What to do about global warming

[Extrafire]

We're told global warming is a serious problem caused by our CO2 emissions, that action must be taken immediately to reduce our emissions by 80%, and that we have 10 years. (Mind you, we've been told that for more than 20 years now, making it the longest decade in the history of time.)

So how have all those efforts to cut emissions worked so far, what are the actual results of all those $billions spent on "saving the planet"? What I've seen thus far is more in the line of wealth redistribution rather than emission reductions.

Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal.

Please do not use this thread to argue for or against AGW, or whether the globe is warming or cooling, we have enough threads for that already.

 

[Extrafire]

California leads the way in the US. So how's it working out for them?

California’s experiment with global warming regulations reminds me of a story about a foolish, old dog who lost his bone in the water when he tried to grab its reflection. Similarly, California’s leaders risk sacrificing the jobs and industries we have today on a hope and a prayer that the “green jobs” and “green industries” of the future will be better and more plentiful than those we already have.


When Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, into law more than three years ago, he declared that the sweeping new regulations imposed by the measure would be “good for business.”


Since then we’ve learned these regulations carry a multibillion dollar price tag and will be the largest tax increase ever imposed by unelected regulators in California —call it the “global warming tax.”


The Governor also promised that California would “create a whole new industry to pump up our economy, a clean-tech industry that creates jobs, sparks new cutting edge technology and will be a model for the rest of the nation and the rest of the world.”


Since those bold proclamations by the governor California has lost more than a million jobs. The only thing that’s been “pumped up” is our unemployment rate, which has soared from 4.8% to 12.5%, far higher than most other states.


Despite mounting evidence that the global warming tax will hurt California’s economy and cost jobs, the Governor continues to insist it will create jobs.


David Crane, the Governor’s economic advisor, explained on CNN last year, “we don’t have to keep the same jobs we had before” to get real job growth.


Their plan for job growth, apparently, is to create a vast array of government programs and subsidies that help one sector of the state’s economy and hope they offset job losses everywhere else.


So far the results have been less than convincing.


Green jobs compose less than one percent of California’s economy. That’s right, less than one percent. From 1995 to 2008, California added only 42,000 new green jobs. At that rate of growth, it would take 89 years for green jobs to replace all of the other jobs California has lost in the current economic downturn.

Even worse, economists warn that, rather than create a surplus of jobs, the global warming tax will kill up to 1.1 million more jobs in the future,.


Clearly, green jobs won’t save us. We need other jobs too.


Yet California’s high costs and hostile business climate are driving the very folks who create those jobs to other, more business-friendly states. Since 2000, California has lost more than 600,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs. Even green industries are choosing to expand outside California.


Business relocation specialist Joseph Vranich sees the problem firsthand. His full-time job is advising companies who want to flee California. He recently noted that no one is calling him to say they’d like to move to California, adding that businesses in California face a “coming financial tsunami from AB 32.”


Many companies that compete in the global marketplace don’t have the luxury of passing higher costs onto consumers.


Consider CalPortland Cement. As a result of AB 32, the company cancelled its California expansion plans and is considering expanding in Nevada instead. The company also recently laid off 100 highly paid workers when it closed its cement operations in Colton.


Steve Regis, vice president of engineering at CalPortland says, “We’re not like other companies. We simply cannot pass our cost on to our customers because we’re truly a world market. We compete with China, so we’re really in danger.”


Others see a reality that California’s leaders ignore. Arizona recently dropped plans to participate in a cap and trade system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Some Utah legislators want to follow Arizona’s lead. Even federal lawmakers are backing away from a cap and trade proposal, citing economic concerns.


Governor Schwarzenegger should follow their lead and put the brakes on AB 32, California’s global warming tax. He should insist that regulators’ actions not hurt any sector of California’s economy, nor increase the food and energy prices consumers pay.

Capitol Weekly: California?s green jobs mirage: Experimenting with global warning regulations

 

[Slim Chance]

It would be not accurate to blame all of California's economic woes ofn the green legislation, however, it has had an impact on the business community and state.

One of the issues that (maybe) California failed to really recognize is that these technologies are subsidy-intensive. basically, the state just "hired" more employees on an indirect basis and sought to pass-off the cost to the private sector... The private sector responded by relocating into a neighbouring state (Texas was a big one)and still competed in CA.

Green tech and laws are great, but at this point in the tech evolution; it is a luxury and any group seeking to hang their hat primarily on this industry will likely have a tough roe to hoe.

