Even if Global Warming isn't real, what's wrong with reducing our carbon emissions?

Question

I don't understand the big fuss. What's wrong with reducing the amount of harmful greenhouse gases we release into the air? If we can responsibly cut the amount of greenhouse gases and pollutants we put into the air, what harm does that do? Why shouldn't we drive hybrid cars, recycle, use LED lights, buy energy efficient appliances? And these suggestions are for individuals and don't effect the business world. I'm just curious as to why we shouldn't be working toward a cleaner more efficient Earth.

It's incredibly discouraging that people have managed to politicized the issue so much that many people simply don't believe because it doesn't fall into the prepackaged Conservative ideals. Just because you believe in the science (and if you say it's "junk science" please provide a peer reviewed scientific report to support your claim) doesn't make you some liberal hippie. This is a moral issue and even the Evangelicals are on the side of science.

Check out whatwouldjesusdrive.org

I'm going to repeat once again for those who missed it. The changes I'm suggesting are not meant to regulate the business world. These are changes that individuals make. The choice to recycle, drive and energy efficient car, use energy efficient appliances are NOT business related. Just by every individual making a simple change in their lives they can cut their CO2 emissions considerably. So please don't respond saying it will cause the business industries billions and please don't talk about other industrialized countries. This question has nothing to do with industry. It's a moral question about personal decisions with goods that are already readily available. These goods save you money on your electric bill and money on gas. So what's the problem?

Let me just clear up the fact that I definitely believe in Global Warming. I already live a green lifestyle. I didn't want to mention that b/c I knew as soon as I did it would polarize the conversation and I didn't want to do that. I wanted non believers to explain the problem with reducing pollution.

Accellerated Catalyst

You're wrong. It's quite simple arithmetic. The population of the Earth is the greatest it has ever been. The amount of pollutants in the atmosphere is the greatest they have ever been. The number of cases of children who grow into asthma and other debilitaing lung problems is the greatest it has ever been. Who the hell am I? I'm someone who doesn't want to "save the Earth" I want to save our skies. I want to make it so smog alerts aren't a daily occurance. Were their smog alerts before Jesus walked the Earth. You made some pretty harsh statements and they were all incredibly ignorant. I don't appreciate it. If you want to pollute to your hearts content thats fine, but it's morally reprehensible.

Answer 1

Because the US releases the most amount of emissions in this world and does not want to change their way of life. It is a very selfish thing. Other countries are trying to do things to change, but the US hasn't even signed the Kyoto Protical, I take that back, the Clinton Admin signed it, the Bush admin pulled out from it. The US is the major hegemon in the world and if they do not lead in something, it seems to not be as effective as when they to... I am all for us going green.. one day we will have to but I just fear it will be too late.

Another thing to think about is a lot of corporations make money on cars and gas, they do not want the world to be alternative. If people all change and move towards a greener lifestyle the corporations will have to follow or go out of business. So we as consumers need to buy earth friendly products...

Answer 2

Global warming is an issue. The earth naturally warms and then goes through a flash freezing process. What green house gases and depletion of the ozone are doing is speeding up that process so fast that the rest of the world can not acumulate. Biggest example is a coral reef. Corals are so delicate that even a change in temperature of 1 degree can cause them to bleach. But why is it that some of the corals found through out the earth have been here for thousands of years? Simple the water warmed up so slowly that the corals were able to adapt to it.

The problem is thatmany politicans do not enforce these things. For example, one of my professors had met with the mayor of new york city (mike bloomburg) and the mayor was like "well its not an issue because thats so far into the future". There is your problem, everyone sees global warming as a future issue that no one realizes that it is a now issue.
Also everything is so expensive. Buying led's, hybrid cars, etc. Big business would lose so much money, oil companies will not be used constantly.
The other thing is emission. The emissions that were required for the clean air act cut the potential mpg of gas by alot.
Also people are lazy and can't be bothered

Answer 3

1

Answer 4

No. You've been fed a bunch of propaganda. This planet is more than capable of handling all of the compounds created on it. If you've studied chemistry you'd understand better. What's worse is that they're using this "global warming" nonsense to sign the country over to a world government. That's happening this December in Stockholm. All the developed countries will be giving their wealth away to the underdeveloped ones while the UN tears up our constitution. Obama's doing the signing, but I bet McCain would have done the same thing. Sad to see the USA go away so abruptly.

Answer 5

Global warming is very real, very very real indeed, our planet has been warming for thousands and thousands of years before humanity even had carbon emissions to help the process out. If mankind didnt speed it up, it would still occur.

Whats wrong with reducing carbon emissions is that it is not a solution, its just spaying our problem. Why burn less gas when you could use all hydro-electricity? Because somebody owns the hydro plant, and the oil barron wont let him gain his consumership.

