Question:
Global warming policy issue?
?
2009-05-25 20:41:13 UTC
Imagine that you are a policy maker faced with the global warming issue. Do you adopt aggressive (but expensive) mitigation policies or do you adopt a wait-and-see stance? Which makes better sense and why?
Ten answers:
nhbneil
2009-05-26 00:12:00 UTC
You fix the problem by reflecting light / thus excess heat away from the earth.

The damage done by increased greenhouse emissions has already taken its toll. This is evident by the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. Some will say that there is no such thing as global warming, because there is in their opinion very little change in the average global temperature. However when you take into account the fact that there is less ice, and snow, because of the melting of polar ice and glaciers across the globe. That melted ice, snow and glaciers across the globe will in themselves temporarily lower the overall ocean temperatures until they all melt. Thereby lowering the average temperatures on the earth. So if you account for that, the average temperature can be proven to be increasing.

It doesn't matter whether global warming is man made or just a cycle in the earth's history .... it is happening. Between solar processes or natural earth processes such as volcanoes and the ever present forest fires which will be argued to have occurances whether or not mankind were present. It still just doesn't matter how it is happening, it is.



FACT: "Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming."

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011



We have gone past the point of no return unless we can build improvements to assist in reflecting light away from the earth.



First you have to understand how long the earth has been storing up the fossil fuels. The coal, oil and natural gas that we are using now are products of the earth converting plants and animals into their present forms over (often) millions of years. They have been stored now for millions of years without being used until now. By being used now, we are converting these fuels from stored carbon, into released carbon. Thus allowing this released carbon to act as a greenhouse effect gas again.



Since we are talking about a situation where the Earth once had a lot of stored carbon and now that stored carbon is disappearing at a tremendous rate (and will continue into the future) We can be truthful in saying that there is a definite trend, and relationship in the increase of greenhouse gasses. We can also say that these greenhouse gasses would not have been released without the intervention of man. Logically therefore we can say that global warming gasses have been released and any global warming increases are directly attributed to mankind’s releasing them.

We cannot get the world back the way it was, even as of fifty years ago, much less stop the damage that will still occur in the future. Sure we could try to stop all industry that will cause pollution, but at what cost. Without industry we could not sustain the present world population. Giving up industry and sacrificing billions of people on this planet in the process, is not a viable solution (even trying to merely lower greenhouse emissions is at best a temporary solution).



The biggest problem we have now is not just the fact that we have more greenhouse gasses trapping heat in, but we are getting less and less sunlight being reflected out from the planet. As the snow cover melts from more and more of the planets surface, the sunlight heats up more parts of the earth that once reflected light back out. It is like a dog chasing its tail (until it gets dizzy and falls from exhaustion). As global warming just keeps building on itself till the ecological balance fails, and this planet will no longer sustain the teeming human populations.



Greenhouse effect cure (there are no real cures but this may help till we can find one). First I want to point out that there are no real, viable short term, or easy methods of curing our Global warming woes. The damage to the environment has already been done and is, for all intent and purposes, basically irreversible. It is likely, however, that any type of plan to get rid of Global warming, will require some type of dramatic ecological compromises.



Some will say that all we need to do is give up industry on the planet and the world will eventually go back to the way it was. I say it is too late for that solution (as a short term solution anyway).



My plan, however, will require the use of old tires and recycled plastics. Of course it will require some engineering feats also, and a few ecological compromises. The benefits of using these wasted products will far outweigh the compromises required.



My idea is to build large floating islands (white on top, to reflect sunlight back out of our planet) made from used tires (filled with co2) and recycled plastics. Yes there are engineering and ecological problems, but everyone has to admit there are worse problems in our current situation. So the only feasible solution is to build a bunch of artificial reflection "islands" across the planet.



We can also try to get more people to use reflecting surfaces on buildings (which will be as difficult to do, as no one likes to have to do things exactly the same as everyone else).



