Question:
Math problem for Liberals on global warming.?
Jewles
2007-06-09 15:01:25 UTC
If cars cause 9.9% of human caused green house gasses world wide, but cars cause 27.6% of the human caused green house gasses in the USA. What would happen if all the people stopped driving cars in the USA and just used bicycles? How much would these green house gasses go down world wide? Hint for liberals, if you are truely concerned about green house gasses and you just concentrate your efforts on USA cars, then you are overlooking over 90% of your so called problem. Or maybe this isn't a world wide problem as they say? It would also hurt the USA economy but I guess that is what Liberals want anyway because they hate the USA for some unexplainable reason.
Sixteen answers:
anonymous
2007-06-09 17:27:37 UTC
They are confused. Similar to little children who lie and then can't stop and can't remember what they said etc. When I was a kid they were telling us that because of the way we evil humans abused the Earth, we were all going to perish in a man made ''ice age''. lol
Anders
2007-06-09 15:51:28 UTC
Stop using Liberals as an opposition, or excuse. Even President George Bush sees global warming as a serious challenge. Liberals hating U.S.? I believe there is a freedom of speech there? Just because they have other opinions then you seem to have doesn't mean that they hate the Country. I think you should see more to facts and let people have the opinions they want. And keep the political questions in the right section, not here.



Btw, to those who thinks it is a 'great question':

Did you mean to say that U.S. is responsible for 27.6% of world wide green house gas emissions? If so, you need to say what percentage of U.S. emissions that cars stands for.



If your question was correctly stated you need to say how much of the worlds green house gas emissions that the U.S. is responsible for to make it a complete question.
Trevor
2007-06-09 19:19:09 UTC
It's not cars that produce 9.9% of GHG's but road transport in all its forms, cars are a little over 5% of all GHG emissions and a little over 7% of CO2 emissions.



Using the most recent data available (2006) the US produced 24.3% of the total CO2 and GHG emissions worldwide. Not sure where you got the figure of 27.6% from and I would question it's authenticity. Transportation in the US produces 14% of GHG emissions and 19% of CO2 emissions, road trasnport is responsible for 10% of GHG emissions and 14% of CO2 emissions, cars accounting for about half of this total.



Removing all cars from the roads of the US would lead to a 7% reduction in GHG emissions and as the US produces 24.3% of all GHG emissions the global effect would be to reduce emissions by a little under 2%.



Switching to bicycles would help but it's not going to make that big a difference.



Those who are concerned about global warming do not focus their attention just on cars and definitely not just on the US.



As for the economy. Outside of the US there is a much greater awareness of the effects of global warming and the demand for cleaner, greener and better technologies is rising rapidly. Global markets are turning their backs on US goods such as motor vehicles, in favour of Japanese and European models. If the US had followed the rest of the developed world it wouldn't be losing billions in reduced exports and increased imports.



Rather than blaming the liberals for everything I think you should look at the world view of the US. Global warming has been an issue outside the US longer than it's been an issue within the US, the consequence of which is that 92% of the world's population view global warming as a series threat and they are far more advanced when it comes to dealing with it. Many people are angry with the way the US has failed to address global warming and until the US realigns itself with the rest of the world it is going to continue to suffer the consequences.
Killer Karamazing
2007-06-09 18:32:57 UTC
Well hmm think about this, There are a bunch of countries in this world. We are the mega-country aren't we? What are the percentages of every other country in this world? .1%, .4%? So think about this, we are probably the largest percentage, or at least in the top 5. That's why if we stop adding to green house gasses it'll help the world a lot more than you think.
NLBNLB
2007-06-09 15:12:52 UTC
NOT AT ALL !!! I AM STATING THAT EVERY LITTLE STEPS COUNTS. AND THIS IS A BIG ONE



Actualized figures 2003:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl_statesector.xls

CO2 from transportation (US- all): 1.9 Gt CO2/year

World CO2 emissions: around 25 Gt

that´s around 7%.... huge





I think you simply lack of some concepts yet to understand the mechanisms.

The US has an underperforming automotive sector with a consumption that is twice at least what it could be.



I am personally not against letting the US government "largely help its manufacturer adapt" or even the other extreme "let them die, its the market cleaning".



