Global Warming — A Quick Overview
When people ask me to explain my position on global warming, I normally assert what I’ve learned from the interviews I’ve conducted, while politely acknowledging that I’m not an expert on the subject. I also point out that the specifics of the subject that are yet to be — and probably never will be — fully understood. When I encounter adamant climate change deniers, I calmly suggest that they find one of any number of other reasons to urge a rapid migration away from fossil fuels: national security, public health, etc.
However, when pressed for my true beliefs, I have to admit that I get really stern. What remaining hair I have on the back of my arms stands up and blood vessels swell in my forehead as I forcibly . . . . suggest that they read Jeremy Grantham’s piece on the subject: Everything You Need To Know About Global Warming in Five Minutes. It’s a short essay that, in my estimation, sums up the world’s best thinking on the subject.
His analysis of the science and the logic of the subject is excellent. But his analysis of the idea of climate scientists’ motive to cheat on their findings is even better. He writes:
“… They formed a conspiracy to pull off a massive hoax because they…?”
There really is no good answer to that question — and who but Grantham could have made that point in such a casual, unadorned style? Everyone reading this knows a few scientists, but I don’t think anybody knows one who likes limelight, drama, testifying in front of Congress, or loud, embarrassing arguments with ultra-rightwing radio talkshow buffoons.
If you told me that the moguls of Hollywood, or Madison Avenue, or Wall Street were trying to pull off such a conspiracy, you might have earned my attention. But the overwhelming majority of university professors? Sorry.
Grantham’s hardly a bleeding-heart liberal; he’s an icon of modern-day unapologetic super-capitalism, managing $107 billion in assets. I hope you’ll enjoy his level-headed common sense thinking on the topic.
Ah, good. Having written this has calmed me down. Those pulsating blood vessels have subsided. But don’t get me started again, or I swear by God I’ll . . . . refer you to another article.
…and if the science isn’t good enough, how about a little of that seemingly rare occurance of “common sense”. Common sense tells me as I look at the smog held down in the low areas by the inversion, then i drive to our local ski hill 15 miles away where it is clear and sunny, breathing the exhaust fumes below can’t be a good thing. And I live in a relatively small city by population. I can only imagine the volume of pollutants being “consumed” just by breathing and the ill effects that has to have on everyones health, especially in large cities. Just makes sense to try to clean up our environment.
Yes we need to clean up & get away from oil & coal, but it needs to be done by choice not tax & price. Getting away from carbon will be a good thing, making everyone poor to do it may generate even more carbon from the end results.
I’m a hard core conservative yet I’m also educated and what is being said concerning our environmental condition makes sense. Therefore the sensible approach is to become energy independent, produce our own energy using renewable sources and quit killing ourselves with fossil fuel which is a finite resource; simple approach moving toward a solution. I resent the difficult path our government has lined out when licensing and permitting energy projects; the costs are astounding and the time spent costly as well; the mid-level bureaucratic government workers with their personal agendas seem to be a large part of the problem; the nimbyism in this country baffles me as well. When I see special interest groups fighting a renewable energy project for some purported reason it makes me wonder if they should be lumped in the same category as those who deny that man is hurting himself; this needs to stop. Please give me some sane politicians, smart industrialist and sensible environmentalists who understand that working on the solution together will benefit everyone, then and only then will we get something done.
YES!!!
This sky is falling aproach has turned to many people away.
We can not price or tax our way into controlling carbon, it needs to be the right thing to do.
If $3 dollar per gallon to go 24 miles in a $28,000 vehicle is the target then that is what tech needs to meet. Setting the target of $6 dollar per gallon to go 24 miles just to make tech meet up with price sooner only moves the goal closer & stops the drive to reach higher standards.
If the first mass produced electric cars ( only moves the point source of pollution unless we set up solar charge points) have a rage of 40 miles, the masses will see to many problems & turn away from it. If we wait a year & make 80 mile range cars more people will see this as a good thing.
Making things change before tech is ready will generate more problems than the solution can handle.
JJdebird,
I am having some problems with this comment: “If the first mass produced electric cars ( only moves the point source of pollution unless we set up solar charge points) have a range of 40 miles, the masses will see too many problems & turn away from it. If we wait a year & make 80 mile range cars more people will see this as a good thing.” This contains several errors! A range of 40 miles is found in a Hybrid (Chevy Volt) not in a Full Electric Vehicle (Nissan Leaf) which offers a typical 80+mile range on electricity. Yes, the pollution is moved to the power plant but energy efficiency of an electric drive is five times higher than a petrol fueled engine thus much less pollution is produced per mile (More than 50% less Pollution !) Also here in Florida we are setting up solar charging stations (Like carports) and are recharging the Electric Cars with them at the present time several are in use at the University of Central Florida and they are proving the successful operation four cars at a time. More will be built !
