• Lingkungan
  • Lingkungan

What do you think it will take to reverse the effects of global climate change?

  • Ikuti secara umum
  • Ikuti secara pribadi
  • Berhenti Ikuti
How serious do you think this problem is and what should we do to get the word out?
Update : Yahoo! Answers Staff: This is the real Al Gore! Take a look: ...tampikan lainnya
Update 2: Yahoo! Answers Team Update: We've created a group for you to discuss ...tampikan lainnya
Update 3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ActionGreens/ ...tampikan lainnya
Jawaban TerbaikPilihan Penanya
The problem of global warming is the most serious threat this country - and the world at large - has ever faced. This problem goes beyond petty differences, problems of economy, social issues, even beyond international conflicts and the war on terrorism. We are talking about the survival of multiple species on Earth, including the human race.

Action must be taken now in order to reverse the effects of global climate change, both by direct action and by informing others of the problem and its seriousness. This needs to be accomplished on four levels. First, on the personal/family level; second on the local & regional level; third, on the national political level; and finally, internationally. All four of these levels must occur simultaneously.

The first level - personal & family:

Each of us must make energy saving changes in our lives, and convince our family and friends to do the same, so each of us takes personal responsibility for reducing our own CO2 footprint on the planet. How can we expect others to change, if we don't follow our own advice. We have an opportunity to lead by example. First, we must educate ourselves on the problem, and the steps we, personally, can take to solve it.

Simple steps, like lowering our thermostats in winter, and raising them in summer; replacing regular light bulbs with compact florescent bulbs; using less hot water; insulating your home; turning off (and unplugging) electric devices not in use; walking, biking, carpooling or taking public transportation when possible; buying products that use less packaging material; buy locally grown foods and shop at your local farmer's market; buy organic foods; keeping the air in your automobile's tires inflated and the engine well maintained; and, of course, recycling, can make a significant difference.

We can go even further than that. When we need to replace an appliance - choose one with an energy star label. When it comes time to buy a new car, look at buying a hybrid (or one that runs on alternative fuels, like E85). If it's available in your area, switch to green power, that uses renewable resources like solar and wind to provide electricity to your home - or if you can afford it, install your own solar panels on your home. Whenever you get a chance - plant a tree.

The second level - Local & regional:

We need to take what we do at home out into our community. Take these same energy saving tools to work or school. Not only inform and educate your coworkers about the climate crisis, and the things they can do o help, but encourage change in the workplace or school itself.

Attend city council meeting, and write to the mayor and council members voicing your concerns and encouraging the switch to renewable energy. Work to break down the regulatory barriers that are preventing a wider transition to energy sources like solar, wind and biomass.

Make your voice heard wherever you go. Bring it up in any clubs, groups and organizations you may belong to. If you lead any children's groups (scouts, ymca, etc.) incorporate what you have learned in your activities and lessons. make sure the next generation will carry on with this fight.

On a personal level, we can direct our monetary investments to companies that are environmental friendly and/or into companies, programs and products that are trying to address environmental/climate issues.

The third level - National-political:

Now we get to making big changes. To do this, we all have to become politically active. I don't mean just vote. I'm talking about contacting your state and national representatives (assemblyman, congressman, senator and president) on every issue that relates to the environment and has an effect on climate change. Call them. Do it so much that they will remember your name. This can't be done by just a handful of people, it needs to be done by everyone. You may feel that it takes up too much time, that you don't have the time to spare, but you need to find it if you really want to make a difference. Democracy is not easy.

Keep yourself informed and educated about the issues and bills/resolutions that are being voted on so that you can speak or write intelligently about the subject. When you write or cal, be concise. Convey all the information you need to in a clear, short message. A long rambling email (kind of like this one) would probably be largely ignored. For this to be effective, we must become louder and harder to ignore that the oil and auto lobbies.

We must draw their attention away from the myth and distraction of hydrogen technology, which will not be available, cost-effective or viable for decades, and point out the technology that is available, and cost effective, now: hybrid engines, solar, wind, etc.

We must convince those congressmen and senators who work for us to pass broad, sweeping legislation. The kind that would make a significant difference. For example, have all cars, from all automakers selling in the US, be hybrids by 2011. The technology is already there to put a hybrid in any size vehicle (Toyota has small, and mid-size cars as well as SUVs an Mini-vans that operate with hybrid technology - even if all of them are not currently being sold in the U.S.).

We have to get our politicians to lead the oil industry into redefining itself. To help it move from "The Oil Industry" to "The Energy Industry". Our politicians have to guide them to develop alternatives to oil. We must guide our politicians to lead the oil industry into the future.

The fourth level - International:

This one will be the hardest. Writing to our representatives will not have as strong an effect on the problems occurring in other countries, because the voices of our Congressmen and Senators carry about as much weight on the international stage as our individual voices carry in our own country.

This is the fight we can only begin to win by changing our own country first. America must become a leader in the struggle to reverse global warming, not just a half-hearted follower as we are now. We must get our politicians to recognize the problem and its significant consequences, work to change them, and then put pressure on the rest of the world to do the same.


Penilaian & komentar penanya

5 dari 5
  • 406
  • 1 komentar

Jawaban Lainnya (7.586)

  • Relevansi
  • Peringkat
  • Terlama
  • Terbaru
  • Sanyojita Dijawab 4 bulan yang lalu
    Those Layers Of Gas To Be Replaced. Oxygen Or Ozone Layer is Restored Mainly Through Out The Evaboration Of The Ociens And Oxygen Production Of Trees, Clouds Carried By The Air To The Earth Athmosphir And Then Oxygen Is Splitts Away From Hydrogen And By The Differences Of Thier Wieghts, Each Kind Goes To the propper Layer. Hydrogen Is Less Wieght Than Oxygen So it's Goes Up Higher Than Oxygen (Ozone). Now that Air Is Pretty Much Poluted, Clouds No more Goes As High As It Should Be And Those Gases Do Not Split Propperly As They Way They Should Because those Clouds Do Not Evaborate Completely And Instead They Become Rain, Means Water Again Not Gas Therefore We Are Having A Problem Restoring The Ozone Layer And Other Gases in The Athmosphair. And Since Those Clouds Are Overly Evaborate From The Ociens And The North And South Poles And Come Back Again As Rain, We Are Having A Problem With Tropical Storms And Floods That Is Caused By Earth Warming Through The Sun Heat That Earth Exposed To, Without A Propper Protection From The Ozone Layer That Is Earth Now Is Losing And Not Restoring Propperly, The Heat From The Earth It's Self That Is Captured Within The Athmosphair And Below is Causing Another Problem Of Over Heating The Earth. A Good Thing About Trees That They Abs
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Martokk Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    To reverse the effects of global warming currently is beyond our capabilities. Although switching to hydrogen/electric cars will greatly reduce outputs of greenhouse gases, there are many other sources that cannot be replaced with our current technology level. One example of this is electric power generation. The best solution to this is fusion power, which unfortunately is proving to be quite elusive. Fission power is an alternative, however, there are waste problems associated with it. Other forms of alternative energy promise hope, but they do not provide near the amount of power that we currently use and definately do not provide enough if electric cars replace internal combustion. Other forms of emissions that often go overlooked are from the refinement of oil. Even if all oil consumption from cars is eliminated, there are still large amounts required for such items as plastics and acetylene.

