Should we bother with trying to cut-back on greenhouse gases?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

Cutting back on anything which is fuelled by the burning of precious resources is always a good idea, but I very much doubt that governments and legisaltors will come up with the answer.

The global-warming debate is in danger of overshadowing the far more pressing problems of chemical pollution, massive waste of resources and the vast amount of waste which now pollutes the land and the oceans.

In a perverse sort of way, the global-warming "issue" (which isn't an issue at all for the present moment), is one way of drawing attention to the other problems, but of course, the politicians will always take the line of least resistance, and put taxes on the things they can see......ie: transport.

However, it's the things we cannot see which matter most, such as the world system of monetarism, capitalism and consumerism: all of which encourage us to believe that there is a limitless future of opportunity and good-living, when the reverse is true.

Once resources start to run out, and the "business cycle" is broken, then the end result is global financial melt-down, as certainly as if there were political revolutions, wars or sudden famine.

If world leaders were to really grasp the nettle, they would insist on a reduction in the VOLUME of manufacture: perhaps insisting that things had to have a longer working-life.

The "throw away society" is at the heart of waste control, pollution, excessive use of resources amd, ultimately, the things which give rise to CO2 emissions.

Tackle the waste of consumerism, and you tackle ALL the problems, and not just the one which happens to be fashionable in the political arena.

Answer 3

We could try, but do we really want to? There are those who scream about it that we should, but do they really do anything other than add more carbon dioxide to the air? I would agree that there might be a real issue, but there are others who say that we are not at fault for our current situation. Look at it this way, what civilization spewing massive amounts of green house gasses ended the last Ice Age. None, that we know of, so just what did end the last one if there was no civilization like ours polluting the atmosphere? Could it have been a natural situation? Could it have been an increase in the temperature of the sun? Probably not, increases in the earths temperature can only come from man putting green house gasses into the air, so there just has to be a major polluting civilization that caused the end of the last Ice Age that we just haven't found yet. Perhaps they all drowned in the oceans as the ice melted.

Answer 4

Yes, because it is a win/win situation. Many paths that lead to reduced greenhouse gas emmisions are in the form of greater efficiency. Even if humans are not causing global warming, we still have a real interest in increasing our energy efficiency.

However, the last thing we should do is go into a panic. We live in a world that is constantly changing, and we need to accept that and adapt to it. Climate change will happen regardless of humans, and that's a fact. Over 99% of the species that have lived on earth are now extinct, and someday humans will be. Human pride makes us think we have more control over our situation than we do.

I've looked at the arguments for and against human caused global warming, and I don't think our understanding of the factors tells us we are causing it. We should absolutely care for our environment, but I don't think we need to drastically alter our lifestyles to try to affect climate change.

Answer 5

Yes, we have to before it's too late and the Netherlands are the next Atlantis! Rising sea levels are a matter-of-fact because of the global warming, such countries like the Maldives or Tuvalu have practical experience with that.

Answer 6

Since with the currant emmition level we are just speeding up an enevitable process which will end with total destruction of the world (a very selfish way of looking at it) we look for ways to prelong life, which is a loosing battel. We should try to find out how to create the most comfortable existence for ourselves and stick with that. If that involves distruction of the world then what can we do about it, if it involves universal benefit then life will be good for everyone. We have done the dammage to the ozone layer, I could go into depth with this but I won't. You take the lead and try to patch up the hole in the ozone layer and I will follow.

Answer 7

Mans contribution to Atmospheric greenhouse gases is very fractional. If man had never existed the climate change would still be looming... Even Russian scientists are (publicly) discounting mans contribution. Do the math, a world wide reduction of fossil fuel use of 10 % would do absolutely nothing to ward off the natural weather cycles, and plunge the world economy in to absolute chaos, causing mass starvation and civil unrest. Who wants to be the first to push THAT button??? The liberals just want an excuse to raise taxes and legislate more control over peoples lives.

Answer 8

Industrialised nations are the biggest culprits of greenhouse gases on our fragile planet.Yes "fragile",Meaning that our world,In it's present heading,Will not be able to cradle human existence if global warming continues with the weapons of mass destruction "Greenhouse Gases".To answer your question,Yes,everyone on the planet has a moral obligation to reduce greenhouse gases.It's scientifically proven that it's killing our planet.I believe this is a silent killer that needs to be addressed vigorously by all leading nations.

Answer 9

It would be a grand jester but a mood point as volcanoes averaging 2-3 eruption's per 100 years, put out many times more greenhouse gases per erupcion than we can. put the two together and I think we are screwed.

Answer 10

Yes we should.