David writes:
I’ve met people who are global warming deniers. Rather, they deny that human beings are the major contributors to the phenomena. I’m much more open-minded than that. But there may be a background global warming phenomena taking place as well.
Since much of global warming is caused by the burning of hydrocarbons in liquid form and because peak oil is probably a reality, the policy of reducing CO2 emissions to save the atmosphere coincides with a policy of reducing the consumption of liquid hydrocarbons so as to leave something for our grandchildren. We don’t hear this point promoted often enough. Perhaps that’s why they charge $3 a liter for gasoline in Norway. The government there recognizes that unrestrained consumption is not good for you.
A last reason why there may be still climate change deniers out there is that the problem may be intractable. We may be unable to coordinate the efforts of all of humanity so as to stave off the inevitable consequences of consuming hydrocarbons at a great rate. Harper and Bush both had an aversion to damaging the economy as part of a futile gesture to reduce CO2 admissions under circumstances where the disaster will still unfold because of the behavior of others. Some people can see that point of view as being perfectly valid.
Thank you for sharing your passion.
If we cut off our co2 then we will not have anything to eat, trees, a lawn and anything that grows since all plants need co2 to grow. If we don’t have any plants the co2 will get so much worse since noting else will absorb it it or use it.
And why can’t we plant more trees until then (many, many more trees). Suburbia is bare of trees from what it can & should be. These things will suck out carbon & make oxygen. Sure the carbon is only stored temporarily, but it is a start.
Craig, heres an idea. Cease referring to people with opposing views by the deliberately emotive term ‘deniers’ !
It’s true that some of those opposing the scientific basis of CC/GW are ignorant and irrational. But this is also true of the ‘conspiracy theorist type of ‘green’ supporters who confuse the environment with leftist political philosophy.
There are many sincere, rational, intelligent, sceptics, (including scientists) who question aspects of methodology, collection of data, modelling, influence , vested interests etc..,
Surely, debate is right and proper in any issue involving vast sums of public funds.
To just shut all criticism and debate down with smug sanctimony, including using terms like ‘deniers’, is hardy conducive to greater understanding.
My real objection, is that by hi-jacking the term “deniers’ to vilify sceptics, it devalues the impact of the original use of the term by comparing those sceptical of CC/GW exponents, with anti-Semitic deniers of the holocaust.
That is how democrats & librals have discused their point with conservatives, by name calling or terms that degrade the other side. (To many people have seen through this sceem) Rise above and use facts, other wise the other side shuts down & no longer listens to what is said.
If you have a point & can back it up talk about it with out being an elementary kid & calling names. The other over educated snobs around you may chuckle, but Joe six pack knows when he has been called a name & at that point he no longer listens to your logic. That is no way to win, or make a point, unless you turn to forcing your side with government regulations that will only be worked around in every way possible.
Marcopolo; chip, chip! I deny that I am a sinner. I am a denier. What’s in a name? Look at you.
charlie; It’s the Excess of CO2. It’s a balance. Welcome to observe well.
Garth; Hitler was educated, AND many other fools, doesn’t make your mind’s OS truthful or observant.
Yup, Common sense, we need more of that, much more. Can you see your money devaluing to pay for what, again? Did we choose that, you and I ?. On some level, I guess. We in the USA have a fancy cucoon stage. Will we ever fly above the getting plane?
What do I know, I only went three miles to school.
-Informed debate or dialogue is useful.
-To be informed requires knowledge.
-Opinion is in no way equivalent to knowledge.
-Opinion gathering or sampling strikes me as make work fodder for light news days.
As always it’s a pleasure to read your blog. And also, as always, my position is the same: you won’t change a hothead mind, but with clear and irrefutable arguments. If they don’t “believe” in climate change, there are plenty of reasons: economic, national security, commuting time, whatever. Quoting Victor Hugo, “there’s nothing so strong as an idea whose time has come”, and I guess is the case here. Remember the mink example?