Now with the Kyoto treaties we're trading and selling the right to poullute the atmosphere, hell maybe there's nothing wrong with this. But frankly, I dont see it repairing our environment, I dont see it preserving the longevity of the human race, hell I see this turning emissions credits into a street drug that will sell for an unfathomable price... The ultimate high... burning our air.

We've found prehistoric specimens of insects with wingspans of 71 cm (2.5 feet). Given our current atmosphereic conditions this animal wouldnt be able to distribute oxygen throughout its body. This is a small example of how global arming was occuring long before we showed up. The saturation of oxygen in our atmosphere was around 33% oxygen compared to our meager 21% we have today is the only way these animals could have laid claim on their own lives.

If you have a question instead of throwing principles around I missed it.

If you want to drive the earth to death, go for it, I wont stop you but its gonna take you quite a long time, you'll also need everybodies help with it.

The idea of humanity "Saving the planet" sounds really stupid to me, its been around a lot longer than people, the earth has never seen a single day of global peace since before Jesus walked among us. Who the hell do you think you are saving the planet, the planet is fine, if anyone saves anyone the planet will save us from our destructive tendancies...

Reducing greenhouse gasses won't stop greenhouse gasses.
Stopping all man made greenhouse gasses will buy us some time, but hardly any.

But the fact is solid, the greenhouse effect outdates humanity by a longshot, we just move it a little faster. We've always been subjected to radiation from our sun, we've always had chlorine in our atmoshphere, yes even before some dumbass built the Chloral floral carbon.... Perhaps humanity likes to blame themselves..? But I promise you this was in effect before we lended our hand.

Answer 6

Don't believe it when people say global warming is nonexistent. Global warming is a natural process meant to keep the globe warm and not freezing as it would be if it weren't for global warming. The true debate is how quickly the rate is increasing due to himan activities and if it poses a threat to the world. The only reason I can say this with surety is that I took environmental science this year at TCU and we learned a little about global warming. I have to agree with you about being more conservative. Unfortunately, being conservative, such as using hybrid cars, does affect big corporations which is why there is no huge interest in being so.

Answer 7

--------------
Here's something you can do. Drive an electric car. Yes, they are available, even some at very reasonable prices (would you believe as little as $5000?) - it's just hard to find out about them. (See my link at the end.)
*
A bonus is that your daily driving will be much cheaper. Electricity costs only about one cent per mile. Even with the cost of occasional battery replacements, it's still much cheaper than driving a gasoline fueled car. And for the record, I'm not talking just about the slow 'NEV' type electric cars, I'm talking about electric vehicles that look, accelerate, handle, and do freeway speeds just like normal cars.
*
Some people say that electric cars pollute because the power plants pollute. This is not true if you charge overnight. Electricity goes to waste overnight, because many power plants can't shut off when demand goes down. EVs are also much more efficient than gasoline cars, so even if some energy comes from dirty fuel, far less pollution is created.
*
Here's some more details:
*
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
--------------------

Answer 8

Though I dont believe for one second that global warming is real, nor do I believe that mankind has anything to do with it (what hubris!), nevertheless, this is a free country. If you wish to live a so-called "green lifestyle" then go right ahead. If you want to give up modern conveniences and live simply, fine. As I said, this is a free country. But dont tell me that I have to because of something that may or may not be true. That is the heart of a free nation...the freedom of the individual to choose what is best for him or her.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with reducing carbon emissions, not that it will matter, given that there is no absolute proof of their ultimate harmfulness. So, if you as an individual wish to do so in your life, then well and good. But, please be so good as to leave my decision in my hands, thank you.

Answer 9

It would cost Big Business BILLIONS!

Not an eay bill to foot.

It may cost trillions world-wide, but money well spent.

BUT, can we ask China to forego their industrial development? Or Africa? We already did it, and poluted the world in the process. So do we have the right to tell other countries they can't do it now. Doesn't Brazil and the Congo have the same rights to chop down their rainforests like we chopped down the great american forests to make way for farming, cattle, and cities?

I am all for the environment...just not hypocracy.

THANKS for redefining your question after I answered.

Obviously there are MANY americans who aren't as rich as you are and can't afford all those upgrades at present even if it saves money later on. Your question has become so rediculously long, I wish I hadn't answered it! Nor is it really a YahoO! Worthy Question.

Answer 10

I agree with you. Perhaps it is just the nature of humans to resist change. We become creatures of habit and thus it is hard for many of us to change. Particularly this is the case in America, where I think that people are conditioned to expect similar patterns. Go through any town in the country and you will find your Burger Kings and McDonalds, and if you go to them, you are already conditioned to demand their standarized products. All Mobil's are the same, so are supermarkets and malls. Everything is standarized and thus people are conditioned to standarization and renounce to their individuality, and thus choice. You will only find dissent among those who have decided to educate theirselves more. And making this decision is hard in a culture that is becoming accostumed to the least amount of effort. (This also explains the success of the remote control)