Which is more important the world's climate or the economy of the usa?

Question

The usa refuses to ratify with over 160 other countries from around the world and the UN to put a stop or even a decrease to the world's global warming problem. The kyoto protocol calls for countries to cut the output of green house gases not to eliminate them, which is what I think needs to be done. We (all countries) need to be looking at the next form of energy. I think that the only way to go is h2o since the 2/3 of the planet is covered in it and it countains 2 hyrdogen molecules for every 1 oxygen molecule.
The usa should quit worrying about thier economy join the kyoto protocol and get to work on turning h2o into our next fuel source by figuring out a way of CHEAPLY getting the hydrogen out of the water the oxygen back into the atmosphere without using alot of energy to make the whole process work. The guys or company that first makes this process work will be able to control the world economy which is the real goal of the united states government!

Answer 1

The answer to your question is quite simple; what use there is to have a great economy, if world's climate changes enough to make most of the land areas uninhabitable? That may be still far in the future, but the changes in that direction are scientifically proved and should not be denied.

However, your idea about water (or the hydrogen stored in water) as a great energy source has one major flaw. It always takes as much energy to separate hydrogen from water as it gives out to burn that same amount of hydrogen. You can't generate energy that way; it is a great way to store energy though. But first you have to produce that energy somehow, and that's where renewable energy sources come into picture. Solar, wind, bio fuels... whatever, they all need research. The next big thing could be fusion... but who knows? Basically funding is needed to make this research happen.

As an interesting thought you could calculate the amount of solar panels (plus maintenance plus energy transfer costs) you could buy with that amount of money used in, for example, first gulf war. With safe approximations, you could cover entire Sahara with those amounts used in waging war (motives of which I would not go into here). Amount of electricity provided with that array of solar panels would be quite enough for USA for a couple of years, and whole Europe could leech the excess. Naturally there would be some major engineering problems, but hey... in the end, it's all politics about where to use the money.

Answer 2

The notion of trying to solve the world's energy problems is a non-starter. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a repository of energy: it must be made by any of several processes that necessarily require large amounts of energy. Making hydrogen without using a lot of energy is thermdynamically impossible. Hence, any solution to the energy problem must involve making it from other sources. Wind and photovoltaic power are too costly to be used without large subsidies. Likewise, ethanol and biodiesel -- neither can be economically competitive because growing the needed crops is costly. Nuclear power of some sort is, however, a viable alternative, although political squabbling over the waste products makes it difficult.
The Kyoto protocol is nonsense. No country which has pledged to reduce CO2 in response to it has succeeded in doing so. Even the purpose is bogus: it is not established (notwithstanding the popular press) that CO2 is responsible for global warming, or that such warming is of sufficient economic consequence to justify any action at all.
As for the notion that the US government is trying to control the world economy, you've been smoking too many strange vegetables. It is obvious, to anyone who even casually thinks about it, that the value created by trade will be maximized if every country (and every person) is free to create and trade wealth as best it can. And control can only affect this adversely.

Answer 3

Once climate change bites the world economy, including the US, will struggle?

Can the US afford more katrinas?

of course the way US economists count GDP then disasters and polution clean-up, crime etc, actually increases economic growth.

Don't understand your thing about hydrogen/water. we don't want more oxygen in the atmosphere, >25% and trees start spontaneously combusting..
There are plenty of technologies available now to reduce our use of fossil fuels to more sustainable levels.

Hydrogen is not a primary energy source, only a transport mechanism. Even if you can get hydrogen from water cheaply it is still very expensive to transport, requiring new pipelines or tankers, it escapes easily and has a large volume. better to use existing electricity grid which is very efficient.
and electric cars are more efficient than hydrogen fuel cells and the technology is available now see www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

Answer 4

This doesn't have to be an "either or" proposition (although the WORLD's climate clearly takes precedent).

And I completely agree with what you had to say about Kyoto!

Alternative sources of energy will bring about lots of new jobs and a better economy.

Furthermore, Global Warming is a major, eminent problem. The fact that Bush won't step up in the area of environmentalism is very upsetting, but not a bit surprising *cough* OIL!...

Answer 5

Actually the USA economy is important because it supports the global economy. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. economy were to collapse. We'd be substituting one disaster for another.

BUT, having a healthy global economy and mitigating/halting global warming aren't mutually exclusive. We already have technologies we need to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels which are the biggest generator of greenhouse gas.

George Bush just needs to be kicked out of office so responsible US citizens can implement the changes needed.

I do agree with you though, citizens of the U.S. (me included) need to get our collective asses in gear and start electing politicians that will take climate change seriously.

Answer 6

the usa doesn't care, don't you understand that?

1) they use a capitalist model, which means the only things that interests them is imediate benefit, not long term concequences (i'm certainly not for communism, but something in-between seems more appealing to me)

2) they have an army big enough to face the entire world an win.


After reading those 2 arguments, tell me: why would they care about the world?

Answer 7

Sorry but f.... the economy of the usa, global warming is a worldwide problem.
America is only for keeping onside with the oil producing nations, that says it all.

Answer 8

Yep...and without ecological balance, economic balance will hardly matter..."Short term versus long term goals". I think world survival should be on the top of everyone's list.

Answer 9

usa has the material resources to try to find an alternative form of energy.if they succeed in finding it,they will control the world economy(as they aren't controlling it in present!)if someone else discovers it they will have serious problems because the conventional combustibles will finish in 30-40 years.

Answer 10

world climate