Global Warming: What needs to be done?

[ianlippert]

So the IPCC study just came out and things dont look pretty. It looks like the we can expect more heat waves and more hurricanes over the next century. But what I hear very little of is what we can do. I read that even if Kyoto was implemented tomorrow, it would have very little impact on the current trends. What exactly must be done? How much are we going to have to scale back our economies so that we can survive this? Has anyone even developed a realistic plan?

(Please dont turn this thread into a global warming debate. For the sake of discussion I am assuming that the report is true)

[Nielsio]

Temperature history
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...125/Graph1.jpg

[iron81]

Like it or not, solving this problem is going to require a fundamental change in our society. Here's a list of where I would start:

Tougher CAFE standards
Zoning restrictions to encourage more compact neighborhoods, reduce driving times
Increase gas tax
Sign and implement Kyoto
Loosen regs on nuclear power
Money for mass transit

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
Temperature history
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...125/Graph1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Good call. Since AC has no way of dealing with global warming, just pretend like it doesn't exist.

[m_the0ry]

If immediate emissions controls don't do anything and things keep getting worse due to feedback etc, Carbon sequestration will take care of the problem.

Really the technology to fix things almost immediately exists. It's all a matter of putting money into fixing the problem. Right now there is no incentive for an entrepreneur to build a carbon farm because obviously there is no market for it. A solution might be subsidizing the carbon capturing business. That takes a lot of money to be effective.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly must be done? How much are we going to have to scale back our economies so that we can survive this? Has anyone even developed a realistic plan?

[/ QUOTE ]Realistically, little will be done.

Industrial nations will never willingly drop their energy consumption in any significant way, since it means they will be giving up their lead in economic power. Emerging economies will never willingly abandon their aspirations to parity, either.

Same goes for individuals.

The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon, but, at the same time, it must be a catastrophy which won't be lethal for the human race, or the rest of the world.

We have a hardcore smoker in our hands, a nicotine addict, who's also overweight, and only a serious heart attack can make him lose weight and give up smoking, or at least seriously cut back from his four packs a day.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon......


[/ QUOTE ]

'Over-consumption'....What is that?

'Wild capitalist abandon....What is that?




The 'rest of the world' will continue on with or without the human race. If humans become extinct, whether by their own mischief or some other natural force(s), the 'rest of the world' will evolve on, sans humans (and others species that will fall victim to human activities). Perhaps another hominid type species will evolve again - it is a few billion years before the sun loses equilibrium.



On an important related note, I thought you knew that man was not the center of the universe, an egomaniacal delusion still perpetrated by our many friends in the religion department.



".........it must be a catastrophy which won't be lethal for the human race, or the rest of the world."

As for "which won't be lethal for the human race" you missed the mark wide. Reload and take better aim next time so you don't seem so silly.

-Zeno

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
'Over-consumption'....What is that?

'Wild capitalist abandon'....What is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

=

Virtually.

[ QUOTE ]
The 'rest of the world' will continue on with or without the human race. If humans become extinct, whether by their own mischief or some other natural force(s), the 'rest of the world' will evolve on, sans humans (and others species that will fall victim to human activities).

[/ QUOTE ]Misanthropes through many of us are, it is logical for mankind to proceed along the course that provides the best chance of preserving our (sole) natural habitat.

It's either this, or an expedient suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps another hominid type species will evolve again.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not relevant to the issue, but the appearance of our kind of hominids was already such an outside shot, that it is pretty much evident that another shot will likely not result in the same outcome. (I.e. if we were to re-wind History some hundreds of millions of years back and let it roll again, we would almost certainly end up with extremely different forms of life on the planet.)

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you knew that Man was not the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]He isn't. We aren't. This doesn't mean that Man cannot, by now, seriously affect his environment to the point of, God-like, destroying it.

That's the whole point, really. Man's ability to do extreme, God-like damage. He doesn't have the capacity to do God-like good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it must be a catastrophy which won't be lethal for the human race, or the rest of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]As for "which won't be lethal for the human race" you missed the mark wide.

[/ QUOTE ]There can be such catastrophies. I won't bother with providing examples, since this tends to derail the discussion and we focus on the example rather than issue.

Mickey Brausch

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Temperature history
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...125/Graph1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the early 80's. The evidence has moved on a little since then and we know a fair bit more now. Since you seem not to understand that, I'll explain.

We've know for some time there are large cyclical variations in global temperature. However what we have recently come to understand is that human involvement is perturbing these cycles. Hence over the next hundred years we will see a rise in global temperatures well above that what we would expect purely as a result of the natural cycle.

[evil twin]

To return to topic, one of the most serious greenhouse gas emitters is not cars, or aeroplanes, but agriculture. Vast tracts of land are set aside for grazing instead of being forest, and the animals on that land being fed high protien diets so they get fat then emit great quantities of methane. One estimate put the total contribution to the greenhouse gasses from agriculture at 80%. This includes the animals emissions themselves, and all the farm machinery needed to tend and process such herds.

http://www.indsp.org/IAGW.php

We are only just coming to understand this component but I expect it to be talked about a lot more over the coming months and years. If it's true (and I see no reason to think it isn't), then one of the major things we'll need to do to combat global warming is change our diet. Vast herds of animals so we can eat meat with each and every single meal is not sustainable. Oh, and just in case anyone is confused here, no, I am not a vegetarian.