    How serious is the problem? When I was growing up, there were commercials on TV showing an American Indian crying because we were destroying the environment. 30+ years later, very little has changed for the positive, much for the negative. We are destroying the only place we have to live at an accelerating rate. If that doesn't put the problem into perspective, then probably nothing will.

    What should we do to get the word out? Tough question with no easy answer. If there was an easy answer, it would have already been done. If you feel this is a serious issue, which it surely is, then do the one thing that the upcoming 4th of July holiday has given you...write your elected representatives and let them know how you feel, about this and all subjects that concern you. During elections, vote for the people that stand for what you believe in, and if you feel no one does that then become politically active and run for office yourself. One person can make a difference and if no one does before long, then it won't matter because we will have gone the way of the dinosaur.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • ay27aa Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Reverse? and you ask what will it take? I think our global climate issue has already 'taken' enough. The problem seems to be already present and that nothing in the immediate future can resolve the problem that has taken a hundred years to develop and that has exponentially accelerated. We must learn how much we appreciate a clean environment though many may be oblivious to such an existance.

    Ya ya, you're probably saying that money's the issue. Well that's the truest and stupidest reason I've heard. Our earth has no idea what money is, yet it is being destroyed by it. Money and material wants are what has been causing our environmental problems. Perhaps a well coordinated and powered green car campaign, more so than the current niche campaign would begin to dent the problem. The way I see it is that if everyone in the world were to start driving green cars tomorrow, it still wouldn't fix anything. But, it still helps the main issue of global warming by not continuing to aggravate the illness our earth is suffering. Driving a green car is just a small solution, but with many small solutions, perhaps we can reach the great solution and keep our earth "healthy."

    We cannot give and take to make our world healthier. We must put aside our fallacious wants such as laziness and the speedster. When we throw our trash out, let's spend the extra second it takes to sort the trash so that we can recycle what we can. Recycling is not a waste of time. When you want to buy a new car, why buy a tiny Porsche when you can buy two Prius? When you find you are not using certain items lying around house and want to throw them out, donate them! Someone out there would have bought that very same item, which only increases the activity of factories which are a major contributor to global pollution. All of these are ways to reduce pollution and minimize the known causes of global warming.

    Yet these solutions only alleviate the problem, they don't proactively fix them. I'm not an expert, so I don't really know if it's possible, but we should be finding solutions to fix the damage that's been done. Perhaps if we somehow filtered the air by strategically planting fields of a certain specie of plant that readily removes CO2 from the atmosphere more quickly than the average plant.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Sticky Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Alright "Mr. Gore", here is my answer.

    But before I go there, I think that most of the scumbags that are posting negativity toward Al Gore instead of facts or reality are just using this page as an attempt to mud-sling the Democrats and pretend they actually have brains to go with their dumb OPINIONS. In case you idiots didn't notice, while the republicans in OFFICE may be growing in numbers, the rest of the country is wising up, and (thank GOD) this country sure as F*!@ won't elect another dumbass like Bush again for a long while. Mark my words.
    Also, someone mentioned the 'fact' that Bill and Al didn't raise these issues while in office...but that isn't true at all. The Clinton Admin. made staggering advances for environmental protection (and this IS a FACT)...that were only overturned by the new, improved idiot-fest we have in office today. Not to mention that any surpluses in the budget that could have been used to research this issue to a perfect pin-point have now been turned into a detrimental horrid debt to be paid by our great grandchildren...

    And the sad thing is...even IF global warming weren’t caused by humans (which it at least partially is), WHY would you not want make the air a little more breathable, the cars a little more efficient, the resources a little more realistic and less damaging to OUR OWN BODIES!! For cryin out loud! Who wants to breathe this crap anyway? I mean, have you ever smelled exhaust fumes from a car? There is a REASON you cough and get dizzy! It’s POISON!!!
    So all you freaks that have nothing better to do that bash Al Gore for being (and always has been) a serious environmentalist, shove off. And remember...Al Gore WAS elected president once...and I hope he gets it again.

    Answer to the question: There is no answer...people care too much about their cool trucks and money to give a rats a** what happens to their kids. Of course...I think most of the anti-Gore people on this site either have no kids or are 12 years old.

    Thanks for the question. Funny how something so 'inaccurate' can draw in such a crowd
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Monk Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I believ That Global Warming is Mainly Caused By The Abusev Way Mankind Use The World Sources. Many Polution Factors Effecting This Warming. Toxic Gases And Chemicals Are Flaot Up And Distroys The Layes Of Gases That Sarrounds The Earth. The Woods Cutting That We Are Doing For Those Trees, Do Not Allow For Those Layers Of Gas To Be Replaced. Oxygen Or Ozone Layer is Restored Mainly Through Out The Evaboration Of The Ociens And Oxygen Production Of Trees, Clouds Carried By The Air To The Earth Athmosphir And Then Oxygen Is Splitts Away From Hydrogen And By The Differences Of Thier Wieghts, Each Kind Goes To the propper Layer. Hydrogen Is Less Wieght Than Oxygen So it's Goes Up Higher Than Oxygen (Ozone). Now that Air Is Pretty Much Poluted, Clouds No more Goes As High As It Should Be And Those Gases Do Not Split Propperly As They Way They Should Because those Clouds Do Not Evaborate Completely And Instead They Become Rain, Means Water Again Not Gas Therefore We Are Having A Problem Restoring The Ozone Layer And Other Gases in The Athmosphair. And Since Those Clouds Are Overly Evaborate From The Ociens And The North And South Poles And Come Back Again As Rain, We Are Having A Problem With Tropical Storms And Floods That Is Caused By Earth Warming Through The Sun Heat That Earth Exposed To, Without A Propper Protection From The Ozone Layer That Is Earth Now Is Losing And Not Restoring Propperly, The Heat From The Earth It's Self That Is Captured Within The Athmosphair And Below is Causing Another Problem Of Over Heating The Earth. A Good Thing About Trees That They Absorb Toxic Gases And Polutions, And Now That We Are Cutting Them Abusevly, Is Another Problem, We Are Distroying Earth Day By Day Through What We Do.
    God Created This Universe WIth Balance And Perfect Rules. We Are Breaking Down Those Rules With Full Blindly With Full Power And Exsessive Selfish Way.
    The Only Way To Reserve Global Warming Is To Stop All Those Polutional Power Sources, Toxic Manufactionaries, Like Cleaning Stuff And Products, Replacing Those Lands Where We Cut Trees Out Of, And Plant Trees And Creat More Green Lands, Find Alternative Resources Like Solar power Electrecity Instead Of Oil And Nucliar Power, Use Wind For And Natural Gas, Use Alot Of Other Natural Resources For Producing Natural Gas As Power Alternative Source.
    There Is A Seluotion But Are We Willing To Take It To Revers Global Warming???
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • StuRoss Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    First we need proof that global warming is even a real phenomenon. What has passed as proof to this point is a complete, and I mean COMPLETE JOKE. As a scientist I feel more violated than a rape victim every time someone refers to Global Warming as a scientific theory, or even something that has a shred of real science to support it.

