Government Responses to Climate Change

[PhDP]

Nuclear fuel is also a problem. It's becoming more expensive and harder to find. The days of cheap nuclear may be waning. You've got to provide for waste too, which no one seems willing to do.

 

Nuclear wastes are dangerous for humans, but they are not going to destroy the environment. And nuclear energy could (in fact,would have to) be supported by even cleaner sources of energy. But for now, we're unable to satisfy the demand in energy of an industrialized nation with eolian/solar energy.

[Pangloss]

What I meant is that we can't just solve this problem with technology, I bet 100% of the improvements made possible by technology in the next 10 years would be offset by the increasing number of cars and the increasing demand in energy. Technology is mostly an excuse to do nothing and wait for a solution that won't come, we have to make some changes to our lifestyle.

 

... and when it comes to cars, well, we do need smaller cars, and we need less cars.

 

We need to find a way to force people to use other means of transport when possible

 

Some changes, perhaps, but I don't agree with those. Not less cars, not re-organizing our cities for mass transit, not junking the family road-trip vacation, not buying less junk for our homes, not even dumping the SUVs. It simply is not necessary -- that's about changing "disgusting" life styles, not solving Earth's problems. There is nothing wrong with the American way of life ASIDE from the fact that it is likely causing global warming. That's a challenge, not a condemnation.

 

I believe we CAN solve this with technology. I believe we can eliminate emissions and preserve the current American way of life -- the whole nine yards of it. I believe this is what we SHOULD do. I just takes proper guidance and motivation. We have the motivation now, we just need the leadership.

[CDarwin]

Some changes, perhaps, but I don't agree with those. Not less cars, not re-organizing our cities for mass transit, not junking the family road-trip vacation, not buying less junk for our homes, not even dumping the SUVs. It simply is not necessary -- that's about changing "disgusting" life styles, not solving Earth's problems. There is nothing wrong with the American way of life ASIDE from the fact that it is likely causing global warming. That's a challenge, not a condemnation.

 

And traffic congestion, and accidents, and noise and air pollution, and inefficiency, and unsustainable uses of raw materials, and health problems. That's what I can think of right now.

[ecoli]

I believe we CAN solve this with technology. I believe we can eliminate emissions and preserve the current American way of life -- the whole nine yards of it. I believe this is what we SHOULD do. I just takes proper guidance and motivation. We have the motivation now, we just need the leadership.

I think it will also take coercion from foreign nations. As the largest polluter, the entire world has a lot to lose if we continue polluting as we do. Therefore, if the entire world 'boycotts' us, we'll have a lot to lose. I foresee this happening in the not-to-distant future.

 

 

As for hybrid vehicles, they're great and all, but they will drive up oil prices even more, as the demand goes down. If they become that widespread, we'll still wind up paying through the nose for gas, the price per gallon will skyrocket.

[iNow]

But that's not necessarily a bad thing since it would encourage further change toward non-petroleum-based technology.

[bascule]

At least around here (which is certainly not the norm for the rest of America) people are electively changing their lifestyles to lower their carbon footprint

[CDarwin]

I think it will also take coercion from foreign nations. As the largest polluter, the entire world has a lot to lose if we continue polluting as we do. Therefore, if the entire world 'boycotts' us, we'll have a lot to lose. I foresee this happening in the not-to-distant future.

 

That would be a suicide pact. The world needs US markets as much as we need the world's goods.

[iNow]

As the largest polluter, the entire world has a lot to lose if we continue polluting as we do.

I believe China has surpassed us as the largest polluter for 3 years in a row, but we're still pretty high on the list regardless of overall ranking.

[ecoli]

I believe China has surpassed us as the largest polluter for 3 years in a row, but we're still pretty high on the list regardless of overall ranking.

I'm not sure how accurate they can actually make those measurements... but we 'outrank' them in pollution per capita, anyway.

[Realitycheck]

U.S. is still at the top for CO2 at 25%.

[Rev Blair]

I'm not sure how accurate they can actually make those measurements... but we 'outrank' them in pollution per capita, anyway.

 

Given the way that everybody...including China and the US...diddles their figures, I wouldn't make any bets either way.

 

Something to keep in mind though, is that a lot of China's (and India's, and Brazil's, and Indonesia's and Vietnam's etc...) pollution is really the west's pollution.

 

Let's face it, they aren't buying the dancing plastic rats that sing x-mas carols, we are. Their pollution wouldn't be nearly as high if it wasn't for our twisted lifestyle.

[Pangloss]

There's nothing twisted about our lifestyle.

[iNow]

There's nothing twisted about our lifestyle.

 

Speak for yourself! Kink is fun.

[ecoli]

 

Let's face it, they aren't buying the dancing plastic rats that sing x-mas carols, we are. Their pollution wouldn't be nearly as high if it wasn't for our twisted lifestyle.

 

Hey... we're just helping keep thousands of starving children employed...

[bascule]

There's nothing twisted about our lifestyle.

 

It's just steeped in waste and excess, but that's a different matter entirely

[Rev Blair]

There's nothing twisted about our lifestyle.

 

I just wrote a feature on luxury vacation homes. I used to work in a photo studio shooting retail ads. Meanwhile I know single mothers with full time jobs who are forced to use a foodbank to feed their kids and there are a couple billion people on the planet trying to live on a buck a day.

 

Trust me, our lifestyles are twisted, our priorites are bent, and what we like to think of as our humanity is virtually nonexistent. It's okay though, there's always beer.

[iNow]

There's nothing twisted about our lifestyle.

It's just steeped in waste and excess, but that's a different matter entirely

 

Not really. I'd contend that it's truly at the heart of the matter under discussion.

