Bush and Gore both agree that Global Warming is real. So what is the best way to help cut carbon emissions?

Question

Bush has admitted global warming is real, and is affected by human activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=43896

When these two politicians agree on something, I think it's time all of us on this site stopped debating it's existence and began to discuss solutions.

Now - how do we fix the problem? Personally, I like the global cap & trade method. Any other ideas?

Great answers. Thanks for the serious thoughts.

I'll put this one to a vote.

Answer 1

easy.. replace all fossil fuel burning vehicles/engines with hydrogen fuel cell-powered.
In fact Nasa's been using this technology for decades.. there's no reason we shouldn't be.
H2 -> Energy + Water

Hydrogen fueling can easily be phased into existing gasoline stations.

Answer 2

How dare you attack Saint Al this variety! He buys carbon credit (from his own business enterprise) to offset his carbon use so he's stable and you're undesirable. i'm constructive he'd sell you some after which you need to be stable like him and experience greater effective regarding the tip of the worldwide. i've got constantly stumbled on it a wierd coincidence that the 1st actual Earth Day prepared interior the U. S. in simple terms passed off to fall on the a hundredth anniversary of Vladimir Lenin's start. to no longer say that maximum environmentalists are not honest yet I question the targets of their leaders because of the fact they supply the effect of being so distinctive from what they declare to have self belief. And inimical to the values interior the U. S. shape to boot, i.e. freedom of speech as long as we adore what you're asserting, etc. The Left has on no account seen a socialist or communist they did no longer appreciate and the vegetables are area of the Left so as that's a organic progression or they could want the comparable issues. substantial making plans and administration on the cost of guy or woman liberty. One supposedly for the earnings of the human beings via the State, the different for the earnings of the planet via the State, however the procedures and propaganda of the AGW stream are time-honored a approach or the different.

Answer 3

I disagree that the debate should ever stop, even if the nimrod Bush agrees with the opportunist Gore. They're both so exceptionally mediocre I can't imagine how their agreement could influence anyone to stop debating. In fact the sheer banality and intellectual insult that is our political process is all the more reason to question why an incontrovertibly tiny elevation in global mean temperature could catch such a widely-regarded ear in the media culture.

I sincerely hope you'll read this article below, and google Richard Lindzen while you're at it. Question whether you like being a member of the sheep who parade this issue.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Answer 4

I think that putting official mandates on industries would be a clear first step, making sure that their waste or emissions are not harmful to the environment. Second would be the elimination of clear cutting of rain forests. Following that would be mandatatory changes in our automobiles. Advancing the science behind combustion engines, and their use of non-renewable resources. Find a fuel that is completely and quickly renewable that works for all vehicles. Demanding that automotive manufacturers start producing at least 1/3 of their TOTAL vehicles as hybrids. Also, put stricter recycling policies in place, as well as stricter biodegradable packaging laws... This is a very short list, but anything is a start.

Answer 5

Better farming practices could help agriculture bury about 10 percent of atmospheric carbon from emissions caused by human activity over the next 25 years -- while improving soil, crop and environment quality, slowing erosion and desertification, and enhancing biodiversity.

The key is to build up plant matter in the soil. This would pull more carbon dioxide out of the air and convert it into plant matter, which is largely carbon -- a process called carbon sequestration. It would also improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion and make farming more productive and sustainable, according to a report, Soil carbon sequestration for improved land management, recently published by FAO.

Carbon dioxide is the most prominent "greenhouse" gas. Carbon sequestration can be used to partially offset a country's carbon dioxide emissions, helping it meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the mechanism for implementing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism allows developed countries to offset some of their emissions by funding climate-friendly projects in the developing world. This offset process, in its infancy, will eventually "credit" agricultural development that increases plant matter, and thus carbon sequestration.

Answer 6

I think the ultimate solution is to somehow force/manage a reduction in hydro-carbon usage by doing the following:

1. Increase government funding to improve the technology for hydrogen cars. Not only would this technology reduce carbon emissions, but it would reduce our dependancy on the Middle East for fossil fuels.
2. Subsidies to promote renewable eco friendly fuels such as wind and solar (the latter would be ideal for New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, etc)
3. At least consider Nuclear power with strong radiation disposal facilities.
4. Some tax credits for filters on coal powered plants coupled with mandates to reduce coal based carbon emissions.

Answer 7

you don't there is no way without destroying the american economy that Ameica can change, and the rest of the world, Russia, China, Korea, Japan, Middle East won't change no matter what we do.

So all we do is give all the jobs to them and move back to the 1800's,

Next I am not sure they agree on the cause, only that thier could be global warming, ( like it was global cooloing 20 years ago, still waiting on that ice age to happen)

And they even annouced last week that the ozone around the north pole was fixing itself.

So it may also well be a natural event, like what caused the melting of the ice age ???

Answer 8

If global warming is caused by carbon emission the ONLY way to reverse it would be for EVERYONE to give up their cars and turn off their elect. Even if we all started today, we have nothing to replace these things with for the next 10 years. So who is ready to stay home and sit in the dark.

Answer 9

Well, there are a lot of ways to help a little. Try driving less. Try buying cars that don't guzzle gas. Vote for people with positive plans for change. Bush may have admitted that it exists, but he still refuses to make positive changes in legislation to curb global warming.

Answer 10

Join the Kyoto Protocol. Start by reducing the engine capacities of vehicles. Be stricter on Industries on their emmisions. And invest a bulk of the budget on R&D into alternate fuels and also hybrid cars.

Answer 11

You can't wait on the politicians to solve global warming. Do what you can to reduce your emissions. Combine errands into one trip. Ride a bike if you can to work. Use a solar oven and other forms of solar power. Use fluorescent lights instead of incandescent.

You get the idea.