    Beyond the agenda pushers, many, many, many REAL scientists agree that the science is suspect, the assumptions are wrong, and the statistics are highly manipulated. MIT did a study a few years back and showed point for point that the fundamental assumptions behind global warming (the infamous hockey stick) were very concocted.

    Also, if you really look closely, you will also notice that every major "discovery" that is supposed to support global warming is really the phenomenon being applied to explain the science rather than the science predicting the phenomenon. In that regard use of the word science is completely bogus. Semantically they sound like the same thing. So do lightning and lightning bug. Scientifically they are worlds apart.

    Recently it was reported right here on Yahoo that some "scientists" had "proved" global warming , by showing that average global temperatures had risen by ~1 degree in the past 1000 years. Sounds like indisputable proof right. Here's the problem, if you can figure out the average global temperature just for TODAY, there is a Nobel Prize for mathematics waiting for you. It cannot be done, and I defy anyone to prove that it can. Today in San Jose, we have a high of 78, and a low of 58. Currently it is 5 degrees warmer 10 miles up the road that it is where I am at. How would you accurately even determine an average temperature for San Jose only, just for today only? Cannot be done. It can only kinda be done if you make some very generous assumptions, but at that point accuracy suffers. Yet these so called scientists claim to have determined average GLOBAL temperatures over a MILLENIUM, with such accuracy that the were confident that a 1 degree change over this period was not only an accurate prediction, but a significant change.

    Were this a fish story, they'd be telling us they just caught Jupiter with a worm.

    So the question is not "how do we reverse the effects of global climate change?". The question is, "if you believe in global warming, how much money could I sucker out of a sucker like you?" Trust me, that is the question the people behind the Global Warming Conspiracy are asking. Or is it just a coincidence that a Toyota Hybrid that gets 41 mpg costs 10k more than the bigger more comfortable non-hybrid that gets 37mpg?
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Nita Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Some of the damage that has been done can not be reversed but things such as the ozone and trees can be. To see this change happen there will have to be a radical social and industrial change. By this I mean that people are going to have to be educated about the simple things that they can do in the house such as, unplugging thing when they are not in use. Another thing that many celebrities advocate is the Hybrid car, which is a wonderful thing but, everyone cannot afford them. Even though a lot of people can't afford them there are things that people can do like car pooling, taking public transportation.
    Global climate change is a very serious issue that can cause catastrophic events to happen. Some ways to get the word out and educate people is movies and TV. I know that this is not a new idea but there are different ways that you can use them than just for commercials. I think that the movie industry is doing a good job at it but the TV industry needs help. To be honest the best way to get people to understand and help the world is to hit them while they are children. I know this because of Captain Planet, this show changed my views on things that went on in the world it made me want to help and be a part of the solution and not the problem. Captain Planet is a show that no longer comes on and not to say it should be brought back but some of the lessons that I learned about pollution and the effects if had on the world should be incorporated into current shows.
    But back on the consumer products industry they hold the fate of the world in their hands. Because until they decided the want to make more environmentally conscious products (i.e. electric cars, hydrogen cars ect.) at a reasonable price the average Joe can afford it will not go away. This can be solved in two ways: the first is that all the fossil fuels will be used up and the world will be in an awful state. The second is through fair and swift legislation that will put laws into place that they would have to follow and laws that prevented lobbyist and the companies of interest from giving money to our congressmen to sway their vote.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • HCP Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I'm curious if the 5,931st posting will every be read!

    "What do you think it will take to reverse the effects of global climate change?"

    The simple answer: money.

    The more complicated answer:

    We already have everything we need to bring climate change back to natural levels. They're just expensive.

    (1) Hybrid cars aren't enough. The GM EV-1 was a usable fully-electric vehicle. It should have been updated, not scrapped. This technology needs to be brought back. This could be expensive.
    (2) Fully-electric vehicles will eliminate the gasoline infrastructure. This will also cost the gov't a great deal.
    (3) New, cleaner electric power plants are needed to make electricity a cheap energy source. This will cost - a lot.
    (4) Clean manufacturing needs to economically preferable (not just "affordable") for businesses. This will require heavy and wisely chosen subsidies.
    (5) The nation's dependence on beef needs to be reduced drastically, for environmental as well as health reasons. This will cost a great deal, both short- and long-term.
    (6) The forests need to be preserved and brought back wherever possible. Urban areas need many, many more trees and plants to help clean up the air. This will require clever planning and more money.

    Any one of these will not "cut it" alone. We need them all, and perhaps several others as well.

    How to do it?

    The idea behind a representative democracy is that the common person cannot and should not be expected to make wise decisions. The current issue may be one of the best examples of this in the last 200 years. No matter how well people are educated, I fear that the majority of people will do nothing about the global environment until it impacts their personal finances. The answers on this posting are evidence. Those who know it's a concern don't know what to do. Others don't care. A significant minority still do not believe it important. Lifestyles which are more ecologically responsible must be more economically desirable before they will be adopted by the public or by businesses. If anything is to be accomplished, the decisions have to be taken away from the common person, who have shown themselves generally uninterested or unaware.

    Environmental concerns should not be part of the platform for any political party. Rather, the scientific consensus should be given weight in the executive cabinet (I believe it important that the scientific consensus be represented, not the views of any single scientist). Politicians need to be less concerned with public sentiment on environmental issues. That can only happen if they have a scapegoat -- someone they can blame, preferably a large and well-respected independent entity that will not negatively affect public opinion about any particular political party. Whether environmental problems are a problem and whether something ought to be done about them are not issues that should be debated philosophically (politically); they are scientific. How much of the nation's resources to commit to the issue is a possibly unavoidable political issue. Perhaps if environmental concerns were removed from political platforms, politicians would be more willing to accept the scientific consensus.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • frank Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I'll take the second part of the answer first. Global warming is extremely serious, but it is only one problem of many, such as nuclear weaponry and overpopulation, that the world faces today. But global warming could be the linch pin that unhinges our "civilization."

