At any rate, the center of the issue surrounding global warming is whether or not the government should step in to further regulate energy use and consumption. I am always very leery of government regulations (though there are exceptions), since I have to wonder who's writing the regulations, how they can be considered authoritative, why the regulations are being written, who's backing the regulations, etc. I am absolutely not opposed to being environmentally aware, to a point. I honestly don't think that government regulation is going to stop what is already happening. I also don't see how the projected effects of it are serious enough to merit government regulation (Particularly with the apparent failure of the Kyoto regulations in Europe). What I think we should be doing is investing money into preparation for the potential disasters occur. We can argue all we want about whether or not humans are responsible for Global Warming. We've probably got some time, let's start preparing for the worst case scenario before it happens instead of sitting on soap boxes screaming at deaf people. Seriously, we're probably past the point of no return already. I don't think any amount of "prevention" is going to fix anything anymore.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hasn't that (the solar rays thing) already been addressed like 3 times in the past month or so?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why not do both?
I'm not advocating that, but I'm curious as to your answer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm trying to figure out how any government on Earth can satisfactorily prepare for the worst-case scenarios.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In the US, it would mean abandoning the east coast, some of the west coast, and Florida. Basically everyone has to pick up and move a couple miles inland.
For some government it won't matter. They will cease to exist. Other than that, get ready to change the fabric of your society and all the businesses within it.
Annnnnnnd go!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Aw, man. Does this mean housing prices are going to go up AGAIN?!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Look on the bright side, depending on where you live, it'll be the ultimate seller's market.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You are making an incorrect assumption: That I currently own property that I would then be able to sell.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I should have added "and how willing you are" after "depending on where you live."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Willing is not the problem. Able is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought that said Abe at first.
I was wondering how you could possibly blame this on Lincoln. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, he did free the slaves. I'm sure this has had SOME effect on housing prices.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm trying to figure out how any government on Earth can satisfactorily prepare for the worst-case scenarios.
<limbaughvoice>
This so-called 'comet' is a front for secular liberalist interests, who want to tie the hands of business with their phony scares. It seems the only way they can advance their big-business agenda is to say that volcanoes are erupting all around the globe. All around the globe? 1,724 volcanoes couldn't possibly cover the entire globe, so it just boils down to empty rhetoric. I was just in my backyard, folks, and I can tell you there was no volcano there. Just a little bit of ash. And why has everyone started whinging about the nuclear winter? Just yesterday, they were complaining about global warming! Can't they make up their minds about which imaginary temperature extreme we should be afraid of now?
My advice, folks? We have nothing to worry about!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Geeking out here, sorry. What you are implying here is that an overall increase in solar energy is causing all the planets to warm up. The hypothesis is that global warming is part of a solar cycle that we have no control over. As far as Pluto is concerned that may not be the explanation for its warming. The Pluto article is a bit old, but then again the 2006 data on its atmosphere has not yet hit the press (as far as I know) and New Horizons is on its way. And studying Pluto's atmosphere is rather complicated since there are so few opportunities to even probe its atmosphere. Incidently one such opportunity was two days ago. Getting any information from the data is a mathematical pain in the butt that is based on assumptions for several different models. I believe the final conclusion from the August 2002 data was that the temperature of Pluto's atmosphere was the same. During the first probing of Pluto's atmosphere in 1988, Pluto was almost as close to the sun as it's going to get. As it moves away from the sun, drastic seasonal changes in temperature cause it to be able to better hold onto an atmosphere. Since Pluto's orbit is more elliptical than the other planets, its seasons are more dependant on distance from the sun, rather than the tilt of the planet (unlike Earth, where the seasons are totally tilt dependant.) More atmosphere, however means more insultation (why Venus is hotter than Mercury). It's also fall on Pluto, which like on Earth, may be warmer than spring. Additionally, changes in the surface of Pluto could cause changes in the darkness of the planet. A dark object, splattering itself on the planet (where craters come from), can make the surface darker, which will allow the planet to absorb more sunlight.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why not do both?
I'm not advocating that, but I'm curious as to your answer.
I think regulating emissions for major manufacturing and refining companies would only cause them to shift work overseas, or we would resort to purchasing Kyoto emission rations from non-industrialized countries. Thus far, the Kyoto protocols have only served to increase emissions in industrialized countries, as governments in non-industrial areas sell off their rations. I also wonder who it is that is responsible for determining how much pollution is tolerable, what criteria they're using, and other similar issues.
Increasing gas taxes in the US in attempt to force people to conserve is a monumentally bad idea. We have an unfortunate geographical distinction in the industrialized world that ties our economy more to the cost of fuel than any other nation on earth. The bulk of our economy rests on the cost-effective use of trucks and rail to transport goods to areas that need it. There are very few countries that have as many large cities so far away from marine shipping lanes. Our goods not only have to be imported by ship, but transported hundreds and often thousands of miles by truck and rail to get to their locations. European countries don't have that limitation, so they can tax the tar out of gas and not have it affect their economy nearly as much.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I have heard and read things recently that Mars is also warming and the ice caps on that planet have decreased as well. FWIW.
