Americans! Do you believe carbon emissions are connected to global warming now?

Question

Your oil loving President has even admitted it!

Americans, you have really surprised me. Many people on this network, like Nick (who is not American actually) have led me to believe that you guys think climate change is some kind of government consipiracy--but I guess that is the lunatic fringe. It seems Canadians have surpassed you in their defensiveness and reluctance to reduce emissions.

As for Skooz and Ash, you are both wrong, wrong, wrong. Just look at some of the evidence cited on this post. And China is the SECOND worst polluter, far behind AMERICA, Ash. Read up on it!

Answer 1

Global Warming Basics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional warming over the 21st century, with current projections of a global increase of 2.5ºF to 10.4ºF by 2100, with warming in the U.S. expected to be even higher. This warming will have real consequences for the United States and the world, for with that warming will also come additional sea-level rise that will gradually inundate coastal areas, changes in precipitation patterns, increased risk of droughts and floods, threats to biodiversity, and a number of potential challenges for public health.

Addressing climate change is no simple task. To protect ourselves, our economy, and our land from the adverse effects of climate change, we must ultimately dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Related Content


Climate Change 101

Facts & Figures

Fact Sheets

Hurricanes & Global Warming Q&A

Global Warming & The Arctic Q&A

'The Day After Tomorrow' - Could It Really Happen?

Comments on "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Myths and Realities of Global Warming

Global Warming Kids Page




To achieve this goal we must fundamentally transform the way we power our global economy, shifting away from a century’s legacy of unrestrained fossil fuel use and its associated emissions in pursuit of more efficient and renewable sources of energy. Such a transformation will require society to engage in a concerted effort, over the near and long-term, to seek out opportunities and design actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 2

Since only about 4% of the CO2 on earth comes from human activities and existence I find it hard to place the blame for climate change completely on Man.

Ten thousand years ago was the end of the last big Ice Age and the earth warmed up to average temperatures higher than now and remained warmer for about 7,500 years. It didn't warm up due to human activity then. After 7,500 yrs the earth cooled to temperatures lower than today, then warmed rapidly to higher temperatures than today so the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland. Again the warming was not caused by human activity. Then from about 1200-1500 the earth cooled to the point where the Baltic Sea froze solid in winter. Then a gradual warming trend set in and the last cold blast of this Little Ice Age was in 1815, when there was snow every month of the year in the U. S.. The warming continued, but suddenly people started using thermometers and keeping records around 1850. Some saw industry burning coal, with lots of smoke, they knew it was unhealthy and they hated the industrialists and capitalism. But not until today have they made the leap to a conclusion that fits their political template and agenda.

What is the normal climate of the earth, a very warm 7,500 yrs or Viking times or the Little Ice Age or the last 150 yrs? I think warmer is normal based on the period of time. While climate change is a fact, it's cause is still not proven, except to those who need to have it fit their template. Can we stop nature? May as well try to stop the tides or a hurricane. We still cannot explain the causes of climate change, although there are several theories that do not involve human causation.

Then I look at the politics of the "Global Warming is caused by Man" crowd and I find the political Left, the "Hate America" groups and their usual fellow travellers. The environmental extremists who want wilderness where no man can go, who want fewer people in order to protect animals and who occasionally burn down new houses. The animal rights crowd who would have everyone become vegetarian by law, eliminate pets and zoos. The people who hold the life of a rat above the life of a child, no animal testing of medicines. Then I ask what does the Left have to gain by ramming their agenda down our throats by law? The answer is power and money.

Since by their reasoning, any emissions of CO2 must be either controlled or taxed, they gain both power and money. Industrial emissions can be controlled at great expense. But that's okay, they are "Saving thePlanet". What about CO2 emissions that cannot be controlled, such as breathing? Tax it! If you can't pay the breathing tax, stop breathing. What a wonderful way to reduce the population. It is just taking their kind of thinking to the logical extreme.

I am all for alternative energy that doesn't cost me more, for pollution controls that don't raise my cost of living. I love trees and the products made from them. I am for sensible environmentalism that does not hurt people. I like wild animals, they taste good too and I want them around a long time. Doing things that cost me more to live, lower my standard of living and restrict my freedom are no good.

As for Bush and Newt, the Left has derided them as being stupid, ignorant, incompetent knaves for so long that suddenly applauding them does nothing to help the Left's position. They cannot be stupid and intelligent both.

Biofuels simply recycle the CO2 and add none to the total, but the biofuel crops must not push out food crops. Trees actually take a lot of CO2 out of the air, so having more trees would help. If oil is your problem it is possible to convert coal to a cheap, clean-burning fuel and end the Arab oil cartel. Hydrogen power has too many problems, since it is an energy storage medium, not a fuel, has to use other energy sources to be made and is difficult to make portable.