Yes global warming is possible, but as you stated, it is the reason to vastly speed up getting away from fosil fuels & change everything. This “sky is falling” push is what has caused the push back from many people. It has been seen to be the way to get everything environmentalist nuts have ever wanted. We can not change our entire way of life & how things are done over night. High taxes & high costs to quickly will distroy what is left of our economic system. The ones who want this change to come the quickest are insullated by government employment or accademia with pay contracts tied to inflation, or with no business or economic ties.
We need to work with business (the mean evil basterds) to change things over. The businesses that do it need to be praised, the ones who arn’t need to drop away.
One day, folks will wake up and take a quick, scientific test to determine whether or not carbon dioxide, man-made or otherwise, causes global temperatures to go up. Do your own research. It won’t take but a few minutes:
1) From a reliable source (you choose) get a line chart of the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the past 100 years – and it is growing.
2) From a reliable source (you choose) get a line chart of global temperatures during the past 100 years. One warning: do not use any UN temperature data; they have already been found guilty of falsifying global temperatures. The biggest scam groups in the UN are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). There are plenty of other reliable scientific groups reporting world temperatures.
3) Lay one of these charts over the other and, wonder of wonders, you will find THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
4) Do one more research task: from a reliable source (you choose) get a line chart of solar irradiance during the past 100 years. Now lay it over the line chart of global temperatures. We should have figured this one out: THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN SOLAR IRRADIANCE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
Now all we have to do is figure out a way to control the sun and we can control earth’s temperatures
Probably you can’t ever convince the deniers. Some people believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts.
Of course we don’t know exactly what the effects of global warming will be, but there is sufficient reason to believe that the effects will be very serious and even reduce the ability of the earth to support its current population.
As you have pointed out, even if global warming were not a problem, burning fossil fuels creates enough other problems to warrant phasing them out. In any case, fossil fuels will not be around forever at a reasonable price especially considering that we are using them at an increasing rate.
RonKH states: “From a reliable source (you choose)” and if you examine the charts; “you will find THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES” and then he tells us which charts not to use which is a rather obvious attempt to bend the results in favor of his conclusion,, and thus he attempts to establish himself as a higher authority than the IPCC and the rest of the scientific coummunity.
I was asked to predict the effects of global weather change around 10 years ago, and
was accused of being dramatic and overexagerating, but the prediction has come true,
food worldwide has increased in price by +/-50%. Soon, to be 100%, then 200%.
I said fuel would increase by 100%, which was short.
You don’t want to know what I am predicting for the next 10 years….
For sure. See my response here: http://2greenenergy.com/world-food-supply/8813/.
Cut domestic consumption of fossil fuels through improved efficiency and electric hybrids fueled from nuclear power plants. Forget the global warming aspect. That is at best tangential.
Recently I have been quoting an utterance by Johnny Alonso which perhaps explains something about OIL and other non-renewable resource consumption; many use them as an excuse for change; but, are finding that as long as any is available others feel they are entitled to consumption and are willing to pay any price.
” The Stone Age didn’t end because they ran out of Stones!
It ended because they started using their Brains !”
Perhaps Education is the key to adjusting public opinion to a better solution for fuel.
It is kind of funny that the global warming deniers are all on the payroll of companies funded by big oil companies. We expect a little dishonesty but the blatent lies these idiots cast a light so bright on the big oil industry that they have little or no friends left. The day of rekoning is drawing near. People are just now beginning to realize that our big oil companies are simply an extension of OPEC. They are anti-compeditive which stinks to high heaven. The big oil companies are not loyal Americans-they are sell outs to OPEC and their band of lying thieving cronies. Not only do we get record high prices but we now have to deal with a planet that has been brought to its knees by the careless-no wreckless action of a few who used their power and influence to drive America straight into the ground. Do you really think big oil and coal companies care about average Americans. If you do then youu are proabaly high on somthing.
***If we cut off our co2 then we will not have anything to eat, trees, a lawn and anything that grows since all plants need co2 to grow. If we don’t have any plants the co2 will get so much worse since noting else will absorb it it or use it.*** It is not simply about the co2 which we will never run out of any time soon. We are pumping billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere every year. I heard one blathering idiot on Fox Noise say, look we exhale co2. How could that be harmful. I looked at this idiot Beck and said to myeslf-he forgot to put the plastic bag over his head and leave it there for 15 minutes-Guess what genius-no more Glenn Beck. He would be dead in a matter of minutes. This is the guy many Americans are getting their science education from? Why am I not suprised that there is doubt? With idiots like Beck leading the ralling cry for Big Oil the planet does not stand a chance. It would be nice for Glenn Beck to test his theory on his largely uneducated iron clam brain dead audiance which has spent more timepicking their noses than educating them selfves. Glenn holds a big rally of all the mentally challenged viewers at home and at his gathering. He hands out a plastic bag to each of them andinsturcts them to place it tieghtly over their heads and report back to me how safe C0e is???? Ok, I am kidding but I am sure these people can not be that freaking stupid-or can they???