And if global warming continues here on earth, it will mean a lot more than just coastline problems. It will change our weather drastically, and not just warmer temps. It's more of a climate change, not a temperature change. And what it will do to the planet will cause a lot of death and how we live here on earth.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You didn't even bother to read any of your links.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Boris -
I think a small non-diesel tax increase would be just fine. Diesel drives our semi truck fleet and most of our locomotives, so that should do away with concerns about ruining domestic freight and shipping.
But our concern should be less for punishing use and more on increasing efficiency. I don't necessarily think Kyoto is the best solution, I don't really even know the details of it. But I know that greatly reducing our need for fuel at all will reduce both emissions from cars and from refineries. We could slash our emissions just through efficiency. The next X Prize is being talked about as a $25 million dollar prize for the first car that can go 100 miles to a gallon and costs less than $20,000, but still provides the same power of an average compact. Private start ups are already trying to match those specifications, by reimagining the way we think of a car. We can reduce energy needs through Green architecture, which can help buildings basically heat and cool themselves, and in some cases provide their own water source. Solar panels on homes can reduce electricity needs, taking a huge burdern off our grid without any need for more plants. All the stuff I'm talking about does the same thing for everyone. It provides $$$$$$$. Reduced emissions? A side effect and wonderful bonus. Cleaner air and healthier citizens? Well that saves $$$ and peace of mind.
Besides, industrial giants are the ones calling for the type of management you allude to. Some of the biggest corporations in America recently sent a letter to Bush calling for more regulations regarding emissions. What do you do when the White House says Green will kill the economy and the people who make up the economy seem to disagree? Take GE as an example. In the last few years, they've worked hard to position themselves as a Green corporation, and as the second largest corporation in the world, I think they are worthy of note. They realize where the money is, and they are now an industry leader in wind power, and are breaking into hybrid locomotives and photovoltaics. As of January, they are order all their subsidiaries to find ways to cut emissions, and are setting targets for reductions. They are also positioning themselves to sell emission reduction technologies to other businesses in the US and abroad.
Carbon sequestration methods can also be big money makers for power plants and factories. There are start up companys researching and testing ways to use waste carbon as fuel for other processes. Originally it was a waste, now it's an asset. The idea that cutting emissions and switching to a Green economy will kill our economy is a myth. Becoming more efficient, finding ways to turn our waste materials into money, selling clean tech to other countries, reducing cost by embracing gree tech, these are the ways we're going to grow our economy beyond 20th century petro-based economies. We'll operate for less, and produce more, and better, and things that no one else makes. Unless we're too short sighted and close minded to take the step.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That solar fluctuations cause global climate changes is no mystery. Climate experts have acknowledged their influence, and done work to determine it's influence. So far it appears that it can't account for more than a fraction of current global climate change. In the case of other planets, well, they exist in completely different environments, and have completely different atmospheric compositions, which could cause them to be more or less influenced by the solar fluctuations. What Mars and Jupiter are doing bears little relevance to what's going on here on Earth.
-Bok
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I'm trying to figure out how any government on Earth can satisfactorily prepare for the worst-case scenarios.
Of course, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't prepare at all, especially for less severe scenarios that are still very likely to happen regardless of what we do.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: You didn't even bother to read any of your links.
Uhhh, yes I did. Thanks for playing, though. Yes, there are other reasons for the warming of other planets that could be unrelated to that ocuring on our own planet. That doesn't mean they ARE unrelated, nor does it mean that because humans are pumping out greenhouse gases that that is the only reason our planet is warming. The fact that it happens on other planets, without ANY human interaction lends credibility to the point that our current situation is not ENTIRELY human made.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Boris, except if you've read any recent climate change threads here, you'd learn (from a professional in the field) that they actually have been measuring the solar influence of climate change, and all estimates based on the data have not show it to be the driving factor (10% of the global warming effect is the number usually bandied about).
-Bok
EDIT: To put it another way, without the human contribution to the global climate, it is currently estimated that the global temperature would not be increasing (the warming factors would be cancelled by cooling factors). Further, it appears from evidence that the human contribution is a large portion of the increase of certain greenhouse gasses that are known to create a general warming trend. But reducing or, at least not increasing, our contribution (which we currently are) we could lower or eliminate the rate of global warming.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Or, as I said in the first response to this thread:
quote:Hasn't that (the solar rays thing) already been addressed like 3 times in the past month or so?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hasn't whether the solar rays thing has been addressed recently at Hatrack already been addressed like 3 times in this thread?
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
while i personally think that the whole global warming thing is a serious issue... my question to those who dont think it is serious is... what does it hurt to have more fuel efficient cars... to protect the forests, to controll emissions on factories... sure it will raise some costs, but not by rediculous amounts... and if it creates a healthier envirnment to live in it is worth it.. no matter the cost.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)