Stopping global warming maybe impossible since a portion of the phenomna maybe due to natural processes. However, we certainly could have an impact on the human contribution. The obvious target would be to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Far and away the largest consumer of fossil fuels are electrical generating plants. Since it would be impossible to wean ourselves away from electricity, we need alternative methods of power generation which do not utilize fossil fuels. Wind, solar, and hydorelectric can be helpful but given the current technology would not be practical except in certain locations. Nuclear power that uses fission reactions produces a considerable quantity of radioactive waste which must be stored for several thousand years. Nuclear power that uses fusion on the other hand, would produce only water as a waste...however, the technological hurdles are not trivial.
In terms of automobiles, hybrids are a good step. I am wary of alternative fuels for the simple fact that they often require a large amount of electricity to produce. I wonder how much fossil fuel is required for the electical generation to make an alternative fuel? I've heard a figure (source?) that it requires 2 liters of fossil fuel for every 1 liter of ethanol produced...so using ethanol may not be an answer to global warming.
2006-07-31 00:17:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Gopher 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
First we must get the governments of the world to understand the importance of this issue. Just last night, 60 Minutes featured a segment about a renowned government scientist named Hanson who is not allowed to speak about global warming until the Bush administration lawyers "edit" his lectures!
They deliberately tone down his talks to give the impression it's not a serious issue, when - indeed - this man (who has studied the phenomena for 30 years) says that if we don't start making changes in ten years or less, it will be too late.
As citizens we must demand that our government take this issue seriously. Unlike Kurt C, who arrogantly answers your question with an insipid statement such as, "There is no global warming", the issue is a real one that will affect this world very soon. The ignorance of those who selfishly expect to continue wasting precious natural resources, polluting the air and water with their vehicle emissions, and neglecting to understand the delicate ecological balance between man, plants, and animals is appalling. All we've been taught to do is WASTE. -RKO-
2006-07-31 00:58:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the use of ethanol gasoline (E85) will not help. You still need petrol chemical to grow the crops to turn to ethanol. The refineries still operate on petroleum..etc. etc. They is little global warming benefits from ethanol. Most of the benefits go to the farmers who grow the corn.
Here's an idea to solve global warming. You get a tanker full of iron salts (iron sulfates), and you spread it over the South Pacific Ocean. The iron salts act as a fertilizer creating a massive plankton bloom that consumes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sinks it deep in the oceans. Scientists have tried this and say it works great!!http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002056.html
2006-07-31 00:48:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dr. D 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
increase global dimming by pumping more pollutant particles into the atmosphere or let the volcanoes do it.
had we been burning clean fuels through the years,we would have more global warming now,or more volcanic activity.
pbs has program on "global dimming" which discusses : global dimming,warming,& pan evaporation rate.it focuses on the brightened sky after 9/11 when no jets flew for a week.
pollution is the solution
2006-07-31 07:33:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by enord 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unless you can come up with a way to turn down the suns thermostat, no way. did you know that the average temperature of Mars and Venus has also risen? No people there. Al gore says he was responsible for the internet. He is also responsible for much of the hype that only humans created global warming. It is a natural phenomena.
2006-07-31 00:22:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by GOSHAWK 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Throw Sodium Hydroxide into the ocean.
That will neutralise the H2CO3 in the ocean, which is the aqueous form of CO2. That will mean the ocean will be able to take up more CO2, effectively absorbing it.
If you are not insane, a better solution is Hydrogen cars, with the electricity to break supplied by renewable sources.
2006-07-31 00:09:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) America nad Australia need to join the Kyoto protocol or get SANCTIONED (oh yeah america will just bomb anyone who tries to speak against it).
2) Ethanol, is a good idea, but not all countires have the land space required to grow the sugar cane. Also billions of cars will become uselesss until they are refitted with new engines.
p.s Aussie, you crack me up. You have any idea how much sodium hyrdoxide you would need?
3) More emphasis on public transport
4) Subsidies on alternative sources (wind, hydroelectric)
2006-07-31 00:11:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by rimrocka 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think we shoulda started thinkin about this kinda stuff along time ago. the best thing would by to use hydrogen as fuel, but its still too expensive to make it mainstream, and we pretty much messed up the world already with the record heat we're havin here in the U.S.
2006-07-31 00:10:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Event! 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
use hydrogen as a fuel for cars should dramatically reduce CO2 emission. coz all that gives out is water frm the exhaust pipes. also, planting trees is the only way isnt it??
2006-07-31 00:08:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by pessimist_boy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Less fuel wasting vehicles, the use of renewable energy like hemp, wind and rivers.
2006-07-31 00:09:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gungnir 5
·
0⤊
0⤋