growth but it obviously cannot absorb all the increase - there wouldn't be an icnrease if they could!)

Thus the answer to your question of 'how can we adapt to global warming' seems to be one of education: increased knowledge of the issue and changed attitudes from denial or complacency.

Without these two things, the answer would be "we can't"!

Answer 3

Hmm..so let me guess the answer to AGW is cap and trade or something of the sort, otherwise know as Tax on carbon emissions. Exactly how does increasing energy, gas, food, and just about everything sound? That is exactly what will happen if the AGW proposals are in place.

The USA enacted a first effort of subsidizing biofuels. What happened? Food costs start to rise and rain forests are being cut down more rapidly.

The question is, why should we adapt to rising gas when the natural resources are underground? Oil is a natural resource, use it. How about building more nuclear? Europe uses nuke extensively, why don't we?

As for adapting to AGW, why adapt to something which will have zero effect (even the Proponents admit this)?

Answer 4

Star for your question!  :)

Nuclear is a great source of power.  Why do you except food & water shortages?  I could see a lot of farmland being destroyed if we got into another ice age but not from the current temperature or even a much higher temp.

Drilling for oil is the right thing to do and the future & spot prices are a direct function of the PERCEIVED increase in supply - even before an actual increase!

EDIT: so quantify it - how much of a decrease in food supply are you expecting next year?  in 5 years?  10?

Answer 5

There is no reason for us to be forced to adapt to either since BOTH are scams.

Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.

What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science

.

To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 6

Why was a warmer climate favorable to life in the past, but it wouldn't be now? I believe climate change is a very natural process as has been clearly demonstrated by earth history. Furthermore, I also believe human activities are every bit as natural as any other life process. Our harvesting of fossil fuels, in my view, has a very intricate purpose in relation to earth's cycles. Why does everything man does fall in a completely seperate category (unnatural) than the activities of every other life form. Elephants, for instance are great deforesters. No one ever says their activities are unnatural. There's nothing at all wrong with trying to be good stewards, if that is in fact the role of humanity, but today's radical left movement have gone over the top becoming a bunch of self-loathing  animal lovers. Save the whales, but to heck with our own kind.

Answer 7

i aggree with average joe they are both scams to make money and when we burn fossil fuels we put out corbon monoxid not carbon dioxide dems. need to exept that

Answer 8

"Adapt" to rising prices?  Are you working for the oil companies?  There's no reason to have to "adapt" to price fixing!  The oil cartels are illegally using monopolies to keep prices high even though demand has gone down--just like with energy companies!  Whenever you conserve, prices just go up so you end up paying more for less!  The way to deal with gas prices is to enforce existing anti-trust laws, cut record spending for so called "wars" on terror and carbon, and really allow the market to produce things that people want like electric cars (that we already know how to make), organically grown food (not GMOs), and other much better ideas.  If this was really about finding solutions, the very companies that created monopolies and dependence in the first place wouldn't be the ones getting all the government grants and subsidies right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Ant...

Edit: Dana, GMO crops do even worse in drought conditions.  And CO2 doesn't cause droughts--it's the opposite, it encourages growth in vegetation (notice the article speculates that maybe it's because of increase in rainfall that caused the extra growth rather than CO2 levels--they'll try to explain away everything).  

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

Maybe you should see this video--GM crops cause a lot of problems (health-wise, ecologically, financially), self-destruct, and require more water in countries that are dry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNi...

Answer 9

You answered your own question.

People adapt to higher gas prices by using less.  They adapt to cooler weather by putting on a sweater.

The libs think we should eat less anyway, by regulating the evil fast food industry. Hey, you can drink tap water instead of a $2.00 bottle of water.

Give people credit that they can adapt much better then the libs think we can without their intervention.  Do they know how to spend your money better then you?

Answer 10

Of course it's not infinite, but we have enough to last for years down the road.  Why wouldn't we use it?  We have the infrastructure, we have the oil in the ground, so we should go get it.  If oil continues to get more expensive, which it may or may not (there has been speculation both ways), the market will find viable solutions.  Getting government involved to force unnecessary mandates, which is obviously what you're advocating, only creates an inefficient, more expensive product in which the cost is passed to the consumer.  If people begin demanding bio-diesel, the market will provide if allowed to be undisturbed.  It doesn't need government twisting their arm forcing them to do something that they'll do on their own when it's benefits outweigh the costs.  And as for your droughts, coastal flooding, food shortages (which right now are a result of bad government policy by interfering), that's nothing more than part of the alarmist, propagana machine, Chicken Little.

Answer 11

Do you really think that if everyone stopped burning fossil fuels the world would stop warming?  I mean we would all still be burping and farting which in your eyes causes global warming.  Or would you outlaw farting after we have no lights, hot water or cars?

Answer 12

Who says we can't adapt.  It costs us plenty but we will survive.  If alarmists (i.e socialists) have their way, those costs are just the beginning.  Leftists seem to enjoy pain at the pump and high fuel prices.  Obama's solution is to fill your tires.  What this country needs is to oppose radical environmentalism.  It is not a solution.  It is the problem.

