What is the problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Question

Having only just discovered this interesting new feature, and having read some of the answers given about climate change I thought I'd ask my own. Why are some people so against reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Surely it makes complete sense to use as little energy as possible and to generate energy by means which are renewable and do not rely on fuel of which there is only a finite amount? I mean, surely that makes perfect economic sense? Whether or not you dispute the science of climate change (and from my experience that vast majority of genuine scientists do not) I can see no logical argument against trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 1

Well, your first half sentence is your answer. "Having only just discovered this interesting new feature . . ." suggests very clearly that you haven't learned, and how could you I guess, about the debate and delusions of global warming that continues to pervade our country since the 1970's or a bit earlier as I remember, first hand. You have a LOT to learn, and as much needs to be learned about the economics and politics so thoroughly intrenched in this discussion as any pure interest in greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure you must be in your twenties, young twenties at that, for you not to have some inkling of the lies being told all around this issue, so, trust me on this one, you need to learn the political history on this debate as well as the supposed environmental issues before you even ask your question. I hope you'll follow through with this challenge to become educated in that aspect of the question since you seem young and I'd hate to see a good young mind go to waste. God Bless you.

Answer 2

This is a very good, but hard to answer question. Anyone can say that the answer is easy, just find a new energy source. It's much more complicated than that. First lets say we as a society find the perfect fuel. One that's clean and easily renewable. Then what? The government will put a plan into place stating something like...by 2015 all cars that are on the road must use the "new fuel". OK sounds good, but what about the people that can't afford the new cars that can use the "new fuel"? A lot of people in the US count on cars as a way to get to work, and a lot of those people may not be able to just go out and buy a new car in order to comply with new regulations. So now you have a lot of unproductive unhappy people just because they can't afford a new car. Oh, there is not only the car side of things, but there is also the Industrial side of the story. All energy using industries would also have to buy into the "new fuel" concept, which would also mean big changes (or big losses, i.e. $$$). I could go on forever about this subject, which in the end I have no answer to. I'll end my ramblings by simply stating that there is no easy answer to this question. There are many aspects to this problem that would have to be thoroughly thought out in order to get the ball rolling, let alone finding the perfect "new fuel".

Answer 3

The main problem is greed. The people who own the oil companies want to make as much money off of fossil fuels for as long as possible until they have absolutely no choice but to stop. This means until the public makes them stop when they demand alternatives, and more and more refuse to use fossil fuels and utilize alternatives, or when the environmental situation becomes so bad that there is no choice but to change. As it is right now, it seems that the best way to go is with electric cars, with solar panels on the roofs, and maybe the trunklids and hoods. Then the car's batteries can be charged for free by the sun. What good does it do to drive an electric car if the electricity used to power it was produced by coal burning plants, for example? I really have to wonder about the sincerity of auto manufacturers regarding alternative fuels and environmental protection when the electric cars they sell don't even have ANY solar panels on them. In addition, solar panels on every roof where the sunlight would be great enough to justify the cost of installation. There is also the water engine for cars, which electrically converts water into hydrogen pyroxide, which in high concentrations, like 98% is rocket fuel. (H2O to H2O2) That would provide plenty of performance. The fossil fueled cars could even be made more efficient, by more efficient vaporization of the fuel and air mixture. The fact is, that a lot of things haven't been done, that could have been done a long time ago. Electric cars have been around since before 1920. They were so old, it was before cars had steering wheels. Cars were steered with a tiller. The only excuse for not developing electric cars further is greed. Electric cars don't have to be slow. Slot cars are really fast for their size.

Only if there was some alternative fuel that was just as profitable ie just as monopolizable would that fuel be embraced by the status quo. Deisel engines can run on used vegetable oil.


I really think that only a grass roots effort can change this situation, since it is obvious that those in the government, such as George Bush, who comes from an oil family, cannot be trusted to address this situation in a sincere manner.

Answer 4

I think the biggest problem is the fact that a lot of powerful people make more money without reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. For example, some governments will try to lower the use of these gasses (as agreed on in Kyoto), while others, like the USA will not. Since it concerns especially some large companies in the USA, who finance political campaigns of both parties, some people are more reluctant to work on this important issue. Since the American economy as well as the political "sphere" does involve for large parts the oil business, it will be devastating for many of these high placed people to loose these incomes. Besides, most people see it as something that does not concern them so much, it will not affect their lives immediately and if it does they probably will see it in a negative way, i.e. they might have to pay more for some products or do some extra work to prevent the deterioration of the planet.
As you say, there is no logical argument against reducing greenhouse gas emissions, only some people do not work with logic...

Answer 5

The one answer most have missed.... Nature produces more Greenhouse gases than all of civilization could possibly produce in a 100 years.

Can you tell Mom Nature to stop overproducing GH gases?? Most of the greenhouse gases that come from the Earth are in Volcanoes, hot springs/geysers like Old Faithful and trapped under the Seas. There is some that is also trapped in the Great Ice Cap of the Antarctic. Probably more than a single U.S. State produces in a year.

Additional comments:

From one of the other answers...

"If we concentrated all of the billions of dollars we spend on space travel....."

We could keep the Billions for Space, instead, take the money from the Elected Officials, their cronies, family that do nothing but collect money, the money given to the Oil company by the Government, the Military which we are NOT supposed to have spread throughout the world and other wasteful Governmental Spending. These would give more money than what is given to the Space program.

