Do you think that carbon cutting targets should increase every year as the efforts to cut carbon that were?

Question

used earlier that cut amounts the most, the quickest and the cheapest are identified and scaled up and as new efforts are sought out invented and discovered and attempted successfully are added in to be developed and used somewhere and then scaled up for wider use at the same time in an ongoing process? Would this slow global warming the fastest by putting increasing pressue on emission reduction efforts through clean technology to lower emissions or to scrub carbon from the atomosphere and to help people to keep trying to put in the effort and build the things needed on a large enough scale to fix the problem completely quick enough to prevent all potential problems from it best?

Answer 1

Cutting Carbon emissions would help to some degree however, the amounts that are being released today will NOT have any effect for another 20 to 50 years. So,l any cuts today would aslo have that SAME time lag. IOt's like a snow avalanche heading for a resort. The avalnache has already started but the resort is still standing. What needs to be done is get everyone out of the way because you're NOT gonna be able to stop the avalanche. Likewise OUR avalanche of Greenhouse gases has ALREADY started to move towards us ALL. We simply CAN'T stop it. ALL we can do is to prepare for it and plan for the results. these may include a gradual and slow evacuation of low lying areas near the seas. That can be done through planning and zoning laws, restricting developement near oceans, thereby preventing MORE people from living in dangerous areas. Restricitng development in high latitude farmland to enable the population to continue to feed itself as low latitude farmland becomes unable to support agriculture. Planting of more trees to absorb as much carbon as possible and prohibiting the cutting and burning of that new wood, allowing it to serve as a carbon sink. Encouraging the population levels of termite predators to eliminate termites who are one of the largest producers of Carbon Dioxide and methane. Changing our diet from primarily beef eating to other sources of protein to reduce the total number of Bovines who produce Tons of Carbon Dioxide through their digestion processes. By far, the greates source of Greenhouse gasses are natural sources such as termites (who can rpoduce up to 3 tons per day in forested areas) and Cattle (one can produce enough methane to heat a 2 bedroom home for a month). BUT keep in mind that this will NOT affect any Global Warming that WILL occur as a result of releases that have occured and continue at this time.. These measure will only decrease the afffects in the future, say 20 or 50 years time. So, right NOW we must make plans for the effects of what we have and ARE producing right now and make those plans soon. To take a wait and see attitude is to take a gamble, for IF the science IS correct, by the time they waiters realize that it is so, it WILL be FAR too late to plan. Our human species NEEDS to be PROactive and NOT REactive to this threat. A gamble of this magnitude is NOT worht the risk of losing the "bet" for the price will be humanity's very existence. It IS a fact that global temperatures ARE rising, and steadily, at the rate of a degree on average every 10 to 15 years. It doesn't sound like much BUT that's an average, SOM
Raji the Green Witch

Answer 2

And how exactly do we do that with three thousand immigrants pouring over our borders every week? Every one needing to burn fuel in one way or another, certainly every one wanting their own car, every one a polluter.....and once settled here, every one needing to further fly back and forth three or four times per year to see their families.......Bit of an ever shifting target isn't it......With absolutely NO joined up thinking from government, as usual. The whole thing is a sorry farce which cannot be taken seriously. Lets have some honesty and some common sense within the thinking, and perhaps people will switch on again. In all honesty, Mass migration all over the world is polluting the Hell out of our Sky's.....Why will no one talk any sense about it ?

Answer 3

Global warming = population?

1800 - 900 million people
1900 - 1.6 billion
2000 - 6 billion people
2005 - 6.5 billion people

so what do we need to cut?

And Mount St Helens did enough emissions for 100 years
of carbon emissions - so write the law that no more mountains can blow their stacks!

Answer 4

Walt Kelly had the solution years and years ago, before it became popular. Get a copy of the Impollutable Pogo and check out the ultimate in antipollution.

Such a simple solution: Everybody stop exhaling.

Answer 5

The targets should increase but I think it should be every 2-5 years to allow proper organisation.

Answer 6

No because it will have no really effect. If liberals are really concerned about CO2 emissions then they should never reproduce. I would vote for that.