    As far as getting the word out, there not much the average person can do since the U.S. media is owned and operated by Corporate America, and to curb global warming is against their "interests." This a big problem, and we need someone with big contacts. The fact that someone like former vice president Al Gore is speaking up is perhaps the best option.

    As far as what can be done. As we speak, the U.S. congress has passed a bill to begin offshore drilling in our country. So the first thing we can do is vote for anyone who's outside the two established parties. They are completely under controll of big business. So vote for anyone, the Green Party or whatever, to break the lock on power the two party system has on America. And don't listen to the lies of the media.

    We can't give up our dependence on oil. Our whole system is depended upon oil. And even if the powers that be were motivated, it would be a huge, costly and very long term project. The best we can do, right now, is to limit our energy use. If people could drive less and not drive over 55 mph, that alone could save millions of gallons of emissions being spewed into the atmosphere. Better recycling methods and incentives could help, and so could reducing the spread of land development.

    The most imporant factor is the drastic reduction of the human population. We doubled in number in less than 50 years! We are breeding like bacteria in a petrie dish. No more than one child per couple over the next several generations is the needed measure. This would reduce a lot our problems in general. I think people should be paid not to have children.

    This problem is so complex many volumes could be written about it, so I leave it. I doubt it can be solved.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Michele V Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    A complete letting-go by the American people of most of the assumptions they grew up with: the idea they could do whatever, use whatever, throw away whatever, etc., that they wanted to. There will be anyhow a HUGE adjustment that will have to be made by Americans so it might as well start right now. We already have transportation solutions (what about smart vehicles?), we already have diet solutions (how about giving up beef??), we already have power solutions (so much could be heated/cooled by solar power already... and the list goes on.

    Private business alone cannot bridge the gap between what we do now and start-up of these new approaches -- the federal government along with state governments must facilitate the change overs. Let's change our country first, and then look at other countries to change.

    I remember in the 1950's when there was this motto all over the place: don't be a litter bug!! It was surprising the numbers of people who gave up littering and just took the few steps necessary to a trash can. The same kind of promotions can be done to change the minds and hearts of Americans and actually have an enormous effect in favor of the environment. I feel there should be travelling shows, kind of like the old circus that also go to schools to help change the minds of adults and children. As younger generations pick up these new values and put them into effect they become a part of our economy as well. I also believe the penalty should be swift and painful ($$ or time) if individuals are found to be violating new rules for cleaner more carbon free living. People are thrown into jails now for crimes a lot less serious than contributing to global warming!

    The reason I am targeting the U.S. to start the way is because we are the BIGGEST polluter in the world and consume more oil and gas than any other country. If we don't start the way, it just won't happen.


    I am my own source. I'm 63 years old, raised a son who is very environmentally conscious, am a licensed Dr. of Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture in California (so I'm pretty well-versed in living naturally) and would gladly give up my car if there was a viable alternative where I live as well as give support to any program that helped people learn how to treat the earth with respect.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • What do you think it will take to reverse the effects of global climate change?
    How serious do you think this problem is and what should we do to get the word out?
    Sign In 

    untuk menambahkan pertanyaan Anda

  • Chx Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Al Gore:

    Personally, Kyoto or any other protocol will probably have a negligible effect on global warming. What may help is de-modernizing the planet or slowing the economy to a crawl. even then it is debatable whether global warming is happening in the first place. National Review's "Snow Job" article illustrates how ice caps can still get bigger. Even then, some signers (like China and India) don't really have the best pollution control laws either. No one can deny that China is polluted, yet they signed the Kyoto protocol. Or, as John Stossel says. "Even if Kyoto had an impact, do you think all the signers are going to honor what they signed? China is predicted to out-emit us in five to ten years. India will soon follow. What incentive do they have to stop burning fossil fuels? (page 204)" So does that make America a big cesspit of filth? Not really. Anyway, back to the Kyoto ineffectiveness. The website http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyo...

    has an interesting Kyoto counter, and it predicts that the treaty will lower temperatures by .07 degrees Celsius. John Stossel's book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" has a very nice graph on page 202. The earth's temperature is graphed across the last 4,000 years. What does it look like? It goes up.... ...and down... ...and up.... ...and down... ...and up... ...and down... The fact that the temperature has been measured for the past 100 years is only a small chunk of data, or as J.S. says, "this looks pretty scary if you isolate it." I'm not too concerned about some scientist's predictions. When Earth Day was first invented, scientists had the good ol' U.S. of A. worrying about global cooling. We'd also better hold our breath about CO2 emissions - literally! We breathe out CO2. Another good thing to put on the to-do list would be to plug all volcanoes: the 1883 eruption of Mt. Krakatoa alone ejected 6 cubic miles of debris.

    Good websites to visit on global warming:

    www.rushlimbaugh,com (banner ad concerning Al Gore's doomsday prediction)

    Good book:

    Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity by John Stossel

    By the way, sorry about the guy who suggested pluging volcanos with dead Democrats. Little does he realize that there are few differences betwixt the parties.


    www.rushlimbaugh,com (banner ad concerning Al Gore's doomsday prediction)
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • MDPeterson42 Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I think some scientists and environmentalists and a few high placed public figures like yourself overstate human's impact on the global climate.

    I am certainly no expert on the subject, but when hearing all of the claims of fossil fuels and CFC's burning a hole in the ozone layer, several thoughts occur to me.

    1) Why is the hole over Antarctica? Are penguins burning fossil fuels and using aerosol hairspray?

    2) Wasn't the hole in the ozone layer already apparent when the ozone layer was first able to be viewed? Meaning, how do we know that the hole has not always been there?

    I know that the hole in the ozone layer isn't the only supposed cause of "global warming" but it is the one that makes the least sense.

    In addition, it seems to me that the earth was once in an ice age. The average temperature of the earth is a heck of a lot higher than it was back then, and I find it hard to believe that fossil fuels and greehouse gases had anything to do with it.

    I think the truth is that the global climate is cyclical. When you take the age of the earth, you realize that humans have lived such a short time, and our technologies that supposedly cause such great changes have been around even less than that. We really have no way of measuring how much impact we have had, because we don't really know what happened in the past and what would happen in the future even if there were no humans. Some of us are just too short-sighted and arrogant to see that.

