Global Warming...dilemma?

Question

ok so what dilemma could i propose in my global warming project...conflicts...

ok...i think that we can view burning fossil fuels as a dilemma...

i think that it should be: whether people are willing to stop from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil

or not...this is the main issue that contributes the most in global warming, the side that is not willing to stop burning the fuel has the fact- its an energy source - on its side and the people who are willing to give up that source have to find an alternative or something like that...

help if you have any other ideas

Answer 1

Holster - perhaps you could help humanity if you understood what you're talking about, because when someone opens their mouth before being informed they're doing a disservice to others.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007...

Humans spew over 100 times the amount of CO2 volcanoes do.

Answer 2

the common dilemma given is third world development versus fuel use. the developed nations have used their 'share' of fossil fuels already, its the developing world's turn now.

obviously no gov. of developed county is going to admit this, so the fairest thing i have seen is the 'contraction and convergence' idea, its going to be hard enough to get them to consider that....

people gov and business of developed nations are going to have to take global responsibility for their actions, but any idea of 'blame' instantly creates resistance.

so, to me, the main dilemma is that we have to find a way to make the changes in attitude palatable, fast.

Answer 3

Considering 80% of our impending climate change is due to natural solar cycles and Earth orbit eccentricities (proven by Mackovich Earth orbit and Vostok ice core studies), and it has taken over 200 years of industrial pollution to create our share of it (about 20%)… no short term action will have any immediate effect.  In theory, if we immediately stopped using Co2 producing energy sources, we could expect to see a reversal of our contribution (that’s only 20% remember) to climate change within 100 to 150 years.  

I will remind you of the Chicken Little’s a few years back that forecast an end to life on earth if we didn’t do something about the ozone holes at the poles… we stopped using flouocarbon aerosols in spray-cans (a decidedly symbolic gesture) and voila, the ozone hole problem was solved (but the ozone holes are still there, unchanged, because they are now known to be a natural phenomenon due to the earths magnetic field).    

The interesting part of this climate change scenario is the total lack of any meaningful action.  Predictions are grim, we could be facing global extinction of Homo Sapiens within 200-500 years, but all the politicians are doing is jockeying for power.  

The truth is, if we immediately cut back fossil fuel use world wide by 10% it would plunge the world into political chaos, millions starving in first few years.  It was studied years ago what would be the outcome if the population of China added one egg a day to their diet.  The answer surprised most people…. To add one egg a day, the additional number of chickens would consume all the grain currently produced daily, worldwide.  Back to the drawing board… There are no simple answers.

Answer 4

I personally do not see a dilemma.

Since 'Global warming and cooling' are natural events which have nothing to do with man-made activities, there is nothing that man can do to either slow it down or speed it up!

Especially since CO2 is not a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas'!

Some very simple facts to consider:

1) Our environment is much cleaner now than it was even 50 years ago.(that isn't to say that we still don't have room for some improvement)

2)The arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant, and stupid people who are perpetuating  this myth about 'Global Warming', being caused by the burning of fossil fuels, are not only incapable of understanding basic science, but are unable to come up with a viable alternative!

At this point in time the only viable alternative that I can see, and promote, is nuclear power!

This sends shivers, up most people's spines, because they do not understand the science and the word 'nuclear' congers up all sorts of bad images in their minds!

I want to see us get away from the use of fossil fuels as quickly as we can for two major reasons.(Neither to do with 'Global Warming'!

1)Fossil fuels are a limited resource, and will eventually run out or become so expensive to harness that it will no longer be viable.( this could be 500 to 5,000 years from now)

2)Removing our countries reliance on foreign energy markets

and becoming more self-sufficient makes sense.

By turning the tide from foreign dependence to self dependence, would not only add stability to the economy, but would also reduce future threats to rapid energy price increases at the whim of the OPEC!

I know that this sounds a bit radical to many people, but it really is the only way forward.(at least in the short term)

I see that Richard doesn't require any scientific facts, yet that isn't going to stop him from 'spouting off his mis-guided opinions either!

Answer 5

deforestation is also big.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

as is desertification because of irresponsible mono culture farming.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 6

The delima I see is one the environmental lobby has always had with nuclear energy.  It is apparently very clean with virtually no emmissions and we believe we can concentrate the waste and store it for 100 thousand years in a geologicaly stable formation - no problems.  Trouble is we don't have a lot of experience storing things for 100 thousand years, and we'd need a time machine to make sure that our theories worked.

Answer 7

How about you research Mt. Saint Helen and Krakatoa and find out how much more pollution they put out compared to all the pollution mankind in all our existence have produced, then you will disprove global warming and prove that climate change is 100% natural and there is nothing we can do about it.

Richard- Maybe you should do some research as well.

CO2 is not the most dangerous substance expelled from volcanoes.

Volcanoes by far have polluted the earth more than humans.

Answer 8

what "right" do third world countries have to emit CO2? should they be expected to make the same drastic cuts as the developed world? or should is there a fairer way to devide up our atmosphere? eg basing allowed emissions on population or land mass.