What's the best approach to deal with AGW?

Question

Voluntary reduction of carbon energy utilization (e.g. conservation)?

Carbon trading (slowly pricing carbon-based energy out)?

Mandatory reduction of carbon energy utilization (e.g. laws requiring cars to get 60 mpg, home-insulation improvements, etc.)

Technological breakthroughs in new forms of energy that will compete on the open market to replace carbon-based energy?

Or a method to extract carbon from the atmosphere?

I've long thought this might be the best approach, and this story gives me hope in that area:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080307191300.htm

Answer 1

enjoy it while it lasts, we will have to burn a lot more fossil fuel to keep warm if it stops.

Answer 2

Sit b back and watch the whole thing go away in about 2 years.

Answer 3

AGW doesn't exist.

Now move along and go about your daily lives....

Answer 4

Since it's not real and there are no scientific studies that prove humans cause global warming, we should just ignore it.

If you really believe it you would turn off your computer for the rest of your life, quit using oil and carbon products and also quit breathing out.

I doubt you'll do any of that, so quit telling us to pay for your beliefs.

You say you're a non-theist.  I say your religion is AGW.  Quit preaching your religion.  We're not interested in joining this fascist religion.

Answer 5

Prevention is not going to work.  I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the AGW crowd focuses exclusively preventing global warming through GHG emissions reduction.  

If the globe is warming, it will continue to warm for several decades.  This will occur regardless of GHG emissions reductions in the next couple of decades.

The proper approach would be mitigating the problems that will arise in the future.  

In areas of predicted sea level rise, low lying areas need to start thinking of building dikes and flood control devices.  

Places that are predicted to experience more extreme weather need to implement building codes to better match the power of storms predicted.

Agricultural growing zones need to be closely monitored so that crops can be planted in the proper conditions so that food shortages don't occur.

I think you get the drift of what i am saying, mitigation not prevention is the better way to go.

Answer 6

while i don't think there is one "best" approach, i think that, "Mandatory reduction of carbon energy utilization (e.g. laws requiring cars to get 60 mpg, home-insulation improvements, etc.)"  is both doable, (after Bush exits) and would provide the greatest improvement in the shortest time.

you'd also have to have an increasing tax on older vehicles that don't meet the standard.

i think that, although i worry about them, far more nuclear plants will be required.

there's a lot of talk about fusion energy, but someone said, "Fusion is the power source of the future -- and always will be."

because containing a 10 million degree reaction is not at all simple.

wind, solar, hydro, etc are all good, but i think that only fission provides the quantity of energy that our society uses.

CFL bulbs, energy-star appliances, etc are all good.  and do, and will make a difference.  but not nearly enough.

i'm very skeptical of carbon sequestration.

i remember Denver's attempt to dispose of it's sewage by pumping it down deep wells, which caused earthquakes.

when they stopped, so did the quakes.

there is, of course, talk of pumping it underwater.

now if one could form CO2 balls, like methane balls, maybe.

however, if something disturbs them, then there's a rush back into the atmosphere.

it's about time we faced the need to stop producing CO2.

that's the answer.

i did read your article, and it seems to separate CO2 similarly to the way we get hydrogen from water.  (different physics, same idea.)  which means that it's reusing carbon, just as hydrogen would be reused.  i generally classify this as "what means will we use to transfer energy to cars in the future"?  carbon has the significant advantage over hydrogen in that it's far less volatile, and therefore safer to handle.  not to mention that all our gas stations would still be useful.

btw, a few days ago, you posted several very good links, which i saved, and have reposted, and given you credit for.

thanks.

Answer 7

Conservation and energy efficiency measures are a good starting point, but are ultimately as inadequate as the "duck and cover" film from the cold war era in response to a nuclear attack.  

Solar energy in various forms is the best long term alternative.  

The US could theoretically satisfy its transportation fuel requirements with algae cultivation on approximately 15,000 sq miles for a capital cost on the order of $308.billion.    

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_...

The advantages of this approach are:

1.  the fuel can be used in the current fleet of diesel vehicles.

2.  the existing fuel distribution network can be used

3.  the estimated cost of producing 140.8 billion gallons annually is $46.2 billion or about $0.33 per gallon.  

A mixture of photo voltaic and photo thermal energy could supply all of the electrical energy requirements of the US for an investment on the order of $400 billion.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

The plan is cost competitive with coal power plants and has the principle advantages of being renewable and non-polluting.

Neither power scheme is a net contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Wind and wave energy projects should be developed where ever feasible.  

  

The source cited is apparently a photo catalysis method for converting carbon dioxide to a reduced form, ergo an artificial plant. Although the process looks feasible in principle, I think that nature is far ahead in the photosynthesis business.

Funding: I think that a tariff on imported energy should be enacted to encourage all forms of domestic energy production. The proceeds of the tariff should be used to build renewable biodiesel and solar energy projects.  Domestic oil production would benefit indirectly and would displace some imports in the short term.

Answer 8

Why does "BUSH" enter into discussions on GW?  If this ONE guy is so powerful that he can change the course of the US Economy, Control Global Oil Prices, Affect the Weather, and put children and old folks out on the street!--- then let's fire all those useless politicians in Congress that actually write our laws and dole out the money----- and let one person run it all!

Bush has absolutely nothing to do with any discussions on this forum--- our with GW pros or cons.

Answer 9

First enact a carbon cap and trade system (already proposed by Lieberman and Warner) which will both put a limit on the amount of CO2 released by industry and create a money source (auctioning or selling the credits to begin with) to put towards green technologies.

Increase government investment in green technology at least tenfold from $3 billion per year to $30-80 billion per year.  This will both aid in the rapid development of low-carbon technologies and also provide subsidies to make them affordable, which will allow more people to buy them, and the high volume will allow the prices of the new technology to go down.

Answer 10

Point and laugh at everyone who is mentally vacant enough to think human behavior is changing the weather!

Answer 11

I'm all for increased mpg's,but carbon based compounds will never disappear.It's in everything from metal,lubricants, and paint.Not to mention organic life forms.

Basically the only insight I got from extraction,is massive carbon dumps.You know of course,that molecules work on the same principle as energy. All they are doing,  is the same thing nature does.So it's not a viable solution,unless they can make a carbon atom transform into something else.

Answer 12

Tidal power, hydroelectric dams, clean cars, offshore wind turbines, appliances no longer sold with standby buttons but must be turned off at the mains, flights only allowed in holiday seasons. I still don't think that reducing 60% of our 5% of the amount of CO2 in the atmoshere can make a difference, because it's 5% of 0.0038% of the atmosphere, which is nothing.

Answer 13

Reduce human population down to about two billion people by each couple having only one child.  That will reduce the human contribution.  Of course, other species will move in and take up the slack.

Time will tell if there is any overall difference.  The current neo- Marxist eco-bigots assume most human-generated greenhouse gasses comes from industry.  I suspect a lot comes from both ends of people and their livestock, and land usage in the non-industrial world.

Answer 14

Add a carbon tax to products at the point of sale.  This will incent the market to reduce carbon impact of products.