    "Stretched out on a long enough time line, the survival rate of all humas is 0."
    Fight Club

    You claim that what we are doing now will cause Earth to be unliveable in the future. Sadly, no matter what we do, this is already the case.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Yarro Pilz Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    It sometimes feels like this is a huge problem and there's nothing we can do. And it's true that we may NOT be able to reverse the effects that we're already seeing. But we don't have to sit back and continue with the status quo. We can make changes.

    Start with conservation. Hello? That's a no brainer.

    Then, baby steps. Here's an example:

    The International Energy Agency says that if citizens switched from incandescent lightbulbs to compact fluorescents, and businesses used the most efficient fluorescent tubes and ballasts, we could trim 10% off the world's electricity bill. 10%! That's nothing to sneeze at. Lighting in general is a big deal. Carbon dioxide emissions from the production of electricity for lighting equal 70% of emissions produced by cars. So...make the switch to more efficient lighting ASAP, and TURN OFF THE LIGHTS when you're not in the room in the meantime.

    People say, "It doesn't matter what we in the US do because China and India are just going to keep burning. So why should we do anything differently? Why should we take the high road?"

    I've been to China, and I've seen how dirty some cities are from the ubiquitous coal power. People there know it. They don't like it. And I believe that China would be among the first adopters of a really scaleable new power technology, if it were developed.

    And I think we forget about technological leaps. You know how in parts of Africa, people have gone from having no phones at all to having cell phones without any of the landline technology in the middle. I am sure that, if a clean and affordable technology appeared on the horizon, developing countries would be completely on board.

    It's a serious problem. While individual conservation efforts are important, we need government intervention, too. We need building codes and product and industry regulation to help focus our efforts and make a bigger impact.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • or_m_123 Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    If we trace back the source of all that pollution, CO2, it all comes back to us the people of planet Earth. We can and will eventually choose to lower our emissions (oil is running out), but I am afraid that the price we'll pay for it will be a devastating one. Our society as it stands cannot run without energy and that means that we will be hit at the same time with two crisis. One is the very real Global warming and the other the energy crunch. As a result of one or the other precious resources (oil, water, land) will become scares and I am afraid that then a country that has nothing left to lose, might use some of those nukes that they have. So here is the third treat: nuclear holocaust as a result of the above-mentioned two disasters.

    The only solution I see is for us to not only choose to do all Al is proposing, but also drastically decrease the birth rate, so the main source of the pollution: us is reduced,

    Saying that I know that we will not be allowed do it.
    1. There is religion that will not allow it.
    2. There is the fear and animosity between countries that will not allow it. All countries will be suspicious that the neighbors will not cut their numbers and will come to invade them. Third world courtiers will say that this is a form of genocide, because most of the growth is occurring there. And so on...
    3. Our society is Capitalist, which cannot exist without growth. A regulated economics will stop being a capitalist one. Every politician that touches the subject will suffer the consequences. The media is controlled the biggest of the big Corporations which are the worst polluters and the ones that need to grow and expand, consuming and creating consumption need in the populous. That media will continue reporting crooked news until the very last moment.

    What we need as an Economic system is more akin to Communism and Totalitarism (strict management and distribution of resources) than anything else. Imagine the outcry if someone campaigned with that platform. He will not be electable.

    Based on all this I think that we are going to have to deal with:
    1. Running out of energy.
    2. Unprecedented Global Ecological Disaster
    3. Nuclear War.

    If those three treats do not make us change (which I think we can’t), then nothing will.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • herpman2000 Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    To reverse global warming the very first thing needed to be done is to get the US Government to acknowledge that there really is a threat to the world. The second part would be to get the other industrialized nations to do the same. The last part is to get the Corporations to acknowledge it also. Once all those institutions acknowledge that it is a real and credible threat only then can something be done.
    How to do it would require enormous re engineering by all fields of energy industries and industries that rely on any energy (basically all business) Some of the answers we already have. In fact there was an electric car put out a while back that could have revolutionized the entire car industry but it was killed off by the Car companies , the Oil industry and the US Government. (a movie is on the way about just that issue). Fossil fuels must be shut down period. But then if that should happen you will have such unrest in the Middle east and other foreign oil countries that you would have to address those issues also.

    The seriousness of the problem is huge. The only way to change that is to get rid of the two party system and put people into office that are not obligated to the corporations that control our current government. Let's face it, it will not be started in my lifetime (I am 45 at the moment). All politicians in Washington are so corrupt that they do not even listen to the people anymore. It doesn't matter whether they are Dems Or Reps, they get to Washington and then the corruption starts.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • snuggybearkids Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    First, as Al Gore illustrated in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, we are almost at the point of no return. I am concerned that if the USA, who is absolutely ignoring the threat, continues to emit noxious gases, methane, etc. into the air, there will be no way to reverse the effects of climate change and our world will become a waterworld like the Kevin Costner movie or a burning ball of molten lava. Why our country, who prides itself on doing the right thing, has also become the greediest and most selfish. The rest of the civilized world (for the most part) has adapted the energy changes needed to stop global warming but the current administration couldn't care less. That's sad. I"m doing my part by walking, recycling and conserving. However, I really think that we might be at the point of no return. Look at New Orleans. You would think that after everything that has happened there, the people would stop the crime, fighting and other unGodly activities and unite, but it's as bad as it was before. Kind of like when you hose away ants from your front porch then watch them come back in seconds after the water has washed away.
    I am also concerned that Al Gore's movie only made $9 million so far at the box office. Looks like getting the word out isn't getting out very much at all, or is being ignored or just brushed aside. As far as getting the word out period, if a movie, who along with tv are the 2 most world wide forms of information outlets, can't generate total population concern or interest, then the problem is not getting the word out at all, it's that no one cares about the word. So, I don't think anything else we do will get the word out any more than it has. It's up to the President and Congress. This problem has been building up and up and getting worse and worse. To me, the only solution now is a complete wake-up call to the entire world of doubting Thomases who think it's not a problem. Maybe all these new disasters, the change in temperature and a new President (Hillary, we need you) will make a difference. I don't know. Just stay positive, love each other and give to the Earth all you can to help.


    An Inconvenient Truth, Doomsday (a recent TV special)
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • WDubsW Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I will begin by saying the word is out everyone knows some don't care and some are scared to death. People are not looking into the big picture. I think the only way to slow down the already slow rate is simply this. Continue to make changes in the economy these high gas prices are driving people to get rid of the SUVs and get smaller vehicles.

    Some people don't know they get a tax break for having a fuel efficient car like a Toyota Prius for example. That isn't going to make people get it though. They cost quite a bit are not very good looking and are all small. I however, would take one for my fiance' who doesn't have a car yet.