The planet is going into convulsions with millions of plants and animals involved in mass die offs around the world. Rush Limbaugh claims that if we were to stop today the planet would heal itself. Wow, now how about that for a fact finding mission. All that we have to do is stop pumping billiions of tons of pullution into the air and water every day and the planet will heal itself. How many people believe that we are going to stop burning fossil fuels today? Ok, dont be bashful-raise you hands. Who amoung you has not drank enough cool-aid? Drink up because either you are a complete irrational idiot or you just plain stupid listening to this blustering fat slop who still lives with his mother. Yes, Mr. I am light in my slippers Limpagh has a man friend or is that a play date and he is the leader of the Republican party…Oh no! It is John bone her the new how speaker. He never met a bottle of booze that he did not like…..I am sick of the whole charade. Lets pretend if you wanted to control the population of nimble witted idiots-what would you do? I would hire a guy that reflects society. So big oil and coal think that there are lots of closet homosexuals and drunkards trying to get attention to themselves????? Think you idiots for just one daygone minute before you suck down another gallon of tainted cool aid. I am sick of it because I know where this is headed and it is not going to be pretty. If you like seeing your children starve to death and the planet die a horrible death then by all means .
Roy,
Ever thought of getting checked out for the onset of Porphyria?
Worth considering….either that or stay away from so much caffeine.
Perhaps you could put all that ranting to useful purpose. I believe that the 17th century puritan religious sect, the ‘Ranters’ are still in existence. You could offer your services?
The above are not to be confused with the obscure late sixties rock band of the same name. Then again, maybe they’ve moved on to rap, could be a medium worth exploring?
A few coments to consider:
Politically we finance roads with gasoline and diesel taxes. We’ll have to find another source of revenue if we start charging our cars with solar power. Some people will miss the revenue stream.
Religiously, some people might like to see an end to life on earth (an imperfect sinful world) so the righteous can be in heaven together. Maybe we need to realize the good part of religion – that God is ultimately Love and this is a place where we can learn to love one another. Plants and animals and even atoms are also here expressing love. They all have sex and mutate.
A couple of issues ago Popular Science magazine had an issue of best inventions of the year. One of those inventions highlighted was a fellow who had learned to create cement out of CO2 and seawater, the way coral is created. We use limestone to release CO2 and make cement normally, but he reversed the process and got useful cement while sequestering CO2 forever. He has made a working model, and is in the process of doing the job on a couple of power plant smokestacks.
That same article of Popular Science had another invention which was a very high density electric car battery. which stored about 40 times more electricity than lithium. The invention is being used by the US army for troop fieldpacks, and was designed to be used on electric cars. However if you try to find out about it on their website you find nobody can get one to use on their electric cars. No information exists much about the company anymore. Has someone making money elsewhere bought up the invention? Is it being suppressed by the government for security reasons?
Tommy,
You seem an intelligent, nice sort of guy, wanting a better world and a happier society.
So what on earth are you doing believing in peculiar, absurd conspiracy theories?
Do you really imagine that if CO2 and seawater, could economically produce cement, it wouldn’t be utilised by every man and his dog?
Even more ridiculous is the concept of super secret battery’s carried as back packs by GI’s. Do you really imagine that if the US military produced such an amazing product, the PRC wouldn’t have copied the discovery within a week?
Do you think GI’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guam or even Fort Bragg, would be entrusted with such a temptation?
Consider this; For the last 70 years, magazine such as Popular science have been pumping out these stories, (conspiracy theories) not one, not one, has ever been validated!
Two possibilities exist, Governments, US in particular are real good at keeping secrets, or these are just silly conspiracy theories that have no real validity.
No one really believes the US government is good at keeping secrets, especially when big money’s involved, so stick to better authenticated sources.
The only people who are denying climate change are the fake scientist paid off by the oil and coal industry to prevent any meaningful change to allow the planet to recover. You are right the amount of money that they spend paying off government officials and PR campaigns would boost their sustainable development three fold. No, they think that if they give an inch that it spells doom for big oil and coal. They are not willing to change their behavior regardless of the damage it is doing to the planet. I recall when congress passed the clean air act to limit sulfer emmissions that killed more than 80,000,000 trees. Yes, 80 million trees. The sulfer wreaked havoc on the planet and they fought it tooth and nail and as it turned out it did not hurt their bottom line at all. If big oil and coal were held accountable with the billions of tons of pollution they pump into the air and water it would become clear right way that they are not a cheaper form of energy. Humanity is smarter than this I hope.
