what exactly would it hurt for the US to reduce greenhouse gases?

Question

the auto industry is the top complainer...and they seemed to have put themselves out of work, thanks to their stupidity

Answer 1

Because not everyone thinks the human contribution to global warming is due to greenhouse gasses, but rather air pollution.

The US is a leader in air pollution controls, but Asia is enveloped in toxic brown smog because they have no pollution control. Parts of Europe are no better.

Then there is the deforestation of the planet. That cannot be overlooked as a possible contributing factor. The facts is that the earth is warming, and has been for thousands of years.

What needs to be addressed is what manmade cause is increasing it's effect and then solutions can be found.

Answer 2

It would not hurt to reduce greenhouse gases. I do not know what the expense would be but it would be passed on to the consumer anyway in the form of higher price tags on goods.
One productive thing to do, it seems to me, would be to plant a lot of new trees since deforestation seems to be contributing to the problem. Better fuel alternatives is another very positive area. the auto industry better get on board with fuel alternatives, or you are right about their future for sure! The same applies to oil companies. As soon as I have a truly viable alternative, I am off their product in a New York minute.

Answer 3

It is hard for many of us to believe that the world will end due to our stupidity. And even more difficult to see the effects that reducing the gases will have on our economy. What about all of the jobs tha will have to be done away with. For us that have employment that may not immediately be effected will ultimately be effected. Cars could be made more fuel efficient and better built but that would effect the sales in te car industry. By the time we restructure our economy it wil be too late. Greed rules!

Answer 4

Currently we use more energy that the other countries in the world.

Most of that energy is generated from fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide.

Currently hybrid cars do not get much better mileage than econony cars and cost thousands more.

We are already in the process of building Ethynol facilites across the country but existing cars can not use the 85% ethynol mix without damaging the cars. Newer cars will be able to handle the 85% mix.

Our electrical generators all rely on fossil fuels. Nuclear is the only other option that could meet a large percentage of our energy needs.

Solar and wind power combined would be hardpressed to account for even 10% of our needs.

More money needs to be devoted to energy research to increase the efficiency of solar cells, lengthen lifespane of cells and lower production costs.

Newer technology small scalle pebble reactor nuclear power plants need to be built in the deserts to gain experience with this new form of nuclear power generation.

Answer 5

We ALL need to chip in. Why should the government care when so many Americans don't? Walk, ride a bike, take the bus....I would LOVE to be able to take the bus to work...but the closest stop to my house is the building next to the one I work in.

We replaced all of our light bulbs w/those low-energy ones. I'm trying to get solar panels to run my electric fence and the trough heaters. Not only for the environment, but why give the electric company so much money?

I want to know why the rich people in - I think it was Nantucket, but too lazy to look it up right now - anyway, someone wanted to put in the windmills for wind power, and the richies BLEW a gasket. We have *got* to get over this selfish "not in MY backyard" mentality.

I am investigating converting my truck to run on biodiesel. Not sure if I want the smell of bad food everywhere I go, but heck - it can't stink more than diesel!

Answer 6

I have a similar question going...
Airlines worldwide use 178+ gallons of fuel a day. But if the airlines shut down it would cause economic chaos.
We have created a monster. Air and climate are commonwealth concerns that humanity shares-it would seem like corporations would make drastic changes to save the earth. But they live for the here and now-just like a rich dog.

Answer 7

Why, we would have to invest in public transportation run by electrical power generated by nuclear power.

We would have to severely reduce our electricity consumption until most of it is generated by something other than fossil fuels. That would mean families staying home talking to each other or playing non-electronic games (remember them?).

The air would become cleaner. There would be less noise pollution. The pace of our lives would be go way down and our stress levels along with it.

Sounds horrible, doesn't it?

Answer 8

It would only hurt the Bush family and their friends, who are heavily invested in oil and coal. Our economy would adapt easily and profit from the investment in alternatives to what we are doing now. It is good for the economy, it is good for business, it is good for the world, and it is good for the planet. As usual, the Bush family comes down on the wrong side of the equation. When will this pattern become clear enough for all to see. These men mean us harm.

Answer 9

Would hurt nothing and we should try, what's putting the auto industry out of work is the Unions!

Answer 10

It would not be a bad thing if it was done gradually and not out of panic but out of thought threw plans. Global warming alarmist would like us to think that we are going to die from the warming very soon and that we are the cause of the warming but that is just bull. A lot of our governments attempts to bring down emissions are total failures and they know it but they act in order to put something on their brag sheet even if it was failed because they know most people don't do any research.