Answer 13

I don't see why you don't see the adaption to higher gas prices occurring. I see it everywhere I look, starting with commercials for more fuel efficient vehicles, people putting their SUVs up for sell, riding bicycles to work, etc etc. Adaptions and change don't happen overnight, so if you were expecting everyone to buy a new car, ride a bike or whatever, that isn't going to happen, since not everyone can just afford to change the vehicle their driving or even have a viable alternative to get to work.

Also drilling for more oil is the answer for high gas prices, since it doesn't just effect the price we pay at the pump it effects everything that is dependent on some sort of transportation to get it to market. Even if it's just a local farmers market.

So it's wrong to expect everyone to just suck it up and accept paying $4.00 a gallon. Especially, when there's more to high gas prices than supply and demand.

Answer 14

What alternative fuel is there that doesn't produce as much CO2 as gasoline? Ethanol? Ethanol produces as much CO2 when burned as gasoline so that's not the answer.

The solution isnt to drill for more oil. The solution is to move completely away from oil.

There are two ways we can do that as a country. The first solution would be a mandatory switch to hydrogen powered cars. The hydrogen would have to be produced by building a large solar power plant and having its entire output used to make hydrogen.

The second solution is much easier, but does nothing about CO2 emissions. Coal to liquid fuel. I personally think this is a good middle step that can be taken while we perfect hydrogen powered vehicles. It will coast about 5 billion to build the plants that produce liquid fuel from coal. The upside is that it costs $0.43 per gallon to make and would have a pump price of about $0.73 per gallon.

Both of those solutions remove the US from the worlds oil problem and allow all of the money that we spend on gasoline to stay inside the US.

Answer 15

You see humans in such a negative sense, they have adapted to the higher prices and now the prices are starting to drop.  Our family and friends are traveling less people have bought different vehicles to get better mileage, and those in my family  who still log have cut down to a four day work week to save on gas,and utilze their time better while at work.  People will adapt without government control or policies based upon the need to do so, unfortunately it usually is the working class that is forced to adpat the rich in our area liberal or conservative have not change behavior or habits one bit.  I would like to see them change but it is thier choice.    

Answer 16

$4/gallon gasoline is not a minimal challenge - it's a doubling in the price of a commodity central to our economy, in 18 months.

And I might add a completely avoidable doubling.  

Unlike global warming we could bring oil and gasoline prices back very quickly by raising the federal funds rate.

A 200 bps increase would bring light sweet crude below $80 and gasoline to the low $2 range.

This is an asset bubble, just like housing.

The Fed pricks asset bubbles, then drops rates again to "come to the rescue" and that fuels more asset bubbles.

We had NASDAQ, housing, now oil.

Answer 17

Gas prices have more than tripled in the last 10 years.  Global temperatures have dropped over the same period.  I'm pretty sure the global "warming" has to show up before we have to worry about adapting to it.

Edit:  If you don't believe we're adapting to higher gas prices, check out GM's latest sales figures which were just released to the public....truck and SUV sales have plummeted this quarter.

Answer 18

One of the better questions asked from a 'alarmist'. Think simple...local infrastructure has to occur first. Our society nor municipal governments is geared for that. Most people have to drive for a 2mile trip when a foot or bike path would serve the same purpose. Some of the older townships still have this...what happen? It isn't a matter of adaptation(driving) for the individual but more a matter of necessity. There are many other examples.

Again I will state the obvious: It doesn't really pertain to GW, just common sense and practical usage of resources.

Answer 19

The last energy crisis occured in the 70's and as a result autmotive fuel effeciency doubled by the mid to late 80's. As a result it drove the price of oil down to record low levels during the 90's. The Clinton administration did nothing during that period while auto manufacturers began to build larger and more prowerful vehicles, if anything they attempted to drive the price of oil lower (buy selling off the strategic reserve) and prolong this epoch of consumer automobiles. But we are adapting, that is why GM and Ford are losing vast sum's of money, because people are buying more fuel effecient vehicles, it takes time.

Answer 20

There already is serious action on fuel prices, people who buy new vehicles are starting to care how much fuel they use and those who drive gas guzzlers are switching to use public transport (when it exists) because that's all they can afford.

Answer 21

The "solution" to global warming is to rise the price of oil even more.  So if we cannot adopt to the rising fuel prices know, how are we going to adopt to even higher fuel prices?

Answer 22

People need crisis to change. Global warming happens too slowly to create a sense of urgency. Even when hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather are clearly increasing, people continue to make fun of anyone who ties this into GW. That's why I like the parable of the slow boiling frog. Slowly increasing the heat doesn't get any action.

Answer 23

Like adaptations in the wild it takes more than a couple months.  You seem to believe that the change will come quickly.  Like most major changes it may or may not happen over time.  The comparsion of adapting to global warming and gas prices is a bit of a stretch.

Answer 24

Your premise is wrong.  People are adapting to higher oil prices. They are driving less  It will take time to permanetly change habits.  

Gas prices are double our prices in U.K. and in most of Europe and people have adapted.  They drive smaller cars.  They rely more on public transportation.  The tend to live in smaller houses. If oil prices stay high, we will see permanent changes in this country