[Pangloss]

I just wrote a feature on luxury vacation homes. I used to work in a photo studio shooting retail ads. Meanwhile I know single mothers with full time jobs who are forced to use a foodbank to feed their kids and there are a couple billion people on the planet trying to live on a buck a day.

 

Trust me, our lifestyles are twisted, our priorites are bent, and what we like to think of as our humanity is virtually nonexistent. It's okay though, there's always beer.

 

So you're contributing the problem of people wanting conspicuous luxury, yet you're complaining about what other people do. Seems sorta odd to me, but hey, I'll join you for that beer.

 

I understand the point about people's lack of concern about the environment, I'm just saying that people with freedom will do what they want. Society's role is to determine guidelines and mitigate the damage, not demonize and insult people for their choices. Complaining what people do with their freedom is very much a "glass houses" affair.

 

Ever watch that thing Jay Leno does called "Jaywalking"? He goes up to people on the street and asks them when the Declaration of Independence was signed, or what coast New York is on -- really basic questions that most people know the answer to. But of course that's the gimmick -- most people know the answers. He only airs the ones that don't know, making them, of course, look like idiots. It's just comedy, but I wonder sometimes how many correct answers he has to go through before he finally gets a goofy one he can air. Some of those people look like they've been standing there with him for at least a few minutes, and are getting a bit impatient!

 

Point is, everyone does stupid things, and I bet if you were to really analyze what daily practices cause the most pollution, I suspect that you would find that EVERYONE is contributing to the problem. Everyone. Well okay, not Ed Begley, Jr. Everyone else.

 

But hey, if it really makes you feel better you can go to the mall and hand out "awareness citations" to all the SUV owners. Just don't send me your medical bill.

 

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155193

[Rev Blair]

So you're contributing the problem of people wanting conspicuous luxury, yet you're complaining about what other people do. Seems sorta odd to me, but hey, I'll join you for that beer.

 

You'll notice I refer to "our" lifestyles, not "your" lifestyles. I certainly wasn't excluding myself. The truth is that I need to make a living though.

 

On the other hand, I have taken at least some steps to mitigate things, including shunning conspicuous consumption as much as possible.

[Pangloss]

Well that's just it, right? Who doesn't need to make a living? Isn't everyone pretty much in the same boat there?

 

I guess that's why I object to proposals of radical change, because it's not just evil corporations and decrepit wealthy tax-dodgers who would be harmed.

[iNow]

Isn't the very concept of "harm" quite relative in a matter such as this? It's one thing to harm an approach to life, it's quite another to harm life itself.

[Mr Skeptic]

All that *waves vaguely at the last couple dozen posts about lifestyle* is why I think that a carbon tax is the best solution. Make the people pay for their pollution, and they will magically start cutting back on their own, in whatever way they choose. No need to regulate them or shame them into changing their lifestyle, they will do it on their own. If the tax was included foreign pollution as well, it would allow the nation to pressure their trading partners to cut down on pollution.

 

A green subsidy might also be useful to encourage or help people with the more expensive things like electric or hybrid vehicles.

[CDarwin]

I understand the point about people's lack of concern about the environment, I'm just saying that people with freedom will do what they want. Society's role is to determine guidelines and mitigate the damage, not demonize and insult people for their choices.[/Quote]

That's an indefensible boundary. What about people's "choices" to kill other people? Do we have to respect those? If our lifestyle choices affect other people detrimentally, then why shouldn't we be responsible for them? I'm perfectly willing to feel very guilty all the time for all the energy I consume.

[ecoli]

That's an indefensible boundary. What about people's "choices" to kill other people? Do we have to respect those? If our lifestyle choices affect other people detrimentally, then why shouldn't we be responsible for them? I'm perfectly willing to feel very guilty all the time for all the energy I consume.

I think you (perhaps inadvertently?) bring up a point that I like to talk about, and that many people don't consider when it comes to environmentalism.

 

The murder-analogy is a good one. We don't generally respect the individual's right to murder, because that infringes on the other person's right to be alive. Similarly, I think it would be a good idea to respond to pollution in terms of property rights. IF my neighbor has a factory and is polluting my air, I should have the right to sue him because he's polluting the air that I need to breathe (or heating up the heat I need to live on). This brings the matter into the judicial system, rather than giving executive or legislative branches primary power to deal with environmental issues.

 

Of course, this leaves plenty of interpretation and perhaps guesswork into what types and levels of pollution constitute a threat, but no more so than is currently in place. And there's this uncertainty in murder cases as well (what degree of homicide/ manslaughter?)

[Pangloss]

Isn't the very concept of "harm" quite relative in a matter such as this? It's one thing to harm an approach to life, it's quite another to harm life itself.

 

How much life would be harmed if we were to radically, forcibly and immediately eliminate all pollutive emissions in the United States?

 

(I know you weren't suggesting that, I'm just offering counterpoint.)

 

 

What about people's "choices" to kill other people? Do we have to respect those? If our lifestyle choices affect other people detrimentally, then why shouldn't we be responsible for them? I'm perfectly willing to feel very guilty all the time for all the energy I consume.

 

Of course there are limits, that's why I said:

 

Society's role is to determine guidelines and mitigate the damage

 

But I wasn't defending people's right to pollute, I was saying that demonizing their pollutive habits doesn't accomplish anything. What if those habits weren't producing pollution? Wouldn't we still be listening to the same tired litany about Western decadence and corruption? I think we would, because that's about smug supriority and a desire for individualism, not solving global warming.

 

Koyaanisqatsi is an observation, not a motivation.