"I think right now people are concerned about their pocketbooks given the current economic status. People are going to frown on any additional taxes, regulations that may incur due to programs created to "fight" global warming."
I was wondering how many people believed that the current economic troubles outweigh the environmental problems we face today? What would you tell someone who thought that the economy was a bigger problem than global warming?In your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?Ignoring the environmental systems we depend on is like eating the seed corn. Once you do that you're done. If the choice is between starving or eating the seed corn, something or someone is going to be sacrificed so that the next generation can survive. Has happened many times in the past, as it will happen again.
All economic activity is dependent on a functioning biosphere, so IMHO current economic conditions are irrelevant. We can only argue about the economy so long as we got one. Once we destroy the environment, as soon as resources are gone, the economy is done and so are we.
The current economy is a giant Ponzi scheme based on the future value of resources. Once it becomes clear to the world that we are running out of these resources, the 200 year bubble that started with the introduction of fossil fuels will burst and we will go into permanent economic decline 鈥?unless and until we redesign our civilization on sustainable principles.
Endless "economic growth" is biggest fallacy ever perpetrated. The world is finite. We need to limit our per capita consumption and ultimately our population - or the Earth will do so for us.
The "I place my fate in the hand of God" theists and their direct descendents, the cornucopian economists, are the real threat.
We have only one problem - how to get to sustainability before we've destroyed the biosphere beyond recovery.In your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?
i would tell them they are correctIn your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?I would tell them that they are absolutely right that the economy is a far greater issue. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming can't be proven and has very serious questions. How much sense does it make to bankrupt the economy over an unproven theory? Also look at what would happen if we stopped using all fossil fuels today. We wouldn't have the energy for the medical technologies that save and extend human life. Millions of people globally starve to death today and without the energy needed for farming we would see those numbers rise to hundreds of millions of lives lost to starvation. We would loose the ability to power the very science that improves our lives. What sane person would want to do that?In your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?
i would tell them their discount was set way too high.
out of sight out of mind.... future people and far off people dont have votes and wallets here and now.
jim, do you understand discounting?In your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?Littlerobber girl says:
future people and far off people dont have votes and wallets here and now.
Wrong!!!
We are taking money out of the wallets of future people right now by spending money the government doesn't have to the tune of trillion plus deficits per year. Growth of government is a far bigger problem than possible moderation of climate temperatures.
I would tell them that if we can't control global warming, they won't have to worry about their money on a non-eixstence planet anymore.In your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?
Environmental problems are a far greater threat. Not just global warming but also ocean acidification, availability of fresh water, overfishing, etc.
The economy is a relatively minor concern. It's a problem right now, but one which will be corrected sooner or later. In fact, doing things like investing in green infrastructure will help solve both problems by reducing our environmental impact and also creating jobs. Fortunately the soon-to-be-US president realizes this.
Bottom line is that economic problems come and go, but we've only got one environment. If we screw it up, it could take ages to correct the problem, and will also impact the economy.
Jim says that by spending money on the environment we're taking money out of the hands of future generations. A British study concluded that failing to address global warming could end up costing us 5-20% of global GDP every year. Talk about taking money out of the hands of future generations!
Whether or not you believe in global warming or to what extent man made carbon emissions play in it. Other factors are more than reason enough for the US to pursue a comprehensive energy policy focused on clean renewable technologies. Not least of which is it will take the money we are currently sending to the middle east for oil and keep it here at home to build wind mills, solar panels, electric cars and update the power grid that will not only give us the energy independence we desire but also create jobs and revenue here at home. Plus we won't have to fund our army as well as our enemies.In your opinion, what is the bigger threat today?
north pole now has ice levels equal to 1979
record cold winter (2 in a row now cold)
solar minimum (better look it up)
el nino shift (colder currents in north pacific)
yep sounds like time to spend trillions
the government and carbon credit investors can use the money
credits do not stop co2 from going it the air you just pay more in heating costs and manufacturing costs
china can use the work
better get the money while they can still claim its warming
few more years of it and they will not able to soak you the cash
they have alot of money invested in collecting your carbon credit cash
The biggest threat of today's world is Global warming. This is now considered as global warning.
the economy and then restoring the nuclear program and the space resources program. When warming possibly returns in 70 years our science will then be able to deal with it if needed.
First of all, global warming is not a true environmental problem. It was created from fantasy by the political left to further their agenda. That's the main reason people are against paying anything to try to fight it, the money only goes to the socialists.
The world's economic trouble is a genuine problem that needs to be dealt with so I'm sure without doubt that people are more concerned about it.
Economics are a far more serious problem than global warming...Who do you want to pay for fighting global warming ?...The poor ??
The economy seems to have everyone in a panic, but why not fix the economy through the environment?
For example, I live in Nova Scotia. The province is surrounded by ocean, but relies on coal for its main means of production. With the economy, I'm sure the province will take a hit due to a declining American economy (not that the economy here is good, we're hurting too)... so less American tourists.
