Is there any point in cutting CO2?

Question

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock So there's been a bit of discussion about this recently, but if this guy's as amazing as Bob seems to think he is, and Lovelock's right, what's the point? He says it's hopeless.

Answer 1

Whether for CO2 reasons or not, pollution of other toxic gases or just because taking less (because we really don't need so much) so that others can have more is the moral thing to do anyway.

Live simply so others may simply live.

Answer 2

When will people get it into their heads. Earth is warming up because the planet is still emerging from the last ice age. I've read all the arguments, 199? was the warmest year ever since records began etc. Accurate temperature recording has been taking place for probably only 300 years, how old is the planet????????

There is no case to answer.

Answer 3

This is the type of stuff we need to see to make the changes that are required to solve GW. CO2 is only half the problem. we must clean up the atmosphere. Will we is the Q!

Answer 4

Must reading for all the skeptics out there if Lovelock is even a little bit right like 10% well you do the math. I don't think its hopeless myself but its a very real issue, and theres certainly nothing wrong with cutting Co2 emissions.

Answer 5

At best, man has added 100ppm (parts per million) of co2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years.

That's just 1 molecule of co2 for every million other molecules of air per year.  

And all this fuss, all this panic is just about 1 molecule of co2.  - Imagine!

Answer 6

Yes. To prevent the ozone layer from depleting.

Answer 7

CO2 is the only one part of complex problem, resulted of uncontrolled «Progress», and can not be solved by itself, or without correcting and restoring all organism as a whole. Just like in medicine treating each body part separately!

That why always amazes me to hear those bullheads, just flatly denying humans’ abilities to s***w up anything they touched! They own greed takes over the reasoning, or the ratio of their brain mass to the body is exceptionally minuscule! What ever the reason they say: «It is them, not us», «It is the way the world turns! »

Yes, Earth, as all in the Universe goes through cycles. That is expected! But, unless it changes gradually, over the Centuries, all involved will NOT be able to adapt and will die out, but not before suffering extendedly!

It is Not 1 or 2 degrees yearly average rise make the difference (funny, how «math wizards» can spin and change your thinking), but 20 or 30 degrees day to night, or day to day spread, with tornadoes and other calamities from it! Nor it appealing to me to chock to death from pollution, or poisoned slowly by GM or other altered foods, so some could exploit my suffering and beyond!

  I do not believe that Nature would miss us very much if we would get instinct, but will take every living thing down with us! Although dying is not an absolute worst for me! I just do not want to suffer! Especially because of Greed of some and Stupidity of others! For them is impossible to apprehend this concept, usually they also think that World revolves around them, not the Sun, and Evolution was not responsible for their creation!

For them I could only say:  ÃƒÂ‚«Looks like Evolution had passed you by! »

Answer 8

to slow down and lessen the effects of global warming. Also, to make its last a smaller amount of time.

Answer 9

He's only one guy, however impressive.  One guy can always be wrong.  I was responding to a question in which someone completely unqualified to do so, ridiculed his views as unworthy of consideration.  That was completely out of line.  Lovelock is far more qualified and far more likely to be right than the guy who asked the question ridiculing him.

Still the consensus view of thousands of scientists is that we can do ourselves a lot of good by reducing greenhouse gases.  We'll not totally avoid global warming, but we'll avoid the worst of the impacts.  Large groups like that have a way of coming to better decisions.  Which is why most all world leaders are of that opinion.

The bottom line is that we have to place a bet on a course of action, and cannot be absolutely certain of the outcome.  Betting that thousands of global warming scientists are wrong, and the few "skeptics" right, would be insanity.  The chances of winning that bet are small, and if we lose, we lose big.  Betting that Lovelock is right, and global warming scientists wrong, doesn't seem useful.  No way to win.

So, the best bet (by far) is to reduce greenhouse gases.  Most likely that will do us a whole lot of good.  Here's the plan:

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

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

By the way, it seems to me that much of Lovelock's pessimism is due to his doubt that the world will unite to take serious action.  I can't say that pessimism is unjustified.

Answer 10

Hey, I'm retarded too...  Will somebody kill me so I don't have to do it myself?  Please!

Answer 11

nothing is hopeless we have to try .what will happen if we dont think off the kids its there future not ours we will be long gone  and forgotten they are left with the problems we have made for them.

Answer 12

'Scuse me while I turn up my central heating 2 degrees, doesn't seem to matter.

Answer 13

I dont think so

Answer 14

The highest percentage of greenhouse gases and consequent damage to the ozone layer originate in the third world. Anything we in the UK do is a drop in the ocean by comparison. The whole global warming issue has been overblown and a huge money making industry now exists which benefits from perpetuating the scare mongering.

Answer 15

The present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing major changes in climate and our environment.  But we won't change anything by not leaving our TVs on standby or by using fluorescent lamp bulbs.  Most of the carbon gases in the atmosphere are from animal origin and we can only cut them if we all stop breathing.

We can reverse climate change if we plant enough trees.  It would need about three times as much of the Earth's surface to be covered in forest as we have now.  That would cost huge amounts of money - nearly as much as the US adventures in the Middle East has cost.  And it would require the kind of international cooperation we can only expect when it's too late.

Answer 16

Yea and the experts told me my son wouldn't play sports and guess what he plays sports.  Experts lack in the most important area of life. Hope

Answer 17

LOL...of course he can predict the end of the world by 2020, he's 88 years old!!  He won't have to admit he was wrong 12 years later unless he makes it to 100....what a joker!

Edit (Luke above):  If he is 10% right, do the math??  What??  

You mean instead of starving, people miss one meal in ten?  SO, if the IPPC is 10% right, the Earth only warmed 0.1 degree, and man is 3% responsible for that!  I don't think you want me to do the math...