is anyone really doing anything about climate change?

Question

Everyone and everything seems to be concerned with climate change etc but is anything really hapenning. Let's all actualy do something significant to help now!

Answer 1

Well, doing nothing is also doing something.

The climate will probably change with or wihtout human intervention, just as it has for millions of years. Really, after the last Ice Age, we had global warming or we'd still be buried in ice.

Answer 2

The real question should be CAN we do anything about climate change? In the 70's scientists were worried about another oncoming Ice Age. Today we're worried about Global Warming. Even in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" he shows a graph of temperatures the earth has been at. Climate change is truly out of our control. Perhaps we can influence it in a very slight degree, but perhaps not. Not all scientists agree with the concept of man made global warming. Until they do, it will be very hard to get people who are wishy washy and lazy to do anything about it.

Answer 3

Probably not enough, but yes things are being done. For example, California Air Board has been working overtime to reduce the emissions from cars and trucks for years. They have managed to handle the cars, including promoting the Hybrid and EV cars, and now by 2008 all Semi trucks will not be able to idol for more then 5 minutes, also forcing new semi trucks to put particulate filters on the exhausts. Most other states will follow. With a little help from all of us, just looking at what we can do to help, this can be turned around.

Answer 4

I just did something by posting an answer to Nancy Pelosi's Q on YA:

Congress is working on legislation to address global warming - what would you like to see included?
Yahoo! Answers Staff note: Yahoo! Answers is a forum for people from all over the world to engage with one another and to find information on topics that interest them. This is not an endorsement. We are not siding with any candidate or party -- in general or for the 2008 US elections. We're hopeful that people from all perspectives will realize the great insights that the Answers community can have, and will turn to us for future discussions.


You are: heeltap Your Answer: I think roundtrip commuting by a single person from home to work and back in a gas-guzzler vehicle or a hybrid is a total waste of dwindling reserves of petroleum which has more valuable uses. Designing improved, more efficient mass transit systems will help reduce the waste if people now driving alone to work shift to relying on the MTS. But an even better solution exists which obviates the need to waste any petroleum moving our bodies in 4000Lb hunks of metal. Greater Use of bicycles has already been suggested and I applaud that suggestion since it would also help reduce the obesity problem that plagues America. However my suggestion is to eliminate commuting altogether using the internet and other communication technologies. The number one priority for this nation is to cut our import dependence on swing supplies of crude oil from politically unstable regions and/or unreliable export nations. The fastest way to do this would to improve our economic efficiency by eliminating the costs of wasteful unnecessary commuting and that requires upgrading the national communication network including the internet which is a very inefficient fragmented system. I think it is an issue of national security and an essential efficiency improvement to the economy that we have the best electronic communication system just as we once had the best transportation highway system in the world.

I therefore urge You ,Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to create a task force to engineer the development of the best integrated national communication system possible with the internet capacity and reliability to confidently backout wasteful work commutting and backout the destabilizing importation of petroleum from the Middle East. The reduction in imports, and the reduction of the carbon footprints of our working population would be environmentally a good thing. I haven't even mentioned the savings in personal time to individuals which , of all the things one can think of , is the greatest of all benefits to be derived from my suggestion.

Source(s) Good Q. I hope you are listening.
Sincerely TWH 06012007
MIT BS in Chemical Engineering 1973

Answer 5

I think that yes, there are people and organizations working on solving global warming. I am a member and/or supporter of many environmental groups doing just that - taking action. Whenever possible, in my daily life, I try to make environmentally friendly choices - I don't shop just to shop, I buy whatever I can used, and if I can't get it used, I get it at local shops, rather than Wal*Mart, etc. I think there are people taking action, but we need a heck of a lot more.

Answer 6

If each person helped out by recycling, reducing energy comsumption etc then it would all add up to a big difference.

Small changes aren't hard to make and a great many people are already doing something to help.

Answer 7

interior the case of Kano's final question, i do no longer think of he knowingly lies. it relatively is only that that's what he's being instructed via the information-media he follows, the blogs he reads and his fellow technological know-how denial pals. completely uninformed, in different words. this finished concept that it could be accessible on the cutting-edge time to go hundreds of thousands of a lot of meat to the Serengeti plains is laughable at best, finished idiocy at worst. And this coming from the fringe of the controversy which claims to be 'oh so apprehensive' approximately budget friendly impacts. His 'extra info' confirm he hasn't thought this over all right: "Uneaten grass decomposes and motives methane." specific, and cows do no longer fart. i ask your self how long it takes in the previous Mr Godwin's regulation comes alongside and joins in.

Answer 8

I find this rather interesting.

We put out 30,000,000,000 tons of CO in the atmosphere every year.

To put that in perspective, that's 38 molecules of CO for every 100,000 molecules of air. It would take 5 years to change that 38 molecules to 39 molecules at the above rate.

Interesting, huh?

Answer 9

Hi,
This is my families program to cut our energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in half:

http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

To date, we have cut our total energy use of 93,000 KWH per year by 50% and have cut our greenhouse gas emissions of about 63,000 lbs of CO2 per year by 48% -- a nearly 15 ton per year reduction in CO2 emissions.

This is saving us $4000 per year on energy costs (heating, electricity, gasoline), and is giving us a 2 year payback on the money we spent.
There are people who are doing better than this -- a lot better -- just not enough of them.

I think there is too much feeling that the government has to do something -- we are the ones using most of the energy, so we are the ones in the best position to use less.

If 100 million US families each cut CO2 emissions by 15 tons, it would reduce total US CO2 emissions by about 25%.

Gary

Answer 10

No... no one is doing anything.

in fact, environmentalists are interfering with attempts to do things that would be helpful.

They block construction of newer, more efficient coal fired power plants... so the 50 year old inefficient plants have to be lkept operating.

So what if the newer plant is only 6% more efficient and produces 11% less pollution per killowatt... ITS STILL LESS POLLUTION AND LESS COAL BURNED.