There will be other benefits realized, once we build enough of these islands. One of the problems associated with the increased temperatures we are experiencing is the possibility of increased hurricane intensity and frequency. Having enough of these floating islands in strategic points in the oceans will help to alleviate this problem also. It is a well known fact that hurricanes form in areas of the ocean where the temperature rises above approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit. If we can keep those areas below that temperature (by reflecting sunlight away), we can prevent the formation of hurricanes. Without these floating islands, hurricanes will probably continue to increase in intensity and frequency…



We need a solution to deal with our Global warming woes, and we need it now. Even if this is a difficult path to follow, it will pay off in the future. The overall problems I see for Greenhouse effect is that we can go green all we want, but Global warming and our constant desire to be comfortable, will eventually undermine any efforts we may do. Unless we can get rid of some of the excess heat in this world, we will always be under the eventual threat of a thermal overheating demise.
monique
2016-05-28 01:44:54 UTC
The US should not control CO2. I mean really, the next thing you know the government will have the right to control how often you breathe.I am a Republican and I think global warming is a load of CRAP! Where is the proof? We just want to think we are more powerful than the Earth. Compared to natural disasters like volcanoes that push tons of ash into the air and meteors that block out the sunlight for hundreds of years we are nothing. The Earth recovers. Plus, the Earth heats and cools all by itself. I mean, 30 years ago, everyone was flipping out about global cooling! And just saying, If you really want to help the Earth save the trees or the whales or some cause that is based on facts, not fiction. P.S. Bill Morris- Republicans don't support global warming because it is based on fiction and we have better places to spend our money and better causes.BTW your hero Mr. Gore lives in a $9 million Montevideo oceanfront villa. I wonder how beneficial that is to the Earth. Mintie_b...- If you would rather give away your hard earned money to illegal immigrants and drug cartels be my guest but don't ask me to do it. People work hard for money and they should get what they earn and not be FORCED to give it away.
gbgoble
2009-05-26 01:46:08 UTC
Ultimately a market driven solution will solve the issue. A global warming issue or the issue of a weakening economy. The rising costs of energy and the hidden costs of fossil fuel/energy (pollution, asthma, acid rain, oil spills, flame offs, and maybe just maybe global warming...) are linked together somehow. The rising cost of fossil fuels will continue due to the fact that it costs more to get to deeper deposits. Also, continued dependence is not a wise course; an economy can collapse from an interuption in supply.



A market driven solution. Whoever solves the energy issue, its costs and its hidden costs and liabilities, is going to be rich. We are on the verge of epic technological advancements. These innovations will take hold quicker thru society than the computer did. The next generation will look back on ours as the last of the fire era and know that the term energy shortage was a term for unenlightened minds. All the energy that is, was, or ever will be is her right now; changing form.



"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is

easy." - Albert Einstein -



Greg



See sources for 136 roadworthy vehicles that get 100 mpg racing for an X Foundation Prize. Note Nelson team is a full size Ford SUV with no hybrid technology. AFS Zero Fuel teams car runs on Urea. Orion Project creates electricity from the space between matter. The book by Louis Arnoux has wonderful material on the future of solar... storing it for on demand power as compressed air. The byproducts are heat and cooling. Ingenius, lets hear it for innovators... market driven folks.
antarcticice
2009-05-25 21:15:31 UTC
While grand denier theories of global political conspiracies are utter nonsense, I think it is true to say that most politicians in democracies worldwide don't rock the boat, because they want to be re-elected they know that action on global warming will cause some short term financial problems have (beyond talking about it) done little real work towards the changes that are going to need to be taken.

This is not entirely the politicians fault, we the people as a group seem to have little interest in politics look how many American don't even vote. A number of countries populations (my own included) have been quite willing to overlook serious policy mistakes and re-elect a government because they were offered a tax break or similar cash incentive.
?
2009-05-25 23:57:57 UTC
Neither! I would adopt an Adaptation strategy, reserving sufficient funds with which to actually help people who might directly be affected by the effects of GW. Start with getting folks out of Louisiana and relocating them to higher ground, Then proceed to have DDT unlisted as a prohibitively dangerous chemical and start to seriously combat Malaria. Contribute to a global fund for 3rd World resettlement.
te144
2009-05-25 20:46:02 UTC
What is 'aggressive mitigation'? Sounds like strong-arming with kid gloves.
Just Another Guy
2009-05-25 20:46:11 UTC
Global Warming is total Bull sh*t

Al Gore can kiss my butt
You may be right
2009-05-25 20:44:53 UTC
There is no global warming, scientists have already proved that we are in global cooling right now. don't you watch the news
2009-05-25 20:43:54 UTC
aggressive issues for me
Back traF
2009-05-25 20:45:05 UTC
I'd go with the wait and see because guess what... there is no global warming!


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