If the consumption is cut by half, then the plan to produce the ethanol for 20% of the driven miles turns into 40% with the same quantity... logic, isn´it ? This is the multiplication effect.







In what you call liberals are also world specialist of the question... they were not liberals since they strongly support market oriented tools. It´s just they do not support what conservatives do and can´t identify themselves with them.



One of my first prof to criticize the Bush energy policy (if there is one...) is somebody who has a strong belief in market tools nd pushed for liberalization of energy markets worldwide !

But the difference is: he cares about the environment and disseminated green tools which the US now copy with 5-10 years delay !





If you really want to educate yourself about the mitigation schemes, you need to do further readings and all I can do is to help you to provide some further links:



www.postkyoto.com

www.pointcarbon.com



Climate scorecards by country:

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=104300
looey323
2007-06-09 16:05:08 UTC
Well, whatever portion of the 27.6% of the total "Greenhouse Gases" in the USA that are caused by automobiles, including those caused indirectly by remote power generation for electric cars, would stop. That would be a smaller %age amount by far than the whole world. Have to know the %age of cars US cars vs cars in the world.



But the CO2 emitted by those who pedal the bikes and use energy that way would increase rapidly. I do not know of anyone who has made this computation. So the decrease would not be as great as expected.



A good side effect tho would be keeping Congressmen at their work, and not out getting contributions from who knows who!!



And also, cars are not the only internal combustion vehicles and other engines. We'd need to stop power generation by diesels, ships at sea that burn diesel or coal, gasoline lawnmowers, earthmovers using gas or diesel engines, and our truck system would need to halt, as well as diesel trains. We should then too stop heating our houses with electric, coal, oil, or gas. Or even cooking with these. Wood is out!



Just a minor impact on the US economy for a minor effect on world "greenhouse" gases..



And major factor that is being overlooked by the politicians is the political fact that we are pretty fully industrialized, so our emissions are not likely to go up fast, while places like China and India are just starting the fast rise to a car in every garage, and a TV on every table. They are BIG countries, so the potential is for them to override any efforts we make to reduce our emissions. And they will fight any efforts to keep themselves non-polluting; seen that already.



The Liberals do not see worldwide. The look at this country, which is where they have the power to dictate what others may and may not do. It is over here a shortsighted issue of control...who can wave a wand and make the rest jump.



And exacerbated by many many years of Liberal Education and its policies of keeping people from having to think for themselves. And from getting ALL sides of the issues and discussing them.



Prime example right now is the Liberal push to get an amendment to some, any, bill to make it a crime to have "grassroots" political movement, even to talking politics over the fence with your neighbor. or to have discussions like this!!



It keeps getting beaten back through efforts of Conservative organizations, but keeps getting added back in to another bill the next week or two.



Anyhow, the math on what no cars would do is very flawed. depending on the practical alternatives found, which i do not hear presented.



I know it is not practical for me to go out and buy a $25K car that only goes 40 miles and then has to stop for 8 hours to recharge. I could almost make a trip TO the grocery store and then back after 8 hours of sitting around doing nothing.



Of course, I cannot get enough money to afford a $25K new car, so I guess they would have me sit and starve to death...which would add a burst of CO2 to the atmosphere!



Liberals generally have lots of money...but not to be liberal and share with! Only enough to direct other people's lives.
sunford
2016-11-28 01:52:31 UTC
Ah! i'm getting it now. we don't desire coaching, and because 40 seven% of Chicago pupils are illiterate, enable's privatize coaching or do away with altogether. That way, we can sustain with the economies of Japan, China, India, and different factors that could come to dominate the international degree because of the fact individuals are 650 lb., sixty 5 IQ, ignorant settee potatoes. You neo-cons beneficial understand the thank you to repair thangs!
SomeGuy
2007-06-09 16:11:42 UTC
Wha...? When did anyone ever say efforts to combat global warming were exclusive to the US? When did anyone ever overlook the fact that other nations besides the US contribute to global warming? And who exactly said everyone in the US has to stop driving?
Ryan the wizard
2007-06-09 15:24:00 UTC
I don't see how the global warming problem is a problem for liberals to solve. We all breathe the same air.