    If we can get an affordable, good looking hybrid or the like I think more would buy. The Honda Civics version looks ok and is a decent size. I would get that one but I needed a truck and had to buy one. So all in all it cannot be reversed it can be slowed down and then let the Earth heal itself to say.

    I think something to clean the disturbed parts of the climate is out of reach. We don't have the technology for that kind of work yet. If we do then I have missed the news and never heard a rumor.

    Once more below I explain how serious I think it is. The same answer I have given to other people on the same subject, enjoy.

    Here is an interesting thought for you. I read an article some time ago about global temperatures in the past.

    The narrowed it down to one city and said the following: (example)

    Chicago 1834 on July 21 75 degrees F
    Chicago 1836 same day 57F
    Chicago 1928 same day 92F
    Chicago 1992 same day 59F
    Chicago 2006 same day 75F

    The point the artice showed was that the temperature on any day is sparatic. It changes so much or not that much at all often.

    Global warming is going on but not at the pace people think it is. It is happening much slower then speculated by the mass population.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • windquake Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Nothing. Global Warming's number one cause is the Sun. This was revealed last year (See link #1), and yet continues to be ignored. Why? Because politicians need a cause and if facts don't fit into their cause, they ignore them. (But that is another subject.)

    Global Warming theorists (the ones that blame you and me) and the environmentalist movement set up a win-win situation for themselves. They say the world is going to end in 20 years. Then when 20 years go by, they have 2 responses:
    1) The world didn't end, but we came awful close. We need to do more or the world will end in 20 years.
    2) The world didn't end because we changed things. (Almost never used, because the means the problem is over.)

    I have no problem with Global Warming as a theory (or even fact). The problem is with blaming humanity. It also doesn't help that the temperature records were started in the tail end of a cooling period of the Earth. This result skewed the warming to make it seem worse.

    The end result is, either way, the Earth and Sun are going to do what they want and short of an all out effort by every person on the planet attempting to deliberately harm the Earth, humans can not produce global climate change, the Earth is just too large.

    In the 70s, the book, The Population Bomb, stated that the Earth could not support its growing population and that starvation would kill billions (not thousands, BILLIONS) in the next 20 years. This was written when the population was about 4 billion.

    In the late-70s it was Global Cooling (See link #2).

    In the mid-80s it was stated that all the fish in the ocean would be dead in 10 years because of pollution.

    In the late-80s it was the Oozone hole which was going to give everyone skin cancer.

    In the early-90s it was El Nino that was blamed for every weather effect in the North American area.

    Now it's Global Warming, being blamed for everything from floods to hurricanes, to extinctions, to making winters colder (???) because it is going to raise the temperature 2 degrees in 100 years. The horror!

    The list goes on and on about environmental predictions, and the most important fact is, they are all 100% WRONG.

    On the sub-question of how serious the problem is...It may be deadly serious, but there is nothing we can do about it, so why bother wasting time on the issue.



    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Kevin A Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    a consciousness - an awareness among the masses - not just those who take the care to research and study - but amongst the business sector, who really run the world whether anyone likes it or not. this issue is about something every single person has in common - the planet - so in the end big business is going to want a stable planet too, or who are they going to sell things to?
    These groups are in the need to see they need each other - and when you consider how much new big business would be created by developing new, cleaner, better energy - whichever group did this would be world respected - world leaders - heroes.
    Politicians should be leading this charge - because if not them, who else is going to do it? The issue - like so many others - needs to be forced because the facts were finally confirmed and accepted in Washington a week or so ago that was the same thing we were already told 8-10 years ago, and we're way too late in the game to ignore the planet because a few people want to get rich, stay rich, and keep their shareholders happy.
    When you consider the obvious, religious leaders worldwide should also really be leading this charge in the name of the Light that gave them their respective Wisdom and information, but strangely, they are silent. can't imagine how their Source would feel about this. Past accounts of the earth groaning and tossing people off like fleas is in all of the religions, and the catastrophic floods have been confirmed by history and science. you would think the commoness of the stories would tell people something's going on - instead they fight over who wrote the story first - as opposed to realizing they're all writing about the same thing - that happened before and quite possibly will happen again, and the whole point of all the Books is to teach us not to make the same mistakes.
    we came into this dimension from Nature, therefor we are Nature, so we need to take care of, respect, appreciate and nurture Nature - and Nature in turn will nurture us. This is a spiritual more than a physical quest - thus the dilemma we find ourselves in. Where is Humanity going?
    It's also frightening to consider that while everyone is talking about rising water levels and weather changes -- no one is talking about the earth's wobble. we spin like a top in a fixed rotation that is "balanced" by the poles. if the poles start melting - it will throw off the balance - and throw off the wobble. Spin a top and watch what happens when it loses it's balance...
    The Democrats need to understand and use the power of religion, not in the manipulative 'say it to get elected but don't really mean it' way the current adminstration used -- but because they mean it.
    Al Gore must step up and run for President, and go reclaim what was really his.


    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Nick N Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Replanting trees is a nice thought and would help a bit... Making things more efficient that's kind cute too. Ooh look at my car I get 28mpg using the same technology my great great great grandfather invented because some pompous oil barron that struck up a deal with a prick at GM makes more money this way. All these nifty ideas help slow down the damage we've already done but that wasn't the question.

    Ideally, humans should cease the use of fossil fuels and go all out with the experimental fusion reactor that is currently under construction. This will prevent further agitation. Unfortunately most ecofriendly power sources will eventually be found to have adverse effects on the climate as well. Then, a world wide effort would be needed to jump start the deep ocean conveyor belt via a method not yet devised.

    Since non of this will happen because of capitalistic greed and a world wide juvenile yearning for power, the way things will correct themselves will most likely include a major shift in world power, most likely due to destruction of several large countries (ie. the arrogant imperialistic US). This will be shortly followed by a king of the hill competition among hundreds of countries. With any luck, people will realize how stupid war and money is and we'll all live happily ever after. But since this won't happen we'll all probably kill each other as the world plunges into another ice age and nature kills most of the survivors. =)
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • markle77074 Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Dear Al Gore,

    Predicting is difficult, maybe even impossible.

    The climate is probably as complex as human behaviour.

    Both are rather infintely complex.

    I read a study saying that a slightly warmer and wetter climate could have benefits. It might extend growing seasons into higher latitudes and accellerate the hydrological cycle, producing more rain for water tables.

    Your question "reverse effects" almost implies only two vectors, and probably there are very many.

    Humans have definitely had an effect. A complex effect.

