What should America do about action on climate change?

Here's another contentious issue for the Americans. Another issue that needs bringing forward.

[video=youtube;Xzw1dZNWiL8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw1dZNWiL8[/video]

America needs to step up rather than let little countries like Australia lead the way.

 

USA is the best country and they are already doing more than enough.

 

Is there somewhere that states what America is actually doing about it? As far as I can tell, S.F.A. seems to be the concensus.

 

Try Google. You'll notice that America's carbon footprint has basically leveled off since 2005-2007 while practically every other country is skyrocketing, especially China. What we are doing about it, is exporting our green technology to places like China.

If you want to start (another) thread bitching about the US, try picking a credible topic. You know, something other than war crimes and global warming. How about, "Why are small businesses shrinking in America?".

On topic, Scientific American recently released an article reiterating we may already be well past the tipping point on greenhouse gasses from melting permafrost. If they are right, we could all stop breathing, the cows could all stop farting, and every factory and power plant on the planet could shut down tomorrow, and have no effect. Even if we are not, at this point, if we are so confident about the science and the consequences, we should be doing something that actually has a chance of making a difference, rather than purposefully driving the price of gas through the roof. I'm personally a fan of pumping particulates into the atmosphere in the polar regions. Simple, relatively cheap, effective.

 

The eventual plan could probably say stuff this planet let's move on to the next but without money and a proper plan who knows how we'll tackle it? From what i'm reading America is stalling the process. America would be a huge advantage to have on the 'let's solve this problem' team.

A carbon economy dedicates money towards proper research to come up with a plan, hopefully the best plan.

It could be we need to build a huge freezer at each pole to regulate the atmosphere. It needs a world effort approach.

Scientists are claiming they're being too conservative and talking 6 degree rise by 2100. The message is being subverted.

 

Bush: This is an issue on which I agree with you. US denial of global warming is reminiscent of how the tobacco companies fought that cigarettes were dangerous, only in this case the underlying companies funding anti global warming nonsense are the oil companies and the affiliated companies that deal with oil. coal, etc. They have a bunch of monkey spewing TV/radio no knowledge political mouths spewing a form of anger and hatred. Its so freaking obvious.

Meanwhile for the US non believers the extremes of weather hit us with virtually the worst drought in memory, and twice flooding in NYC in a short period: Something that was described as a once in a hundred year occurrence.

All the GOP mouths that once instinctively supported a carbon tax were silenced by the angry mobs of the Right, fueled by big money from the energy companies.

Time to reverse that thinking and stupidity.

 

Earl, why am I not surprised to see you agree with the idea of sending more money to the DC area. If only we could move the nation's capitol to California, I might selfishly find myself embracing your values.

@Bushranger: There is plenty of money being thrown at the problem by public and private enterprise. One recent study at Berkely, funded by the Charles Koch Foundation (Koch Brothers), confirmed climate change as a problem, paving the way for more private money towards a solution. These are the same Koch Brothers that fund the Nova Science channel on PBS, and a variety of scientific research projects across our nation.

Perhaps if people like George Soros dedicated a fraction of the money he spends on politics to science, we would be much further down the road to a solution.

Creating a "Carbon Economy" is going to do nothing but line the pockets of a few already very wealthy people, at the expense of the poor. If the recent studies are correct, it will do nothing to save us from a reaction that has already reached critical mass.

In that spirit, I plan to leave all my vehicles and two stroke devices (Chain Saw, weed whacker, etc) running all day long this Earth day. You should too. Embrace the horror.

 

I've known for a while, if I was a terrorist I'd work on a heating unit to be placed in the oceans above America. Katrina and Sandy are caused by increasing temp in the ocean above you. There's many ways terrorists can get to you and is my main reason for working towards us Allies not creating ourselves more enemies.

Taking it backwards, possibly Americans might consider placing a cooling unit in those same waters to mitigate any rises in that area.

 

So you think the US (or some terrorist) trying to heat or cool the oceans is a practical idea? I would love to read more about that, it sounds so totally absurd on its face. Have you ever read a serious discussion of the idea by someone with a science or engineering background? I would be surprised.