To end our dependence on oil, it would be easy to use any liquid or gaseous fuel, made from any source in an External Combustion engine, such as in a steam-electric hybrid auto.
[e-mail] - has some good ideas along these lines.

Answer 3

Its a very good question and it raises the issue of how developed nations have already developed AFTER they have already polluted the world and continue to do so. So, now, on what moral grounds can they stop developing nations to at least achieving some decent kind of economic growth before they really become very environmental conscious. However, I guess the trade off would be between the amount of pollution taking place and the kind of economic growth and development we are talking about. The ideal situation would be to have little or no development at the cost of the environment. But that is not going to happen. Countries will look out for their own self interest. So, we have to approach this pragmatically and realistically and see exactly what we can achieve in order to convince developing nations not to pollute so much and at the same time to achieve a good economic growth level.

Answer 4

I'm not an American, and I think it is a crock of sh*t. See Taganans answer, couldn't have said it better myself. Strong consensus by scientists looking for funding. For ever one that says global warming is created by man, I can provide one that says it isn't. In the 70's they said the next ice age was imminent, now it's the same fools jabbering on about global warming. Seeing as all life on Earth is Carbon based, the more CO2 there is, the more life flourishes. Nature provides about 95% of yearly, CO2 emissions, are we going to ban planets and animals from dying and decomposing? Are we going to put big stoppers in all the Volcanoes? Stop global warming = a fools quest. Unfortunately we nurture the weak minded, so there are an aweful lot of fools around. I'll just sit back, sip my wine, smile, and watch'em scurry about trying to stop the unstoppable.

And cheryl... you too are oil loving, because without it, you wouldn't have any of the convenience you have today, includes cars, mass transport, radio, telephone, computer, plastic, tires, agriculture, boats, mass production, solar panels...pretty much we would still be living in mud huts hunting and gathering.

Answer 5

Yes definitely, but its not so much to blame on bush, but on you ,me ,and just about all of humanity,we all take this poor earth for granted.back in the 1800's when we started the technological revolution,"we" did not imagine what the results would be. BUT when we started to find out, and didn't do something about it,because "WE"were too worried about how many Millions or billions "we"will lose by changing things,"we"didn't care, and a lot of "us"still don't for the same reasons. its reallllly sad! and after "we" wreck the earth, and "colonize"somewhere else,which i am sure will have much more "wealth" in the verry end,you cant take not one penny with you !!!! sad .

Answer 6

It may not be the main cause but it does add to it. There is no doubt about that. The question is, if there was something you could do to lower the emissions coming out of your car and save money on the gas your are buying anyway, why wouldn't you do it?

Answer 7

Actually most Americans do.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

Yahoo answers is skewed by a few very noisy skeptics. Many are politically motivated. Hopefully they'll listen to Newt:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Bush admitted it because the science was overwhelming and he had no choice. But his actions amount to:

"After I leave office...."

Global warming has been proven. These are two summaries with references to the scientific literature. Anyone who needs proof has only to go to a college library and read the references.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

If someone doesn't want to do that, they have a simple choice. Believe 99+% of the scientists in the world that this has been proven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Or a few skeptics here?

Not a hard choice.

Answer 8

carbon emissions? hello!! we exhale carbon dioxide!!!!duh!!! dont u even try to "americans" me! and dont talk trash about our president! u give me a hard case with some proof, oh and by the way, go back to physical science!!!! how old r u anyway?!?!!u cant get away from carbon being in the atmosphere, carbon 12 and carbon 14 are the most common carbons i believe. you cant blame global warming on carbon emmisions, its toxins in the air that the ozone layer cant handle and isnt used to. the ozone layer in the atmosphere protects earth from harmful rays from the sun, this isnt new. and a little something about my oil loving president, i dare u to go ask ur government who your allies are. who do u get your oil from? your natural gas? the majority is in the middle east, we cant avoid that. people say we should just use our own oil. let me show u something differently. we have a lot of oil and gas, yeah, but we have allies in the middle east who have more.wouldnt it be smart to get and use oil from other countries while its in plentiful supply, and if and when they run out to then use our own oil to last longer than any other nation, keeping our advanced economy and technology alive for as long as possible? America is ahead of every other nation, and we all want to stay that way, none of us want to become a third-world country. you wouldnt even want to live in a broken down third-world country that used to be the "watchman of the world"(check your history books about WW1 and 2 and Vietnam).

Answer 9

Yes, but if we were to come up with an oxygen fuel-cell car, then we wouldnt need as much oil. And the laugh would be on the other foot! HAHA!! jk

Answer 10

Yes, carbon emissions by human activity contributes to global warming. BUT, that is a far cry from agreeing that we can CONTROL global warming.

It's like swimming in a lake contributes to local flooding. But will getting out of the lake stop the flooding???