    I guess if we considered the question as how to manage the change that will always be with us. We would want to look for technological systems that harvest usable energy from the environment in ways that do not damage other systems.

    PV has made great strides, and is almost competitive with grid power.

    I would hope that intelligent, modular, pv systems would be purchaseable by consumers at retail home improvement stores soon.

    I personally drive a hybrid car.

    Passive solar design for home construction should be sold and incentiveized.

    Rising water levels may not be aviodable now. Then the only rational course is to prepare for them.

    So, I think continued study of climate, and practical rational technological management strategies are the best we can do.

    Mark Pirtle

    P.S. hand marked hand counted ballots would help too.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • JS Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I think Global Warming is a very serious issue. Some people think enviromentalists are nothing but "tree-huggers" and "idiots" who have nothing else better to do than to stir up trouble. Well, they can keep thinking that when their future generations are living in a barren wasteland or when they get swept away by a flood or hurricane. I think that a Global Warming disaster will come sudden and swift as traffic gets increasingly dense(meaning more emissions plus from other developing countries like China and India) with the permafrost thawing in Siberia and all that. We can either sit on our fat behinds thinking it'll all go away, or we can accept the truth, act now and do something about it. The majority of people believe it is a serious problem, but nothing is being done about it. If people don't demand change, what can individuals do?

    Whether or not greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming(which I 100% think it does even though volcanic activity and even trees produce greenhouse gases), know that it's not healthy to live breathing smog either. It can cause everything from respiratory problems, to cancer, premature death, and all that stuff. Every time I see a congested intersection, the city skyline or suburban horizon choked by a dense fog layer of pollution, or all those cars on the highway going on 24/7, I wonder and think of how much pollution they cause. And don't get me started on breathing while walking down the sidewalk along a busy street. Factory emissions(especially fertilizer, concrete, etc) are even worse. But, as cursed as it is, we can't live without cars. I suggest car manufacturers be banned from producing vehicles that run on fossil fuel immediately and are to start producing electric/hydrogen hybrids that sell for less than fossil-fuel vehicles. Or the unlikely latter, create some chemical catalyst that puts the plug on all the tailpipes, filtering C from 02. If there was someway to filter C02 so the only exhaust that cars produce is 02, there's still downsides. Too much 02 means more fires that will be tougher to put out.The bioengineered moss isn't such a bad idea either.

    I sure hope oil will be used up before the world is. Hopefully people will start getting the message when gas prices go beyond the $3-4 a gallon, when disasters strike again and again(New Orleans, hurricanes, flooding in other parts of the world, and yet people don't seem to get a hint), or when the air is too polluted to breathe anymore. Sure, the Bush administration dismisses climate change "not an immediate threat", but it can and will become a threat soon enough. And this was said less than a week ago after Bush originally promised to make fossil-fuel buring cars as archaic as the rotary telephone.

    The whole regulations and Kyoto pact or whatever isn't enough. As long as there's fossil-fuel buring cars on the roads, the planet will just keep getting warmer. Hopefully, it'll cool down...
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • h2tribe Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    Nobody really knows if the artificial global warming can be reversed but you surely can slow the progress of the process. The question is ARE WE SERIOUS about curving the global warming. There will always be some skeptics but the general public has to be better informed and educated. More people should be aware of the issue and Vice President's film has done an excellent job to initiate the dialogue.
    Searching for fossil fuel alternatives is a definite step forward. However, that alone will not be the decisive factor to curtail the climate change. Take a look at NO.1 pollutor in the world, the U.S. has done virtually nothing for the past two decades. If not, Americans are driving larger cars and commuting further today. Where is the effective and affordable mass transit system in the U.S.? Everything is spread apart and we, Americans, have built a society that must rely on cars. The new and alternative technologies are being developed as we speak but there are numerous measures we could take to reduce our consumption of energy even before that. We need to educate ourselves and take more responsibilities of actions we take. Nothing will prevent the global climate change unless we begin from there.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • AJ Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    A lot less people, less greed, and a lot of time. How could we re form the ice packs? We may be able to make reductions that could slow the pace a bit, but that's about all. The world is many nations and governments, what we preceive as a problem, may or not be accepted elsewhere, just like gasoline here, everyone complains of gas prices, but new gas hogs are sold everyday by the thousands. Where are the alternative fuels, we went through all of this before in the seventies, odd and even days to buy gas, the strange thing is, the prices never went up that much and they claimed we were too low on gas, now we can get it just fine, but look at the prices and the oil companies profits. Stop making deisel fueled engines except for ships and heavy equipment and factories and all other vehicles should only run on ethenol. Take a look 1 month ago where Conoco and Aramco joined in Saudi Arabia to build that multi billion oil refinery that got little press. This is a huge rerfinery that makes the gasoline and then its shipped wherever. If this country was in fact going to reduce or go to other fuels sources do you think these oil company mogals would be investing all that arab, american money in a high tech refinery that makes gasoline ready for the pipeline there or shipping?
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • George guy Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    It's probably pointless to talk about reversing the effects of global climate change. The global climate has been fluctuating in cycles for millenia, and history indicates that the slight warming trend of the past 100-150 years may simply be the world 'rebounding' from the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period. These climatic events took place when humanity was significantly less technologically advanced, and it is premature to suppose that the slight warming trend in recent times is for some reason less natural than the last one.

    Therefore, it is unlikely that there is anything that can be done to 'reverse' this, apart from simply waiting a few hundred years for the cycle to swing the other way.

    The 'problem' may not actually be serious, possibly even positive. Increased carbon dioxide levels due to humans releasing fossil carbons back into the biosphere could be very beneficial for vegetation, and the slight warming that might accompany this would translate to longer growing seasons at higher latitudes, allowing the Earth to support a population of billions more people.