Or do you breathe special air designated for your party affiliation?

Who cares
DRA
2007-06-09 16:35:03 UTC
You point out an interesting fact. This global warming debate is nothing but pure politics at work. There is no evidence that man is responsible for this warming trend, and all of the sudden CO2 is our enemy?? I find the entire debate quite comical myself and am amused by all the drones that live by it. What's even more comical is that the self-proclaimed leader and expert is the same idiot who claimed to have invented the Internet - Al Gore.
bobby_burk
2007-06-09 16:25:02 UTC
Great question! Although I am weak at math (I know a little about derivatives from my education in economics.) The whole global warming scare has to do with re-distribution of income! The liberals want to take money from one class (the working and thinking class) and distribute to the lazy class in the form of a energy tax! Of course the countries with the greatest growth rate (China and India) will be exempt from this tax. Go ahead and ride your bike to work (lower pollution for me tho breath and lower gas prices for my Lincoln).
3DM
2007-06-09 17:10:21 UTC
Have you ever played cards with someone who is losing and decides to play 52-pickup?



Liberals worldwide are not happy with the economic situation in the US, and are trying to create a chaotic world and a need to "start over". They are perfectly happy to cause mass hysteria - they need the restless masses in order to stage their "coup".
Gary K
2007-06-10 01:16:13 UTC
Like 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapor, CO2 is about 1%. Shouldn't we be concentrating on limiting water emissions?
Mystine G
2007-06-09 16:22:11 UTC
That is completely unfair, giving a math problem to people who learned everything they needed to know in kindergarten.
Gump023
2007-06-09 15:08:46 UTC
Don't confuse them. They're just kids at heart.
RichSTCharles
2007-06-09 16:10:25 UTC
Consequences of Global Warming

Unless we act now, our children will inherit a hotter world, dirtier air and water, more severe floods and droughts, and more wildfires





Barrow

McCall Glacier





Shismaref

Yukon River

Fairbanks







Wasilla

Kenai Peninsula





ALASKA HEATS UP

Warming temperatures are already having an impact on the people, wildlife and landscape of Alaska. Click on the numbers on this map to see what's happening on the front lines of global warming.



1. Barrow 2. Shismaref 3. Yukon River 4. Wasilla 5. Kenai Peninsula 6. McCall Glacier 7. Fairbanks



The latest scientific data confirm that the earth's climate is rapidly changing. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the course of the last century, and will likely rise even more rapidly in coming decades. The cause? A thickening layer of carbon dioxide pollution, mostly from power plants and automobiles, that traps heat in the atmosphere.



Scientists say that unless global warming emissions are reduced, average U.S. temperatures could rise another 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century -- with far-reaching effects. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction. As this page shows, many of these changes have already begun.





CLIMATE PATTERN CHANGES



Consequence: warmer temperatures

Average temperatures will rise, as will the frequency of heat waves.



Warning signs today



* Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, no state in the lower 48 states experienced below average temperatures in 2002. The last three five-year periods are the three warmest on record.



* Many places in North America had their hottest seasons or days on record in the late 1990s.



* Since 1980, the earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on record, with 2005 and 1998 tied for the hottest and 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third.



Consequence: drought and wildfire

Warmer temperatures could also increase the probability of drought. Greater evaporation, particularly during summer and fall, could exacerbate drought conditions and increase the risk of wildfires.



Warning signs today



Wildfire

Greater evaporation as a result of global warming

could increase the risk of wildfires.

* The 1999-2002 national drought was one of the three most extensive droughts in the last 40 years.



* In 2002, the Western United States experienced its second worst wildfire season in the last 50 years; more than 7 million acres burned. Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon had their worst seasons.



* The period from April through June of 1998 was the driest three-month period in 104 years in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana.



* Dry conditions produced the worst wildfires in 50 years in Florida in 1998.



* April through July of 1999 was the driest four-month stretch in 105 years of record-keeping in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island.



* Montana, Colorado, and Kansas experienced severe dust storms in 2002, a product of dry conditions.



* September 2001 to February 2002 was the second driest six-month period on record for the Northeast.



Consequence: more intense rainstorms

Warmer temperatures increase the energy of the climatic system and lead to more intense rainfall at some times and in some areas.