Even if everyone in the World reduced GH gas in their daily life, it would only effect 25% or less of the total GH gas emissions on the Earth. The maximum amount of GH gas emissions humans create is less than 50% of the total volume created yearly. The rest is created by the Earth itself.

Answer 6

I have practically no lawn. and use a realtype push mower, which also keeps a more moist lawn by the way it is cut, and I don't cut it every week, my neighbors call me nuts and stupid , this neighborhood type mentality is just why things won't change, I feel like Iam spitting into the wind, when I talk about alternative's,,one is wind power which has been prov en to be excellent, look at the university that has a turbine and provides all the electric and sells the surplus. It boggles my mined why they just don't get it....almost any place I have lived, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Guam and Washington state, there is a breeze most capable of powering a wind mill. I recently turned a storage shed into a shop and I put in 6 inch walls/ celling, insulated very well, and the temp inside is unbelievably , cool or warm, depend on the season. New homes do not need to be as large as they are, they are a waste of energy and built totally wrong. So sadly to say, changes will not take place until some humongous disaster forces it up us..

Answer 7

The problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that there is no short term profit in doing so. Big oil companies have been fighting to keep their grasp on the automotive and transportation industry and keeping newer cleaner technologies away from consumers. When the government intervenes and forces a reduction is the only time something is done but often they get tighter restrictions on the things that already have restrictions but unknown gross polluters are ignored which pretty much cancels out any reduction efforts. For example look at how clean your cars emissions have to be and how strict the gov. and state regulations are on automobiles, and yet for commercial truckers there are no strict guidelines. You have all seen that semi truck on the freeways billowing black smoke from their exhaust stacks. That is just a small scale example. Cleaner fuel alternatives would also put big oil out of business and that is something that this government will not allow until they hold a key role in all the alternatives.

Answer 8

Well there is a big solution to this that can work, if everyone cooperates, ban gasoline cars, and anything else that runs on gas and switch to Hydrogen powered everything. I guarantee that if everyone uses Hydrogen cars, then the atmosphere's CO2 levels will go down within a day from which they start, and hopefully it would take less than a decade to return it to a normal level. The only problem with this is that it would be unenforceable and there would be problems with countries who are big in production of oil. That's where the people against it come in, they are the ones who control the oil or at least make a lot of money off of it. And there are others who simply don't understand the scientific evidence and/or the logic behind the whole global warming theory. Up until recently, I was one of them (however I am only 17 and still learning). I believe that someone could find a way to split water molecules into H2 and O2 molecules then it's a double win, it puts more Oxygen into the atmosphere, and gives us Hydrogen fuel which, when burned, produces water. This I believe is the cleanest way to go. If only there were more Hydrogen powered cars available to people...at least they can make the choice to try to help.

Answer 9

The main problem is greed. The people who own the oil companies want to make as much money off of fossil fuels for as long as possible until they have absolutely no choice but to stop. This means until the public makes them stop when they demand alternatives, and more and more refuse to use fossil fuels and utilize alternatives, or when the environmental situation becomes so bad that there is no choice but to change. As it is right now, it seems that the best way to go is with electric cars, with solar panels on the roofs, and maybe the trunklids and hoods. Then the car's batteries can be charged for free by the sun. What good does it do to drive an electric car if the electricity used to power it was produced by coal burning plants, for example? I really have to wonder about the sincerity of auto manufacturers regarding alternative fuels and environmental protection when the electric cars they sell don't even have ANY solar panels on them. In addition, solar panels on every roof where the sunlight would be great enough to justify the cost of installation. There is also the water engine for cars, which electrically converts water into hydrogen pyroxide, which in high concentrations, like 98% is rocket fuel. (H2O to H2O2) That would provide plenty of performance. The fossil fueled cars could even be made more efficient, by more efficient vaporization of the fuel and air mixture. The fact is, that a lot of things haven't been done, that could have been done a long time ago. Electric cars have been around since before 1920. They were so old, it was before cars had steering wheels. Cars were steered with a tiller. The only excuse for not developing electric cars further is greed. Electric cars don't have to be slow. Slot cars are really fast for their size.

Answer 10

From what it seems you sound like your not really looking for an answer and more like some ones opinion and personally i think that you are right but the thing is that event thought energy conservation is not really their concern because in the end it trails back to a serious money issue this country runs on money not common sense because in the end when all the fuel is done my theory is that they will have found a way to harvest and control all the renewable resources for the simple fact that they will be able to use up any amount as they please and distribute it out as much as they want with any price that they want making more money now than when they was selling fuel, so short term effects is that it does seem smarter but its the whole picture you need to look at because in the long run that's a lot of money and is economically better because as fast as they use money is as fast as they will make money. so either way it wont matter. Remember this is just my opinion nothing more and nothing less.

Answer 11

To put it as simply as possible, there is nothing at all wrong with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The only obstacle is that people do not want to adjust their lifestyles. The problem with people is that they are either fanatical about the environment, or they feel that global warming is not a problem right now, and so they can go on with their lives as they were.

Personally, I think people need to remember that we MIGHT be causing global warming. We should totally reduce greenhouse gas emissions, simply because of that "what if." After all, it doesn't take much energy, and we won't have to make too many sacrifices.