    • 0
    • Komentar
  • DEE J Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    the AP asked 100 scientists to give their blessing on "An Inconvenient Truth" and only 19 responded with approval, however the press reported it as "scientific backing". This kind of thing is not an anomaly and it behooves me to look into the whole matter with more unbiased concern. Why did he start this in the first place an what sort of evidence and counter evidence has been brought to the surface? Let's look at the culprit here, carbon dioxide. What we breath out. What plants breath in. Let's logically concider what effect a volcanoe (a naturally occuring phenominon which we can do nothing about) has on the earth's atmosphere. Seem's to me it is the same people who claimed a few years back that it was cow flatulance that was burning a hole in the o-zone. And what about solar flares and climatic cycles which span time unrecorded? The environmentalist side says the other side brushes off the arguments they make without considering the facts, but don't they do the same. They would say "no, those aren't facts" well if facts are no longer facts and thus brought down to the level of opinion then really what is the point of even discussing it. I mean now we are just a bunch of immature little wankers bickering back and forth and nobody is really listening to the other side, only trying to get their own point across and remain standing as the one who was "right" I must say that the reason my husband and I have stayed married as long as we have is because when we have a difference of opinion, and we present to one another our arguments, we each consider the validity of the other's point of view with the utmost respect. If either of us believes the other has made a good point, we readily admit that and are willing to grant that the other may be right, it goes both ways and develops true respect for each other. Not resentment, or a feeling of competetiveness. I watch this global warming debate go on, along with similar debates about evolution vs. creation, or should we drill for oil, or even what to do about Iraq, and I just shake my head and wonder when will the grown-ups get involved and truelly get to the bottom of things. I have my own opinions about global warming which I don't think will make much of a difference expressed here because the truth isn't going to be decided by a poll. Truth is truth, it will come forth in the end. However taking into consideration that carbon dioxide is the main culprit here I do think that if all the idiotic, sensless chatter on the matter came to a halt, that would cut down on a great deal of it. Thank you.
    sorry about the spelling, spell check wasn't working


    my own brain/try thinking for yourselves/investigate all sides of every arguement
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • aventur Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    The biggest problem I can see is to convince the American public that this is an actual issue. As you can see from some of the responses you are getting, there are a fair number of people that think this is a political ploy instead of a real issue. I also specify the "American public" for two reasons: 1) because I think most of the people in the rest of the (industrialized) world are genuinely concerned; 2) we are, by far, the most industrialized and most polluting society in the world. Only if the American public can be convinced that this is a real issue can the problem of global climate change be tackled.

    So how do we get the word out? Unfortunately, that is a harder question. The first step is to take the politics out of the equation. Get prominent Republicans to support the environmental movement (McCain? Arnold?). Though, this will be hard with the current administration because of their HEAVY ties to the oil and energy companies. Educate the public through the various news channels, especially FOX. This is because so many sceptics watch that news channel.

    Another strategy would be to tie energy independence with national security. Being so dependent on foreign countries, unstable regions of the world, for our energy needs makes the USA very vulnerable, politically and economically. By using this reasoning to promote conservation and mass transportation projects maybe the cynical (to the environmental movement) American public will cooperate.

    In the end, unless the American public can be weaned from the over consumption of the world's natural resources then the global climate change will be an irreversible truth.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • stevet357 Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I take a dim view of the global warming arguments because I feel that they are more political than scientific, especially in the scientific community. Want to get shut out or shutdown on grants? Start making noises about bad science when it comes to global warming.

    Examples: Why aren't solar radiation effects discussed relative to global warming? Given that a change in the sun (associated with sun spots and other phenomena) will do FAR more to affect the environment, it should be ruled out as even a minor contributor.

    Second, volcanic activity does more to change the content of the atmosphere than man does. Should another Krakatoa happen, we would see another year without summer, or perhaps two or three.

    But what of the gasses emitted by the earth itself? How much CO2, CO, etc. are NOT man caused? How much effect does the ring of fire around the Pacific have on global warming, or cooling for that matter?

    Another thing that needs to be reviewed is the animal population of th world. Example: When buffalo roamed the plains of the USofA and Canada, were there more buffalo then than there are cows today? How much of the green house gasses would they have contributed vs. cattle of today. And this should be looked at for each continent.

    Forests also seem to have something to do with this. Didn't a few scientists in England find that trees, once the temperature rose above a certain point, contribute to the "smog" problem? So how much effect to the atmosphere do trees have on days when the temperature is over 90F?

    These questions and issues need to be placed into the whole equation before we start sounding all the alarms. And I feel that these things are specifically set aside so that noise can be made about things for posturing purposes.

    Do not get me wrong, we only have one earth. We screw it up and we are all equally screwed. But we need to verify that things we are seeing are not part of a cycle that we have absolutely no control over.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • gadriel Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    The main difficulty is that any changes we put in place now will not really have an effect for a 100+ years or so. Globally that is a really short time, obviously. This begs the question will any govenment really want to put in place any legislation that will detract from their election prospects. The developed world as a whole does not like being dictated to about fossil fuel use. Alternative are still too often seen as "hippy" or not effective or just plian not effective. Also a number of "band wagon" companies have set up to gain profit from the few householders by selling either inapropreate or inafectual systems.

    So that is the downside. Now for some contructive suggestion. The greatest poluter in the world is housing and buildings. So rather than contiune to tax motorists how about putting legislation in place to ensure that all building are carbon neutral. Dont specify the method of renewable or sustainable fuel just ask for a carbon neutral building.

    I am studying a Masters in Energy and Sustainable Building design. By doing this it would be a benefit to the global issues also it would "sort" out the good practises for the cowboys. If a house has to be proven to be carbon neutral then the property developer will ensure that the products work or the purchasers would buy.
    The construction copmanies will undoubtable cry about this extra burden by saying that home owners dont want to pay for the extra costs invovled..... However, if more products are used, more sold, prices come down and there is no really reason that the increase in cost are prohibitve.

    I am very serious and passionate about these issues. I am an Engineer for a large company in the UK and work in Dubai. I would be happy to discuss this further with both UK and US Governments...... Yours sincerely AW.
    • 0
    • Komentar
  • Peter L Dijawab 9 tahun yang lalu
    I personally believe that, due to the stubborn nature and ignorance that human beings have displayed in the past, we will not reverse the effects of global warming. I do not however believe that we will not ever make a serious effort to stop global warming, but I think it will just be too late. In addition, I don't think that "the people" will make any difference at all, I think the corporations will because the Apocalypse is bad for business. You can see it happening already; Walmart the root of all that is evil, has gone 'green', not because the consumers called for it, but to cut operating costs. Go figure. Naturally I think this is a very serious problem, that everyone has the responsibility to solve, I just think that we will be too late. Look at china for instance, a country with even worse environmental policies than ours. It will take a great many years before the global community takes serious action to stop global warming. What will it take? nothing short of a miricle. When it comes to getting the word out though, I'd say that anyone who is willing to belive in global warming, has already heard of it, and knows what it can do.

    On a side note I think that anyone accually reading all these replies to find ideas is wasting their time. I mean, seriously, whats the point? To get people thinking about the issue? the lines are already drawn, the issue is already out in the open, the information is all around. Only the individual can decide how to act, and everything else is a waste of time. If you give people conclusive evidence supported by the leading scientists that something is a certain way and they don't believe it, what more can you do?
    • 0
    • Komentar

Siapakah yang mengikuti pertanyaan ini?

    Anggota sejak:
    Poin: Poin: Tingkat
    Total Jawaban:
    Poin minggu ini:
    Berhenti Ikuti
    Buka blokir