 

[Extrafire]

You're right Slim, Californias problems come from their leftist vision of governance and regulations, of which the global warming initiatives are just the latest hammer blow to their economy, just when they really can't afford it.

California: Harbinger of National Doom?

If you were given the perfect country, could you mess it up as bad as California? Begin with fertile, productive, well-irrigated soils capable of growing just about anything. Add vast agricultural tracts and miles upon miles of wine country with lush, bountiful vineyards. Include majestic mountain ranges containing rich deposits of gold, silver and other useful metals, and covered with thick, immense forests with every type of timber imaginable. Toss in critical navigable rivers to move these resources to market. Insert vast oil and natural gas deposits while you are at it, along with wind, water, geothermal and solar resources. Give it a long coastline with beautiful beaches, plentiful fresh water, ocean fisheries, many natural harbors, a well-connected transportation grid with first-class roads, rails and airports too. Don’t forget universities at the cutting edge of technology and an unparalleled educational system.

Bestow all the natural building blocks necessary for a well-balanced, diversified, leading economy that is virtually guaranteed to bring unparalleled prosperity to your people—a smorgasbord of natural blessings. Then on top of it all, throw in days spent skiing at sunrise on Lake Tahoe and swimming at sunset in San Francisco the same day. This is the Golden State.

Yet California is imploding. And it is dragging the rest of the country with it.

California is home to America’s leading manufacturing belt, the nation’s largest high-tech center (Silicon Valley), and one of its most productive agricultural areas (the Central Valley). As a stand-alone economy, it is bigger than Canada, Brazil, India and even Russia. It is also the most populous state, with one in eight Americans calling California home.

But just look at the next headline you see that says “California.” Whether it’s an article on finance, economics, government, crime, morals or some other subject, the glaring question is: What went wrong?

California: Harbinger of National Doom? | Columns | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

 

[Praxius]

We're told global warming is a serious problem caused by our CO2 emissions, that action must be taken immediately to reduce our emissions by 80%, and that we have 10 years. (Mind you, we've been told that for more than 20 years now, making it the longest decade in the history of time.)

So how have all those efforts to cut emissions worked so far, what are the actual results of all those $billions spent on "saving the planet"? What I've seen thus far is more in the line of wealth redistribution rather than emission reductions.

Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal.

Please do not use this thread to argue for or against AGW, or whether the globe is warming or cooling, we have enough threads for that already.

Please don't use this thread to argue about Global Warming? :-?

Considering you admitted already one of the main flaws in the argument right off the bat, ie: we've been told we're all going to die in 10 years for the last 20-30 years..... and you want us to ignore this little nugget and to continue discussing how to get everybody on board with reducing our pollution in order to stop this horrible Global Warming......

..... Based on what?

If you want a solution to a problem of this scale, then you need to get everybody on board that this is indeed a problem that needs to be solved.... you don't do that by starting the argument as you did by showing one of the major flaws of this GW argument.

Point being: If you say we need to do something about our pollution ASAP or in 10 years we're all going to suffer greatly, then make the remark that this 10 year deadline is virtually baseless.... what incentive is there for anybody to take this "Problem" seriously or bother to find a solution when they don't believe a problem exists in the first place, or certainly doesn't exist to the extent some make it out to be?

The moment Global Warming supporters stop treating those who question their beliefs as idiots and as soon as they stop contradicting their own reports & studies with baseless imaginary deadlines..... will be the moment more people will take this problem seriously and address the issue at hand to find a logical and sound solution..... that's the first step..... and you can't even get to the next step of taking worthwhile action without taking this first step.... First.... otherwise all your efforts will be futile.

I'm not here trying to debate or question the existence of Global Warming, I'm here questioning your approach on trying to address the possible problem of Global Warming, where you shoot yourself in the foot before you even begin.

When you say something like "Ok Global Warming Exists, we're not here to debate if it does or doesn't exist, it just does.... now what are we going to do about it?" You already begun an exercise in completely wasting time.

It's a waste of time, because if you only have, say 50% of the global population behind you, reducing their pollution and such, trying to save the planet..... you still have the other 50% of the global population continuing on with their lives like they always did, thus counteracting any of your attempts in reducing the pollution. While you do indeed have 50% of the population reducing their pollution, thus better then 100% of the global population carrying on as they always did..... you're only delaying the inevitable & you are not solving the problem.

Step #1 is getting everybody on board that there is indeed a problem.... you can not find logical solutions and take the next step until this occurs.

Added:

So how do you get everybody on board?

