i think it would be safer to err on the side of caution. both sides cant prove their theory to be 100% rock solid. if humans are causing global warming and we dont start to implement change then we're screwed. if humans arent the cause then we end up w/ cleaner air. both a win/win situation. yes itll be expensive and an economic burden. especially w/ india and china beginning to emit more and more CO2. but if the US develops a clean sustainable alternative energy source... when the oil supply runs out... who wins?... WE DO!
This is actually false, as well as being one of the most common distortions made precicely to fool people. While GW models do predict more snowfall in Antarctica, this initial trend gives way to the melting of the ice caps. Also, recent studies (2006) have shown that the Antarctic ice caps are, indeed, losing mass. Given that and other considerations, -RealClimate Note that the full extent of sea level rise won't be realized for 2-3000 years (humans very well may still be around). However, the worst-case scenarios could have disasterous effects in our lifetimes, and recent findings continue to suggest that actual rates of sea level rise may coincide with the higher ends of earlier predictions.
I am just sort of jumping in into the middle of this conversation again, without reading the whole thing... Anyway, has anyone read up on the effects particulate pollution is having on sunlight? Known as Global Dimming , it is suspected to be masking the effects of global warming by reflecting solar radiation back into space. As we make progress in scrubbing these carcinogenic particles from our skies for the sakes of our health, we must carefully consider the effect this will have on our climate.
Since 2006 hardly makes a trend. There are always year to year fluctuations. Sea level increases are grossly being exaggerated by gore - where a foot or two is being predicted, not the 20m Gore talks about. And we're talking a few millimeters each year - so even if sea levels increase a meter, there would be lots of time to slowly make adjustments.
i think the fear lies in the point of no return. but like i said neither side can prove their hypothesis to be 100% correct. so it would be safer to err on the side of caution.
But I don't think anyone can say what's the most caution path....cautious to whom? How much do we need to cut CO2 levels to err on the side of caution. No one has answered this question. No one knows how to yet. And what's the impact of cutting CO2 on things like poverty and the standard of living. Errors can hurt people. Maybe the smart thing to do would be to discourage building homes near coastal areas. But that's not happening. Why? To me, the smart thing to do is go nuclear. That's err'ing on the side of caution. That and improving fuel economy. In terms of the environment, we need to stop eating shark fin soup, stop releasing all this pollution into our seas, and start eating more organically. That will do far much more good for civilization in terms of the environment than trying to kill people's jobs and livelihood to appease Al Gore and the radical environmentalists.
I asked you to clarify what you mean when you keep mentioning this, did I miss your explanation somewhere?
If countries are forced to cut back on CO2 in way that impacts a countries ability to grow economically (since they will face challenges in terms of industrializing) - this will of course impact the population of that country overall. Most of the impact would be felt on China and India rolling back on CO2 output...but the U.S. would feel it to of course. The problem with trying to cut CO2 emissions is that China will never go this route, it's clear they are going to put industrialization over environment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6717671.stm
Exactly the same guy who is always cited by oil companies and their not-well-disguised offspring. The guy's age is interesting to note. Sadly, you see this over and over in academics. Barry Commoner is an ivy-league biologist, who is of similar age, if he's still alive (?). He wrote a long screed in Harper's about five years ago about how DNA is not that important and how it does not code genetic information. Just amazing. He missed his funding cycle (he was an RNA guy) in the mid-20th-century after everybody figured out the double helix, and he's *still* bitter about it, can't accept the overwhelming burden of proof. My signature notes a book that really details this old-person-who-is-bitter phenomenon in anthropology too, over and over and over. It's just predictable, and kind of sad.
What dietary changes would the average person have to make in order to significantly reduce his/her environmental footprint? I'm really interested in this, actually (i.e. not just an idle question).
Eating organically is very environmental. When you eat foods that don't use pesticides or crazy fertilizers - that's good for the environment because you are supporting a type of argiculture that will do less damage. Avoiding process foods, or package foods isn't just good for your health, it helps save the environment because there's less manufacturing and thus pollution to produce all that packaging. Also there's less trash. If people become more aware about what we consume, and where it came from, and what the costs were, we actually could do a lot to improve the quality of our air, sea, and food. Personally, I can't take the environmental movement seriously when they focus on gov't action and they don't try to educate people on things like this. Also, if Gore really believes that GW is the biggest threat we face - why doesn't he push for nuclear power across the world??? This is why I lost faith in the environmental movement....too many inconsistencies....too much about fighting big business and being a religion that actually thinking practically about advancing environmentalism.
You don't think the environmental movement has pushed for people to eat organic foods and, in general, has advocated a "green" lifestyle? There's a huge emphasis on what consumers can do to help. But, if you are really interested in "practical" solutions (i.e. solutions that will stop the bleeding right now), just educating consumers on making better choices isn't enough. Ideally, of course that's all that has to be done. But we're not looking for an ideal solution, we're looking for a practical solution. Right? There are legitimate reasons to weary of that solution. He is pushing for alternative energy sources. That's a start.
It's very easy for well-off environmentalists who like to jet-set around the world to propose cut back in industry resulting in hardship on the poor and lower middle class. And how can you be anti-CO2 and anti-nuclear at the same time? Those are your two choices. Either you spew CO2 or you deal with nuclear waste. You can't expect people to just give up energy and only let the rich have it.
Why would only the rich have it? If you look at countries in the world today (not in your imagined, hypothetical world), countries with the strictest environmental standards also tend to have the highest standards of living for the poor. Are they all nuclear?
your logic is flawed. You're saying strict standards make the poor have higher standard of livings. That's not a valid argument. Countries with strict environmental standards tend to be very rich in the first place - their wealth and relatively low populations allow for strict standards and a high standard of living for all. India and China will never be like Sweden or New Zealand. Perhaps you should go travel a bit before trying to make these comparisons.
