Would you support intitiatives to cut co2 emissions by 50%?

Question

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has stated that the world would need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by more than 50 percent to avoid warming the planet by 2 degrees Celsius, a level at which substantial disruptions would take place.’ Since developing countries like China and India do not have cut their emissions, that means industrial countries have to take up the slack, and cut our emissions by 70-80%. How many believers of AGW would support such a move.

Answer 1

No...

It is very interesting that no thought is given to what would happen to the environment IF we reduced co2 by 50%...

Right now the devoloping nations of the world are nearly h**l bent on developing energy sources that will bring their people into the modern world. IF you stop this they will still be in poverty cutting every tree down to heat and cook. No power hungry inferstructure will be built..IE.. sewer treatment, water supplies, healthcare, and education. If you mean to deprive the 3rd world of those things that make for a civilizied world.. than you need to reavaluate your thinking

I do not buy that CO2 is the main culprit to GW. Most new research points to solar changes as the main cause.

Ok...Gengi  .. Try the first link...In the article there are links to several studies. I hope you read them..Might open your mind to other possibilities.

The idea that there is a definite answer to GW is silly.

Ok Bob you found an article that says solar is not responsible. But for every article you find I can find others with the opposite conclusion. My point is that human caused GW is nowhere near settled.

Hence a 50% reduction in co2 is probably going to help little and in fact will most likely hurt people in developing nations.  The link below is a great counter to much that is popluar.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OI...

The conclusion of this link makes it pretty clear that co2 reduction will have little effect on GW.

Answer 2

h**l no.

Answer 3

No, that's regression.

To keep growing we need more energy.  At the moment oil and coal are our best choices.  Nuclear is good too, but until someone finds alternatives for oil, we should be working on finding more to supply our needs.

We can't go back to horse and buggy days just because some people think we're making the earth warmer but have no proof of these claims.

Answer 4

Absolutely. They are better off living low tech until we can implement renewable energy properly - the down side outways everything.

Answer 5

Only if I knew that we would replace the fossil fuel by nuclear power.  Otherwise, I'll go ahead and take the 2 degree hit and whatever it consequences are.  The US population is never going backwards to the pre 20th century lifestyles that would result from a non nuclear 70% reduction no matter how much these Greenshirts jump up and down about it in internet forums.

Answer 6

50% of all ghg's created in this country are from power generation.

If the gvmt puts nuclear power on a fast track we can get old coal plants off the grid in less than 10 years.

However the people who complain most about global warming are the ones complaining about using nuclear power.

Answer 7

I would support an act that cut carbon by 75% something like California's AB32. Humans have to use solar, wind and small hydro electric. Humans have to be charged for pollution.

Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 8

Yes, coal firing generators can be converted by plasma enhanced melters but the costs may be quite high. China to my knowledge is looking at the possibilities for this technology.

Answer 9

First of all, any new treaty must include emission caps on China and India.  I believe that's widely understood.

Second, the issue is timeframe.  I support 50%, but not tomorrow.

Here's a detailed plan specifying not only cuts, but the timeframe over which they would be phased in.  It was developed by hundreds of scientists and economists, and is practical, affordable, and adequate to do the job.

It will cost FAR less than unchecked global warming would, making it very cost effective.

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

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

By the way, the idea that "most" new research supports solar radiation as a cause is nonsense.  There have been some highly speculative papers, but the data clearly shows they're wrong.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

Answer 10

I like to check sources because often you find contradictions or obvious biases.

AGU's position on Global warming:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

The statement was drafted by Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel.

John R. Christy is a climate scientist whose chief interests are global climate change, satellite sensing of global climate, and paleoclimate.

More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said:

    * "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation."

    * Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

Answer 11

yes

developing countries have actually agreed to make cuts as well as developed countries. the question is weather America will get on board. they have been the main problem in dealing with global warming.

the costs of dealing with GW will be far less then not dealing with it. according to the Stern Review, a worst case scenario will lead to a 20% reduction in global GDP, but it will cost 1% of GDP to act now.

ImpStout could you please link some of the peer reviewed studys/reaserch you are referring to.

Answer 12

I think Global warming is a political farce so no I wouldn't support anything that was based on making the money it was created to reap

Answer 13

For a big enough carbon rebate check I will agree to breath only half as much .

Answer 14

DISCOVER magazine, Oct 1989, pg. 47. In part, it reads:

On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Answer 15

No.  First because I don't believe it would have any effect on global temperatures.  Second, it would have a devastating effect on our standard of living.  Throwing us back into a pre-industrial age level of existance.

Answer 16

I would have to know the cost first.