Simple.... stop tossing out these various concepts and divisions of Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, etc..... too many people are taking one side, another side, or the third side, or people are just fed up with all the various confusion and thus take no side at all.

Everybody can agree that the climate is changing in various parts of the globe, either cooling or warming, getting wetter, getting drier.

It's been too long now that the terms "Global Warming/Cooling" have been used, that some people are stuck on it either not existing, blown out of proportion, or hyped beyond reality.... the terms have a stigma attached to them..... but nobody can dispute the climate changing, which covers any possible aspect of environmental/climate fluctuation...... man made or naturally occurring or both.

With the terms "Global Warming/Cooling" people are stuck on arguing the finer points...... is it man made, is it naturally occurring, how bad is it, does it even exist, can we even do anything about it...... thus there's so many aspects people keep getting stuck in arguing over, that nothing ever gets done.

But if people approach the problem like "The climate is changing from what we once were accustomed to.... these various changes are occurring which most won't like...... these are the possible reasons for these changes are occurring..... what's the solution?"

^ You can ignore all the petty subjective opinions and titles of what may or may not be occurring and you can focus on each smaller problem individually, which can collectively solve the overall larger problem in the long run.

 

[Avro]

This thread isn't about finding solutions.

This thread is about getting people in here to offer solutions to have them ripped apart by the thread starter who not only believes AGW is a scam but one perpetrated by a cabal of socialists and scientists to steal money from the West.

Of course, if I am wrong the thread starter will offer a few solutions of his own.

 

[Extrafire]

Please don't use this thread to argue about Global Warming? :-?

Considering you admitted already one of the main flaws in the argument right off the bat, ie: we've been told we're all going to die in 10 years for the last 20-30 years..... and you want us to ignore this little nugget and to continue discussing how to get everybody on board with reducing our pollution in order to stop this horrible Global Warming......

..... Based on what?

If you want a solution to a problem of this scale, then you need to get everybody on board that this is indeed a problem that needs to be solved.... you don't do that by starting the argument as you did by showing one of the major flaws of this GW argument.

.

Nonsense. We're being told that something must be done or else. OK, so what should be done? You don't need everyone on board to tell me that.

 

[Extrafire]

This thread isn't about finding solutions.

This thread is about getting people in here to offer solutions to have them ripped apart by the thread starter who not only believes AGW is a scam but one perpetrated by a cabal of socialists and scientists to steal money from the West.

Of course, if I am wrong the thread starter will offer a few solutions of his own.

You just about got that 100% right. Thus far none of the actions taken to abate the supposed problem will work, and as you suggest, the biggest effect is the transfer of wealth, and a burden on the economies of those countries attempting their miniscule efforts.

But you and a lot of other people, both here and all throughout society are continuously harping on our imminent demise and demanding governments etc. do something. OK, do what? You must have something in mind or you wouldn't keep demanding action. So what should we do? I orginally intended to title the thread "The results of combating global warming" because there's lots of material on that topic, but I figured to expand the scope a bit and provide a concurrent place for suggestions on solutions that would work, although quite frankly, I don't believe it's humanly possible to reduce emissions to the level considered necessary and all the billions spent will be a collosal waste.


If you or anyone puts forward a solution and I can rip it apart then it wasn't much of a solution in the first place.

 

[Avro]

You just about got that 100% right. Thus far none of the actions taken to abate the supposed problem will work, and as you suggest, the biggest effect is the transfer of wealth, and a burden on the economies of those countries attempting their miniscule efforts.

But you and a lot of other people, both here and all throughout society are continuously harping on our imminent demise and demanding governments etc. do something. OK, do what? You must have something in mind or you wouldn't keep demanding action. So what should we do? I orginally intended to title the thread "The results of combating global warming" because there's lots of material on that topic, but I figured to expand the scope a bit and provide a concurrent place for suggestions on solutions that would work, although quite frankly, I don't believe it's humanly possible to reduce emissions to the level considered necessary and all the billions spent will be a collosal waste.


If you or anyone puts forward a solution and I can rip it apart then it wasn't much of a solution in the first place.

Who said anything about imminent demise here?

Just as I thought though, this is a flame thread.

Just for fun though, since everyone is stupid except you, what would you do to curb emmisions if they needed to be?

I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours first....it is your thread afterall.:lol:

Take care.

 

[Extrafire]

Who said anything about imminent demise here?

Oh puleeeze! :lol:

Just as I thought though, this is a flame thread.