With a constant sea breeze, why not build power generating windmills? It will employ lots of people, thus giving people the money to spend on the economy.
If we work with the environment and we will profit.
global warming is the biggest threat today, but the economic crisis is perishing!
They're both big threats, but they can be fought with the exact same solution.
Implementing a tax that is 100% refunded to lower than average consumers discourages counterproductive activities while providing an economic stimulus (direct rebate to the 80 to 90% of the population that has lower than average consumption, which increases overall participation in the economy).
The U.S. economy will further benefit as oil imports are discouraged, and as production overseas is discouraged, and jobs start to return for the 15% of our workforce that is currently unemployed. As the trade defecit shrinks, the currency strengthens, further boosting the country's wealth and economy.
we should not let monetary problems slow us in our sacred march to save our mother planet.
it may be necessary to shut down all industry %26amp; power production temporarily %26amp; this may cause minor inconveniences for those who are not properly prepared.
but it is sometimes unavoidable that a few ignorant groups should suffer for the greater good of all of us.
remember were doing it for the children of the future.
seig heil for the mother planet!
Paradoxically, some people in my circle think that the root cause of the economic problems will make the climate issue moot.聽 This requires explaining, so prepare for a bit of a read.
The immediate cause of the credit crisis was the third oil price shock (the other two were in the 70's), which was different from the first two:聽 instead of being due to political considerations holding supply off the market, the third shock came when almost all oil producers [1] were pumping flat-out.聽 The problem is that oil discoveries peaked in the 1960's; the world followed the "best first" principle of drilling the oil that was found, and the majority of world oil fields are past their peak production and declining.聽 North Sea, Cantarell, Burgan... the world had seven "supergiant" fields pumping more than 1 million bbl/day, and the only question was whether 6/7 were in decline, or 7/7.
The result of this was that more and more demand chased less oil, prices went through the roof, the $10 billion/day bill sucked all the credit out of the system, and people and enterprises started going bankrupt.聽 As they went out of business (or just couldn't get credit) they stopped buying so much oil.聽 As demand fell below supply again the price crashed, but the credit system is now falling apart and demand continues to fall.聽 OPEC is trying to cut production to raise prices again, which will unwind the credit system further (if that's possible).
What does this have to do with the climate?
IPCC projections of future CO2 levels assume a certain rate of oil production.聽 Those projections are almost certainly too high, so there will be much less CO2 from oil.聽 Coal is another matter, but the entire world has followed the "best first" principle of mining coal deposits as well.聽 Remaining coal deposits are deeper, thinner and lower quality, and less worth digging if they are economically recoverable at all [2].
If there simply is not enough economically recoverable fossil carbon to threaten the global climate [3], the point is moot.聽 We should be trying to address the problem of lack of energy rather than spending large amounts of now-scarce capital on carbon-capture machinery and the reduced system efficiency to run it.
IMHO, this isn't that big of a deal, as quite a few of the correct responses are identical for both scenarios.聽 Wind farms emit no carbon and need no fuel.聽 Plug-in hybrid vehicles radically reduce direct GHG emissions as well as fuel demand (even the liquid fuel will probably be the same regardless of which problem you want to address).聽 Nuclear power replaces coal baseload directly and has no GHG emissions; technologies like the Integral Fast Reactor and Molten Salt Thorium Reactor can use existing supplies of nuclear fuel to give us hundreds of years of power.聽 That's long enough to get completely switched over to solar.
Okay, that was a long roundabout piece, probably much too long for Y!A.聽 And as for which is the bigger threat:聽 I can't be sure, but I can tell you that if we follow a program of "no regrets" changes which will address either or both, we'll be better off.
[1] Venezuela's government failed to invest in maintenance and oil production was far less than the nation's capability, but the country at max output is only good for about 2.5 million barrels/day; the USA pumps more than twice that.
[2] There is a wildcard in coal, and that is in-situ gasification (and its related technology for tar sands, THAI [toe-to-heel air injection]).聽 ISG has the potential to be able to turn coal deposits that are far too deep to mine into gas, which will go to the atmosphere more or less immediately.聽 Time will tell.
[3] James Hansen and company now think that the danger point for tipping isn't 450 ppm, it's 350 ppm, and we're well past that already.聽 Getting back to 350 ppm any time soon will take more than just waiting for fossil fuels to deplete.
I'd say that the current economic (and financial) problems and the environmental problems have the SAME basis. They have both grown, over the past 150 years, from the blind, ego-centred rush of Mankind into self-elevation, heedless of the consequences.
In France, we say, sardonically: "Apr猫s moi, le D茅luge"
This means, "Go to Hell the rest of you, I'm going ahead even if, after my passage, all heavens break loose"
global warming because it effects everyone
No comments:
Post a Comment