So which is worse for the people of the world: Global Warming or the solutions to stop Global warming?

Question

Most scientists agree that by reducing the world economy by a 1/3 for 25 years or more will stop & reverse the effects of Global warming & the problem would be solved but............

Getting to that solution will put hundreds of millions of people around the world out of work & into poverty for the next 25 years or more years until the Global Warming problem has finally been fixed.

So how do you solve the problem of Global Warming w/o putting hundreds of millions of new people into poverty? Not to mention the disease, famine & political uphevals it would cause?

(Kyoto treaty is too little to late).

Answer 1

You can't! Unfortunately few people know this!

Answer 2

Precisely. Reducing world economy may have some effect on global warming but there are other consequences. There are things that a person or corporation can do to conserve energy or reduce desertification that are not quite so drastic.

Global warming is a complex issue and there are many factors which mankind may not be able to control.

Reading the popular media can lead a person to conclude that "global warming" is:
o- either a hoax to promote business opportunities, politicians agenda and scientists grant money.....
OR
o- a problem related to overpopulation, industrialization and fossil fuels whose solution options lie in solar power, wind power, geothermal power and nuclear fusion....

However, the main cause may be altogether different:

NASA has released never-before-seen images that show the sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously known. The international spacecraft Hinode, formerly known as Solar B, took the images. Hinode was launched Sept. 23 to study the sun's magnetic field and its explosive energy. National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists said the spacecraft's uninterrupted high-resolution observations of the sun are expected to have an impact on solar physics comparable to the Hubble Space Telescope's impact on astronomy. "For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnetized atmosphere," said Dick Fisher, director of NASA's Heliophyics Division. "These images will open a new era of study on some of the sun's processes that effect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and the solar system." Hinode is a collaborative mission led by
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and includes the European Space Agency and Britain's Particle Physics Astronomy Research
Council. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the development of the Hinode's scientific instrumentation provided by industry and federal agencies.

>>> as regards alternative energy methods, I favor development of the technology for nuclear fusion using lunar Helium 3

Answer 3

The "solutions"; They will cost billions upon billions of dollars because if it leaks that CO2 rises in our generation might not be caused by humans, all of these climatologists won't get funding will lose their jobs. How would you avoid that? If you scare the hell out of people and point an accusing finger, nobody is going to ask too many questions. But think about what that will cost us; Global Warming is a long-term weather prediction. How many times does the meteorologist say it's going to rain, but it doesn't? Another point that gets no attention is that warming and cooling trends have been prevalent all throughout the history of our planet, but why all of a sudden, are they becoming a "crisis"? For some reason, the levels of CO2 in the past before humans were alive, which were three times as much as there are today (there is plenty of data on this), but that didn't cause the world to end like Gore and friends would like you to believe. Do you think Al Gore actually believes what he's saying? He flies cross-country in a private jet with his little slideshow scaring people and nobody seems to think anything of it. If he truly believed what he was preaching right down to his very core, he'd be biking across the country with a backpack and water bottle, not in a private jet. Question these hypocrites because it all comes down to money and how much funding they can get. It comes down to how much of a demand for hippie cars they can create by scaring unassuming people into thinking there is a crisis. Mostly people don't have the resources to go do a climate study on their own, but we all have the ability to ask questions and believe it or not, a lot of scientists are calling this a hoax. They believe that the earth is warming, but not due to human intervention. When it comes down to it, Al Gore is a failed politician and this is his last chance to springboard himself into office in '08 or '12. Stand up against this moron and question the hell out of him. Listen to the scientists that are asking questions, not those that are members of lobby groups (which happen to be ones Gore frequently cites). Question the credentials of the "scientists" conducting the studies that say you personally are destroying the planet. Question the “facts” that these scientists are in the top 5% of scientists on the subject. The fact is there are two options we have; 1) We can either start giving Gore his money and watch him prosper off of our blind ignorance and let him force us to live a lifestyle he tells us to or 2) we can start to question this idiot and his junk science and watch him crash and burn and hopefully disappear forever.

Answer 4

I don't believe addressing this problem will be such a crisis for the economy. What it will be is a problem for certain industries (like coal and oil) and a huge benefit for others (like nuclear, solar, geothermal, biofuels, etc).

Don't you imagine there was a huge resistance among horse/wagon dealers to the development of the automobile? Don't you think they were tossing out predicitions about how many people the change would toss out of work?

The issue is that the industries it will hurt are already huge and have a correspondingly huge influence on politics, while the industries it will help are not yet developed and so have not yet developed political influence.

If we can afford trillion dollars to try to pacify one impotent middle-eastern dictator, why can't we spend some percent of that money transitioning to a new energy base for a new economy?

Answer 5

I tell you what. If you can get every single country to follow the same rules, then the solution is better for the planet. But you won't be able to get China or India to use the same rules as the US. Kyoto treaty had the US follow stricter rules and China didn't have to do a darn thing. And who is number two on the pollution list, that is China.

Answer 6

First, the Kyoto treaty is not about reducing emissions, is not about science, is not about doing good for mankind. It is evil and a form of new world order. It is about a global economy. It is a lie.

The fact that the US is against it is a good thing.

Furthermore....

Answer 7

Take a city like Toronto Canada. They are pouring money into green technologies, whether it is a propose increase in mass transit, taking landmarks "off the grid" by using wind and solar power. Encouraging the use of energy efficient programs, garbage limits, recycling programs for damn near everything. If you cut emissions initially in the consumer sector while Green technologies catch up you will not have to reduce industry.

With green technologies you will also be developing a whole new form of industry, being that the recycling sector, where products are remanufactured, reused and recycled. on this point you are reducing the number of primary industry workers and emissions while adding a new tertiary industry.

Some countries are currently giving tax incentives to larger companies who want to change over to more environment lay invasive processing procedure, as well as cleaner waste disposal.

Industry does not have to suffer, we need to reduce emissions but that does not equate to an industrial reduction.

Answer 8

You don't.

But I think you're giving them way too much - - - it's BEEN warmer than it is today and the gloom and doom scenarios didn't happen, except one, the drought in what is now the American Southwest. And the tangible evidence that we play a causal role is limited to the cooling of the stratosphere. Problem is, the warming started when McKinley was President and the cooling stratosphere started when Clinton was President.

Answer 9

...Neither ! ...The Old World has been here for about 4.5 Billion years... in that time "this" land has undergone several Ice-Age's and Tropical ages... (believe it or not)... The World may be headed into another shift of itself... "we" will NOT control it or make it do something different... When this World gets tired of us, it will "flick us off" it's back like a dog scratching at flea...!!! relax, have another beer, eat a frog, shoot bird, cut down down some trees...what comes around, goes around.... it's the cycle of our Planet !!!!

Answer 10

Guess what - you don't! Global warming is a big farce anyway! Global warming is not realistically an issue, and I don't see what everyone's problem is. Look at the REAL facts, people! Vincent and Zimmer are correct.

Answer 11

This is a question you won't get answered honestly from a lib. Depopulation and world government is the goal of the Global Warming marxist elite and the dooped do gooder liberals who don't understand the real agenda.