Be as objective as possible, --> What changes in thinking <-- do we need to do to best affect global warming?

Answer 1

Well you have to define" WE"? If you mean people in the United States I think we are already doing a good job and the Hole in the Ozone is starting to close back up a little each year.
The problem is other Countries that do not follow Green Earth policies. China is one of the biggest violators of Green Earth policy and at the rate it's population is growing and the amount of bad things they are putting in the air that Ozone hole just might get bigger again.
"WE" the United States, which is my version of WE are one of the few countries that have policy to reduce Green House gasses so I guess, "WE" are victims of those that do not.
Building more Nuclear power plants which none have been built in way over 10 Years in America would help tremendously. That would encourage more cheap public transportation and Hydrogen and Battery powered cars could be charged each day for almost nothing.
People in America are slowly learning to conserve but it has taken high oil prices to induce conservation. If it catches on and becomes common place we will be way ahead of the game.

Answer 2

Haven't put much though into this, more brainstorming than anything ... but it seems like everyone is communting at the same time ... everywhere I go in the USA its the same story ... "Oh yeah, driving is easy here, just don't do it between 6:00 Am and 9:00 Am and 4:00 Pm until 6:00 PM ... You'll just breeze along".

So, my little brainstorm idea is to change corporations menatilty of the 9 to 5 job and spead out the commute ... or better yet, find ways to have employees work from home.

Answer 3

We need do start thinking about how we can make do with what we have available. Think globally, act LOCALLY. There is no need for people to commute an hour to work, and an hour home again. Live close to work, school, amenities. Ride a bike to get around. Support local farmers (not only is this good for your community economy, but there is less transportation, i.e. CO2 to get them to the store). If you live in a colder climate, ride a bus or walk! Buses take 50 cars off the roads! We are so spoiled. We need to sit back and start being thankful for what we have. It doesn't take that much more time or money to weigh the impact your choices make.

Answer 4

Interestingly, those most fervently involved in the Global Warming challenge, are as equally against nuclear power. Yet nuclear power offers the only viable way to quickly reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Other options, solar, Wind, geothermal, are all too inefficient and too crude to effectively make a difference.
The embracing of nuclear power is the biggest change in thinking we need.

Answer 5

A reorganization of our collective priorities -- one that emphasizes quality of life over quantity of goods.

My current working hypothesis is that a lot of our overconsumption is really about needing a sense of control. So much of our world feels like it's out of our control -- the actions of our governments, the choices in our shops, the quality of the air we breathe, our working environments, relationships, etc etc etc -- that we squander our economic power on beauty products and clothes to look a certain way, cars and fuel so we have control over our travel (barring traffic jams of course), nutrition-poor processed food grown and shipped and flown around the world so that we have more time to veg out exhausted in front of the television. Industry, the media and advertising are all doing everything they can to channel us down that route as well. Our jobs wear us out and we do what they want.

I think a lot of people want to do the right thing, but we need better options and a greater sense of control over our lives. That means less advertising (turn off your television and throw away the fashion mags), better working conditions (if enough of us demand more, they'll have to give it to us -- unions are supposed to be the means to that end), and reclaiming our economic power (make considered, educated choices and buy only what truly enhances your life) so that we can create a sustainable society.

Answer 6

you won't be able to "settle for" the theory of climate substitute without accepting the theory of international warming. If we had climate substitute without ever having international warming, the Earth's ecosystem may be at 0°ok and the elements may now no longer exist. in case you're asking, "Do you settle for the theory of climate substitute, yet no longer *Anthropogenic* international Warming?" My answer may be "as a rule certain." The climate is continuously replacing. it continuously has and continuously will. without perpetual climate substitute for the length of geologic history, we may do not have any sedimentary rocks. Anthropogenic activities do influence the technique of climate substitute. In some localities (i.e. cities) AGW is genuine and typically very stated. Deforestation and different land use ameliorations surely influence the organic technique of climate substitute. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions minimally contribute to the Earth's organic greenhouse result. Mankind's presence on earth alters the ecology of the Earth. it isn't any longer plausible for us to exist in a equipment without replacing that equipment. that is existence. The Enviromarxists favor to settle for that actuality and go away the effective part of society the heck on my own.

Answer 7

Learn from the Amish people.

Answer 8

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, we need to think about our kids and grand kids, if we dont wake up they wont have any air to breathe.