What are the ups and downs to slowing down global warming?

Question

if we slow down global warming now what are the short term positives and short term negatives

also i want to know the long term positives and long term negatives

Answer 1

Short term may be the period when we are making a frantic dash to cut emissions by 80% before 2020.

We would have everyone working 16 hour days converting off fossil fuels, building things to provide our energy without oil and coal.

Now all that economic activity might take away resources so that we could not be so involved in war round the world. But we would also spend a lot less on traveling all over. Yes, we would have to spend less on fuels because we would be working to conserve those fuels, our vehicles would have been on blocks for a decade. The planes will be in use only for emergencies.

Mostly we would travel electronically.

Because we are walking or biking to work, we are a lot better shape.

Wages and salaries may have readjusted.

Long term:

If we stop producing say 80% of ghg EMISSIONS we still have a long time, over a century, before our atmosphere reverts to pre-warming levels of GHG,  During that time temperature has continued to rise, so we have a lot more water vapor in the air (a ghg) SO THAT  at the end of a century our global average temp will still be edging up a bit.

This period may see large scale release of methane from arctic deposits because the arctic is thawing out. Yet people are moving into the arctic areas to farm. Some die from the methane. In the great dry areas of the world many people have long since abandoned the attempt to grow food there, others are pumping water from great rivers to retain food production.

We are in the beginning of the hot period, having somewhat slowed but failed to stop global warming. Now we look forward to probably 300 years with warm weather, the first 200 0f those years characterized by drought and flood, transitioning to more widespread rain.

But life is precarious. we know that the oceans are warming up with all that clear sky weather.

We know that when the oceans reach a high point, we will go into global dimming, cooling sharply, and so into a major ice age.

The ice age will not be a result of slowing global warming, so much as a result of failing to slow it soon enough.

If anything has changed because we have contributed less to global warming it may be that it will be longer before the start of global dimming.

The world's population now adjusts to a rush of people from the poles back to more moderate climes. But now they will have lots of water (ice) to irrigate their crops.

Answer 2

Short term

Positive: We'd be off pollutants, and the air would be cleaner to breathe.

Negatives: Who likes cold winters?

Long term

Positive: We'd still be off pollutants. We won't have to worry about flooding cities.

Negatives: If the process is reversed, we'll start worrying about an impeding Ice Age! (During one Ice Age in the recent geologic past, everything north of Kansas was covered with glaciers.)

Answer 3

On economic terms it would mean lesser WORLD GDP, lesser economies. And more poverty. lol.

We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." -Bill clinton

pretty obvious isn't it? plus doing what they say is carbon tax something means more payments for the citizens, right? So, where do you think they would get that extra money? (With the rising of Oil Prices) LOL. That would certainly put poorer countries in a bad shape.

The Kyoto Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. This was originally agreed in the UNFCCC. (what do you think?)

A user comment I find intriguing: (http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.p...

                     "If you're going to draft a resolution to address the environment, do it right. The Kyoto accords were a rather transparent attempt at leveling the playing field between the established industrialized countries and those that want to catch up. Kyoto would put curbs on the U.S. for instance, but exempt other major polluters like Brazil, India, and China. If the world wants to get serious about the environment, everyone has to play along .. no freebies."

Answer 4

well i'll tell you the negatives up front, the costs, the room, inefficiancy. But try to prove it's right first to all the skeptics inclueding me first that is what your short term goal should be.

Answer 5

I'll answer from teh perspective of currently implemented treaties (Kyoto) and pending proposals (U.S. carbon tax)

Short term negatives: Job loss and widespread financial impacts in developed countries as these costs make developing countries even more competitive, made worse as these costs hit just as gas, food and transportation costs are moving much higher.

Short term positives: If you're in a rich family in a developing nation, your businesses are going to thrive.

Long term positives: Unclear unless developing nations, with 50% of carbon emissions today, commit to reduce their emisions as well.

Long term negatives:  If we spend our resources unwisely now, we may not have enough reserves to handle the effects coming our way (natural disasters,etc).