Warning signs today



* National annual precipitation has increased between 5 and 10 percent since the early 20th century, largely the result of heavy downpours in some areas.



* Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts each got more than double their normal monthly rainfall in June 1998.



* Severe flooding in the Texas, Montana, and North Dakota during the summer of 2002 caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.





HEALTH EFFECTS



Heat wave in Chicago

More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. Photo: Gary Braasch, Chicago, July 1995. See the World View of Global Warming website for more Gary Braasch photos illustrating the consequences of the changing climate.



Consequence: deadly heat waves and the spread of disease

More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. These conditions could also aggravate local air quality problems, already afflicting more than 80 million Americans. Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well.



Warning signs today



* In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1500 deaths in India.



* More than 250 people died as a result of an intense heat wave that gripped most of the eastern two-thirds of the United States in 1999.



* Disease-carrying mosquitoes are spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable areas. Mosquitoes that can carry dengue fever viruses were previously limited to elevations of 3,300 feet but recently appeared at 7,200 feet in the Andes Mountains of Colombia. Malaria has been detected in new higher-elevation areas in Indonesia.





WARMING WATER



Consequence: more powerful and dangerous hurricanes

Warmer water in the oceans pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them more intense and potentially more destructive.



Warning signs today



* The number of category 4 and 5 storms has greatly increased over the past 35 years, along with ocean temperature.



Consequence: melting glaciers, early ice thaw

Rising global temperatures will speed the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and cause early ice thaw on rivers and lakes.



Warning signs today



* At the current rate of retreat, all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2070.



* After existing for many millennia, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica -- a section larger than the state of Rhode Island -- collapsed between January and March 2002, disintegrating at a rate that astonished scientists. Since 1995 the ice shelf's area has shrunk by 40 percent.



* According to NASA, the polar ice cap is now melting at the alarming rate of nine percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.



* In 82 years of record-keeping, four of the five earliest thaws on Alaska's Tanana River were in the 1990s.



Collapse of Larsen B ice shelf

The satellite photo at far left shows the Larson B ice shelf on Jan. 31, 2002. Ice appears as solid white. Moving to the right, in photos taken Feb. 17 and Feb. 23, the ice begins to disintegrate. In the photos at far right, taken Mar. 5 and Mar 7, note water (blue) where solid ice had been, and that a portion of the shelf is drifting away. Photos: National Aeronautics and Space Administration



Consequence: sea-level rise

Current rates of sea-level rise are expected to increase as a result both of thermal expansion of the oceans and of partial melting of mountain glaciers and the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Consequences include loss of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and a greater risk of flooding in coastal communities. Low-lying areas, such as the coastal region along the Gulf of Mexico and estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay, are especially vulnerable.



Warning signs today



* The current pace of sea-level rise is three times the historical rate and appears to be accelerating.



* Global sea level has already risen by four to eight inches in the past century. Scientists' best estimate is that sea level will rise by an additional 19 inches by 2100, and perhaps by as much as 37 inches.





ECOSYSTEM DISRUPTION



Alpine meadow

Warmer temperatures may cause some ecosystems, including alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, to disappear.



Consequence: ecosystem shifts and species die-off

The increase in global temperatures is expected to disrupt ecosystems and result in loss of species diversity, as species that cannot adapt die off. The first comprehensive assessment of the extinction risk from global warming found that more than one million species could be committed to extinction by 2050 if global warming pollution is not curtailed. Some ecosystems, including alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, as well as tropical montane and mangrove forests, are likely to disappear because new warmer local climates or coastal sea level rise will not support them.



Warning signs today



* A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature found that at least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming. Species' geographic ranges have shifted toward the poles at an average rate of 4 miles per decade and their spring events have shifted earlier by an average of 2 days per decade.



* In Washington's Olympic Mountains, sub-alpine forest has invaded higher elevation alpine meadows. In Bermuda and other places, mangrove forests are being lost.



* In areas of California, shoreline sea life is shifting northward, probably in response to warmer ocean and air temperatures.



* Over the past 25 years, some penguin populations have shrunk by 33 percent in parts of Antarctica, due to declines in winter sea-ice habitat.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...