Just for fun though, since everyone is stupid except you, what would you do to curb emmisions if they needed to be?

I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours first....it is your thread afterall.:lol:

Take care.

Call it what you want, but I've heard an awful lot about the dangers of global warming from the alarmists and nothing effective about what to do. Bjorn Lomborg has the right idea for a believer. Those trillions of dollars being spent will not have a measurable effect so we'd be much farther ahead to use the money where it could do some good, like clean water for everyone in the world.

I've never given it a thought since I don't see any need to curb CO2 emissions. In time we'll progress to much less use of combustion as an energy source, but until then it's a boon to humanity. It's up to those who claim there's a crisis to put forward the solution.

 

[Avro]

Oh puleeeze! :lol:

It was a simple question, not sure why you had to give me a 14 year old response.

I'll pose the question again.

Call it what you want, but I've heard an awful lot about the dangers of global warming from the alarmists and nothing effective about what to do.

Well perhaps you should lend us your brilliance then....what would you do?

I've never given it a thought since I don't see any need to curb CO2 emissions. In time we'll progress to much less use of combustion as an energy source, but until then it's a boon to humanity. It's up to those who claim there's a crisis to put forward the solution.

Then my particpation in this flame thread is over unless of course you want to put forth some of your own ideas.

Give it a moment of your thought, even if you are a sceptic. Should be an easy task for someone such as yourself.

Take care and have a great day.:canada:

 

[Extrafire]

No I didn't think you had any solution.

 

[Avro]

No I didn't think you had any solution.

I never said I did, I said I had some ideas.

I also said I was willing to share them if you were going to supply some of your own.

You won't because you can't, this is a thread to further expand your own ego.

It's merely a flame thread which you already admitted to.

I thought it would have been an exchange of ideas as eluded to in the OP.

Oh well.

 

[Extrafire]

You always avoid the question, don't you?

 

[Slim Chance]

This thread isn't about finding solutions.

This thread is about getting people in here to offer solutions to have them ripped apart by the thread starter who not only believes AGW is a scam but one perpetrated by a cabal of socialists and scientists to steal money from the West.

Of course, if I am wrong the thread starter will offer a few solutions of his own.

The first step that is taken in any problem solving exercise is defining the problem... For anyone to make a broad brush statement means very little and certainly does not clarify the issue.

And let's be clear. The concept of AGW is entirely a theoretical construct that is dependent on having a reasonable understanding of the climate system of the planet. Do we have that degree of understanding? I don't know, although I do suspect that we (being the scientific community) are not in possession of such.

That said, a fair question is "A solution to what?"

 

[Extrafire]

A solution to global warming caused by our CO2 emissions. Isn't that obvious? For the purposes of this thread we're assuming that the warming is caused by human emissions and reducing them will stop the warming and even cool the planet, just like the alarmists say it will.

 

[AnnaG]

We're told global warming is a serious problem caused by our CO2 emissions, that action must be taken immediately to reduce our emissions by 80%, and that we have 10 years. (Mind you, we've been told that for more than 20 years now, making it the longest decade in the history of time.)

So how have all those efforts to cut emissions worked so far, what are the actual results of all those $billions spent on "saving the planet"? What I've seen thus far is more in the line of wealth redistribution rather than emission reductions.

Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal.

Please do not use this thread to argue for or against AGW, or whether the globe is warming or cooling, we have enough threads for that already.

The answer is easy. Quit polluting. It'll take time, but the less pollution, the better. The alternative isn't good for the planet and an unhealthy planet isn't good for us.

 

[Praxius]

Nonsense. We're being told that something must be done or else. OK, so what should be done? You don't need everyone on board to tell me that.

I just told you what needs to be done.... anything beyond what I said is a complete waste of time because anything you and a select few people can think of doing will be countered by the greater majority of people who are not doing what you're planning to do, thus futile.

 

[Extrafire]

Uh, Anna, leaving aside the question of whether it's polluting, the question is how to reduce emissions by 80%. How to quit polluting is the question.

 

[Avro]

You always avoid the question, don't you?

No, you do.

I stated this was a flame thread for the purpose of feeding your ego.

You admitted that to be true.

Since it is true why should I or anyone else participate in something that isn't about finding a solution as opposed to ripping any solution apart.

Given the title discussing solutions is what this thread should be about and not some ego trip for self gratification.

Like I said, I am perfectly willing to give some ideas for the purpose of idea exchange, seems you have no intention of doing that.

When you do I will be happy to get involved.