JJ de bird is correct. There has to be a benifit for both parties. The question is can we accomplish this objective. No one wants to see big oil and coal companies go out of business. It is not about targeting a segment of the population because people do not like the sky high prices they are paying for fuel. They simply want a healthy planet they can hand off to their children and right now we are handing them a planet that is disintergrating all around us. We must take into account the wreckless cavalier behavior of these men who disregard the top scientist in the world regarding climate change and the ill effects it is having on planet earth. The second part of the problem is that as the middle class in both China and India grows it will introduce billions more tons of pollution into the atmosphe when currently the planet is going into convulsion and near death. More than 4 million square miles of oceans have been declared dead zones. The sea water is so acidic that plankton can not form thus breaking down the food chain which is only making the problem worse as more species who would normally absorb the carbon are wiped out. I can hear the fake scientist saying somthing like we did not know how bad it was going to get. Yes, they do! 1.32 billion people depend on the oceans for food and as it continues to collapse those people will have to scramble to find food elswhere. This is another example of rampant greed and a complete disregard for life. My fear is that we have already passed the point of no return and it is going to permantly alter the world as we know it leaving humanity hanging by a thread. You know as well as I do that as food grows increasingly scarce that countries will go to war to feed its people, so with the starvation and war humanity will be on the brink of extinction. Are we not smarter than this? Is it possible that mankind has brought about his own demise? Who wants to gamble with the lives of hundreds of millions of people?
There is a nexus that exists for big oil and the government. A signifigant portion of its revenue comes from big oil and the sale of fuels to people. How do I know? Oil companies have raked in more money in the last 8 years than all other years combined. They are self serving and wreckless behavior is having a horrific effect on planet earth. Need we deny that we are in a lot of trouble? Until the government gets out of bed with big oil and coal companies expect to hear nonsensical proclamations like BP when their ad campaign suggested that they were Beyond Petrolum yet 3 years later they had destroyed the Gulf of Mexico with the largest oil spil in history. If you want to bury your head in the sand, that is fine but do me a favor and do not lie to me or try and deceive me into believing that the planet earth is not in trouble. The signs are ominous and where this is heading is way more than a lot of people even contemplated. It is going to get really really bad. And those same government officials and big oil companies could care less now as they will in the future.
Roy, rant, rant, snort, rant….Dont you ever tire of repeating these endless conspiracy theories and dire predictions? I know why don’t you spend you time more profitably by renew an old tradition. Purchase, (or make yourself) a large sign announcing “the end of the world is nigh’ and tramp the streets, with a wild eyed expression.
Alternatively, stop chanting the thought of others, and contribute something positive, practical, and beneficial, to your fellow man?
Therapy may assist with the ranting urge…
I figured that’s what you’d say…. sure would be interesting to know whom you work for….
Sigh, … ditto Craig, yours is such a predictable response to anyone who dares to challenge energy conspiracy theorists!
No, I am not in the pay of the ‘evil dark lords’ who control the oil/coal/nuclear/ etc sector.
In fact I earn my living as a venture capitalist/merchant banker. Although we are a broad-based organisation, these days, I have the luxury of specialising in promoting investment in environmentally beneficial , ‘green’ technologies and products. (especially electric vehicles and alternate maritime fuels). I also provide analysis of the market viability of new technology development.
In addition. I also promote/invest in the safety equipment industry.
My academic qualifications are in law/business finance/ economics/behavioural science. I have been an evocate and supporter of conservation issues since about 1962.
Growing up on a large property, (ranch) I saw the feasting effects of poor soil and other destructive agricultural practises. This experience, coupled with my military service, gave me a desire to seek better methods of resource resolutions.
The problem with the rants of such persons as Roy West, is that he, and his fellow travellers, cacophony of trite, clichéd, long discredited leftist dogma, ob-sures the voices of real achievement by a vast number of scientists, engineers, creators, inventors, business and civic leaders, etc..and people from all walks of life, who are timelessly striving to find practical solutions to benefit the fellow inhabitants of our planet, without creating a major disruption to our economic well-being.
Wild eyed, ignorant extremists are only detrimental to this process.
