I've always wondered, no matter if scientists are right or wrong on Climate Change (And I just so happen to believe they are right), isn't it a good thing anyway for people to step away from non-renewable sources, to lower their carbon footprint towards greener resources? Even if the theory turns out to be complete bull*****, if in the end, the world actually becomes a more sustainable and greener place, with far less pollution and greater energy efficiency, would that still be for the good of everybody?
I say no, and I agree with you. It doesn't matter if fearmongering and climate change are right or wrong, I think lowering carbon footprints and thinking about future generations is the ethical thing to do.
Well . . no. If the theory is wrong [not saying it is] then . . . it would not matter what our carbon footprint is The climate would change either way . . . not identifying the proper cause. . .means not initiating the proper solution Isn;t the destruction of the Ozone Layer a part of this? Rocket River
But I wasn't really thinking about necessarily about the climate. I was thinking more on the lines of sustainable energy use, regardless of what the climate is. Even if a falsified theory (Which this isn't) leads to spinoff benefits like enrgy independence, and renewable sources blah blah blah, and absolutely zero effect on the climate, then I'd say it was still worth doing.
It is a question of cost vs. benefit. If there is no real downside to sticking with fossil fuels for another 100 years, there is no point in spending the money trying to convert to alternatives now (for example, you probably will lose money on a hybrid vs. a normal economy car), instead of waiting for the technology to get better and cheaper. Sure it would be better to go green if there were no cost considerations, but that isn't the world we live in. Clearly simply not having to buy oil anymore is a tremendous benefit, but if alternatives are not viable (like corn ethanol) than they shouldn't be used and definitely shouldn't be paid for with tax money.
this is the key issue that must be resolved if we are to lower Co2 emissions. namely that it has to appeal to one's self interest and go beyond the noble cause of sustainability. Green technology is expensive technology - and not everyone has the means to afford it.
Doesn't the planet's health take precedence over what you can afford? Therefore, shouldn't everyone be able to "afford" going green?
Not really. . . . what is the point starving to death today . . . so you can eat next week? Rocket River
I answered no because, even if the theory was incorrect, the issue here is still whether or not people have the right to be free of pollutants that, regardless, harm their property, health, and lives. And since the issue concerns public property, it makes sense that the government can set limitations on whether or not people can pollute on public property (air, water, etc.).
What is the point eating today when there may not be a next week? My point is, this should be a priority, and not on an individual level. This should be the world's priority - making sure the earth is healthy enough to support us. Maybe our lifestyle is what needs to change.
Sounds like a good THEORY but reality is a bit different. Everyday you survive. . .the opportunity for invention/discovery/hope presents it self. Today's survival supercedes tomorrow's . The ideal is to try to survive today while ensuring more days ahead as possible. It is is not [i hope] an either or situation [today or tomorrow] Rocket RIver
Low-end manufacturers or product fabricators probably disagree with this, as they may be too small to afford the related "sunk" costs (no additional revenue) or to actually benefit from the residual good publicity.
As I mentioned in another thread the problem is short term thinking. While yes CF bulb, or better an LED light, will cost more than an incandescent upfront over the lifetime of both you will save much more than the difference in cost because of both energy efficiency and longer lifespan in the CF or LED vs incandescent. Further the more those technologies are used the cheaper the will become. This isn't necessarily something that must be dictated for example consider that the energy efficiency of computers has greatly improved with their price has dropped. This isn't necessary true. As I said before it cost you nothing to turn down your thermostat a few degrees in the winter and a few degrees up in the summer. It doesn't cost you to walk, bike or take transit more often than driving. Also as noted above many green technologies are becoming less expensive. The mistake that most people make regarding this issue is that people get caught up in how large and seemingly intractable the problem is when really the solution is available to everyone of every means. For how much Obama got derided for suggesting that proper tire inflation can save energy that is true. If everyone overall made some minor changes this problem could be well on its way to being solved.
We are energy junkies. We won't ween off hydrocarbons until there are no more we can beg borrow or steal. The die is probably cast for climate change. The good news is, in the seaside cities, all those structures will make nice artificial reefs so the fishing should be good.
I voted "no" because I'm fairly convinced humanity is not ready to work together on this. Outside BBS-land, scientists and governments agree strongly on what is happening. If I might boil it down, even for the skeptics: 1. The data is in, period, on the following. More energy is coming into the Earth (via the sun) than is leaving it (via reflection and thermal radiation from the atmosphere and the Earth's surface.) So, as per 1st grade mathematics, if more energy comes in than goes out, the puppy will warm up. Either the Earth's crust itself, its oceans, or its atmosphere, or all of the above *have* to be warming. Elementary thermodynamics. The input-output picture, as measured by satellite, is very straightforward. It's as simple as a savings account. 2. Now people can argue the extent of anthropogenic effects, and there are too many variable to ever say with 100% certainty what humans have contributed -- and there lies our paralysis, or alternately, the opportunity to deny anything is happening at all. What is stone cold known, for nearly 100 years now, is the effect of elevated carbon levels in the atmosphere (especially CO2.) These puppies are good at absorbing solar radiation, and they can only intensify the effect observed in #1. So you can argue extent, and there are mitigating factors to pray for (my personal favorites being a change in the Earth's reflectivity, or albedo, what with increasing levels of water vapor, or the coming of a new "natural" ice age from which global warming might "save" us) But yeah, a single supposedly very smart country can't even accept and process scientific facts like those above, so forget about the whole world community, especially with some countries (Russia, anyone) actually happily looking forward to a warmer globe. Definitely voted NO to the OP. Finally, I think global warming is much less of a threat to our future than population control, which is no longer even a topic. Strange, in that people took this seriously in the 1970's, but it's kind of like we collectively gave up. World can support 3 billion in a stretch, but we're quickly headed to 10 billion. [ASIDE: Meanwhile, in California especially, there's the cult of "grow and eat local," blah blah, which all sounds great until you realize how many Earth's you would need to avoid big pharma-ladden agriculture to support billions of people (barely.) I haven't seen any other Earths nearby though. D'oh!] EDIT: Dubious made my point much more effectively.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189...al-panel-on-climate-change-satellite-date.htm I wish there was a more practical explanation of this study, because I can't tell from any report on it what real application it has to the theory that the climate is changing due to man-made activity.
When it comes down to it, we just don't care enough. Some of the most vocal "environmentalists" I know do even less than me. All we do is complain and point fingers at others. Very few people actually change their personal habits.