 

I have read a number of items regarding the increasing ocean temperatures above you are causing the increasing storm activity across America yes.

My own logic suggested putting a cooling unit there.

 

To be extra-fair to you Americans, I just thought I'll add I am making this argument when it's supposedly 37 degrees outside right now but i'm sitting here with the TV on, the computer, the light on (because the air-con blocks the window) and a wonderful, wonderful air-conditioner. I don't believe it's really hot outside but i'm not game to check.

Added: I have 250 acres, which by preference I and my partner mostly live on in a small(ish) shack. Half of my acreage is covered in trees, which, imho, more than mitigates my outputs both here and my town house, no matter what I wanted to do.

 

Well lets see. Bushranger says:

And you reply by telling Bush that you agree with him, so I am left asking, which part you agree with. Putting freezers at the poles LMAO? Forgive me for giving you more credit than that, so I had to assume you agree with either the concept of a carbon economy, or throwing money at the problem, both of which translate to taxpayers sending more money to Washington. Hey, if you were a fan of putting freezers at the poles, set me straight!

Not misleading at all. The Koch brothers fund quite a bit of scientific research. Fact. Koch brothers fund the Nova Science channel. Fact.

What is misleading is your statement regarding a "tiny few" scientists who doubt (anthroprogenic) global warming. There are quite a few. What is misleading is the idea that the Koch brothers would either a) cover up the findings of their own study, or b) try to discredit them, both of which are blatantly factually incorrect.

Hey I get it. Left wing philanthropists fund organizations like MSNBC, Koch brothers fund organizations like Nova. If I were you, I would be embarrassed too. Maybe all your left wing buddies can get Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow to feed them when the economy collapses from following their advice.

 

Do you really believe that governments can do something about the climate change, besides scaring the people to collect more money? There was a very interesting documentary about the earth, from its beginning to present and guess what? the climate always changed, regardless of the human presence. People dont realize that they are too small to affect the climate when they fart.. yet, most of them believe they do.

There are so many problems other people have, from terrible diseases to starvation and nobody cares for them.. perhaps because everybody else is just too busy thinking how to save the whales..

 

Point 1, absolutely government can help mitigate climate change, even if that means building us space ships to move planets. It 100% requires a world-wide government approach imho.

Point 2, people often get themselves into trouble, often they can get themselves out of it. People place animals in peril, and often the animal ends up dead. Animals can not help themselves so the people who like animals try to help them, just as we help out people who can not help themselves. I see no problem there.

You sound uncaring about both.

 

I'm fascinated! How would a space ship move a planet? Which government would build these space ships? You mentioned a 100% world-wide approach. I'm thinking the US is probably the most qualified and capable of building these ships, so you should send our government some money and do your part.

 

I, along with 20 million Australians already do. Our carbon economy generates funds for an international body to work out the plan. I just betcha Americans get hold of a good part of it.

 

America should take effective measures against this climate change issue because they are now acting as the leader of the world and think themselves to be that way.

 

Some Americans more than others. Al Gore thanks you.

 

Can a scientist please offer some insight?

I have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Engineering Science. So I guess that means I'm too educated on the stability of systems and the dynamics of fluids (ex: weather effects) to offer my professional opinion here. After all, why should a degreed scientist like me offer an informed opinion when it gets in the way of so many people's emotions?

First of all, it's important to understand that the Earth is not static - temperatures, like extreme weather, moves up and down in cycles. It is illogical to expect the planet's weather to stay static year after year.

O.K., so I'll say it right out - I've never seen any ORIGINAL scientific evidence that states that humans have had any significant negative effects on the planet's climate. I say that as someone who has no emotional horse in this race, and personally doesn't give a crap one way or the other. All I see is people mindlessly repeating what other people are saying, like a kindergarten playing a game of telephone.

Although I will admit to soliciting government grants so I can "study" (hehe) climate change because hey, if the USA wants to shovel six-figure grant money to people that pretend to believe humans are hurting the planet, well, a dollar is a dollar. You'd be shocked to know that most people taking grant money are just like me.

If course, the Church of Liberalism will point fingers and me and cry "Unbeliever! Unbeliever!". Then they will alert the Thought-Control Police to begin my reprogramming.