Roy West and his ilk, (and he is by no means the worst) , reveal from their bitter, abusive rants, and trite conspiracy theories, not some important hidden truth that everyone has missed, but a sad flaw in their own psyches.
This sort of individual is motivated by a jealous envy of those more talented,successful, and influential. Inferiority and insecurity, drives this sort of individual to seek a group where he can be accepted. Sadly, through either lack of education or some personality fault, acceptance can only be found among the fringe groups that inhabit the extremes of major movements.
Although he lacks any real understanding of the complex issues, by parroting dogmas he neither fully understands, nor can contribute to meaningfully, he is able to gain the attention he so desperately desires.
His invective, and unintelligible abuse toward those who are actually attempting to resolve these important issues, only serves to distract, and adds nothing positive to the debate.
Those who encourage such supporters, should remember the advice of Cicero, ” rejoice fool, the mob that cheers you today in your folly, will tomorrow tear you apart ..
Roy West of this world with their conspiracy theories and ill-conceived dogmas, are at the best distracting, at the worst they can become Lee Harvey Oswalds!
If I sound unkind or arrogant, that is regrettable, but the issues confronting mankind are too serious to allow the vast majority to be alienated by the antics of a few.
As it turns out, we agree on a great number of important points — certainly that there are serious issues confronting mankind.
Very true! But these issues can only be addressed with practical, workable solutions that the vast majority of mankind can comprehend, accept as beneficial, and fully participate willingly in the solution.
Ill defined, idealistic clap-trap spouted by would be demagogues, will not prove acceptable. The planet has had enough ‘social experiments’ from socialist revolutions to collective farming, Utopian societies to the cultural revolution, the populace has, quite rightly grown weary and cynical of prophets of any variety.
All over the Western world, ‘Green’ movements have discovered that they have reached an apex of support and are now in serious decline as more traditional politicians learn to deal with issues that attract voters to alternate movements.
It all sounded so easy, in the heady early days of ‘green’ enthusiasm. but the populace soon grew aware of the social and economic consequences of the more extreme environmental lobby’s demands.
Reality dawned, and support wanned.
This is a pity, as the problems have not dissipated, but the willingness to tackle environmental problems lost momentum in many important areas.
An example is the massive floods affecting Australia, the world driest continent. The Green Party seized upon the floods with glee, as evidence of Global Warming. Unfortunately, the media reminded the electorate of the words of the national poem, that every school child learns by heart, and written nearly 100 years before, describes;
I love a sun-burnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.. etc
Well, suddenly everyone remembered, yeah thats right, FLOODING RAINS!! These were commonplace before the Dams were built.
The blame for the devastation is now being levelled at the centre-left/green governments for policies idealistically based on a doctrine of global warming making the nation hotter and dryer that led to neglect and lack of preparation for flood containment infrastructure.
Popular support is whats needed not dogma.
The world can’t suddenly stop exploiting coal, (45% of the planets non nuclear energy reserves) nor can it deny the value of nuclear energy. Wasting vast amounts of time and resources pursuing policies that will never be adopted, is counter-productive.
Alternate energy technologies must be able to compete and replace industrial energy requirements or they will simply not be adopted.
Punitive taxes, moral finger wagging, are all counter productive. The issue of Government backed, long term, negotiable(user or bearer) investment bonds to implement wide spread forestry and water management, agricultural reform etc… would be a very positive and productive measure.
These bonds would attract a high value yield, both because of the eventual value of the developed assets, but also because of the bonds attraction as an anonymous international currency.
No doubt, tax officials and the DEA would squeal loudly, but who cares? What’s can be more important than saving the planet?
Dear All,
just a few observations of mine.
Nassa has stated that ALL the planets in our solar system are heating up.
I would say that this definitely points to the Sun as the source.
The North and South polar ice caps of Mars have been shrinking now for some years.
Perhaps the Martians have started up some large scale industry there, belching out heaps of CO2?
When the Earths oceans warm up from increased solar radiation, they absorb less CO2, so the increase in atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS warming of the atmosphere, it does not preceed the heating.
The oceans are the largest absorber of CO2, whereas the forrests are tiny in this respect by comparison.
After the recent erruptions in Iceland, so much CO2 was blown out into the atmosphere, that this completely negated all the CO2 reductions made by humankind so far.
Mankinds efforts to alter Natures effects are puny in the extreme.
Whilst I agree that no one wants more pollution in the atmosphere, I do not think that humans are responsible for any global warming.