To the proponents of global warming, do you understand your ideas for change do more harm than good?

Question

You want everyone to change to Compact flourecent bulbs.
These take three times as much energy to produce and produce poluting chemical biproducts. They also contain mercury that is very lethal and they are more harm to the environment than any amount of global warming if they are broken.

You want people to drive electric cars that use acids that must be disposed of because they can not be recycled. And if disposed of improperly they are not healthy. Or if the vehicle gets in a wreck it could leak and be even worse. Plus they do not use any less energy because they have to recharge, so your gas bill goes down a little but your electric bill goes up to compensate.

Or you want people to use Hydrogen power that has a biproduct of water vapor, that just happens to be the one substance that has been scientifically proven to be an actual green house gas.

And don't get me started on waterless toilets. We'll be returning to the days of black plague with that one.

Answer 1

They don't understand anything other than what Al Gore tells them. It's a lost cause, just like trying to stop "Global Warming."

Answer 2

no... we just want the levels of co2 2 go down so the water levels stop rising and heating up... look at all the hurricanes they are getting MORE powerful and we all know that warm water fuels the hurricanes ... or a long time ago canada used to be a big block of ice down to the Great Lakes and melted and dumped into the oceans where it stopped the coriolis effect ... just like greenland will do... or how about the thousands of polar bears that die every year of drounding to death because they cant find land to go on or ice and just swim to death... i could go on ... we dont need electric cars just hybrids that go with 60 miles a gallon but apparently u have a problem with that... with the flourecent bulbs... lets go back to the 1920's and earlier ... till the invention of the assembly line cars took many more months to take to build... the same thing with these... if u can get a better way of making them and more people making them it will be a cleaner place... or how about all the glaciers now a day... most of them are gone and the ones that arent are being melted away by the gallons every second take some time and watch an inconvenient truth
A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years
The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs (see Retreat of glaciers since 1850).
The Keeling curve, measuring CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.
Temperature record since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.
A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it

Answer 3

Don't get me wrong, I think AGW is pure Religious bullshit AND the change of name from the definable 'Global Warming' to the vast umbrella 'Climate Change' was a truly spectacular bit of masturbatory pseudo science BUT... to be fair, Warmons do mean 'negative' Climate Change. E.g. fewer or more mild hurricanes do NOT fit the Apocalyptic model. They aren't just looking for flooding & drought, they want the worst in recorded history. So while their recent name change was in fact driven by a decade WITHOUT Warming, This decade will, by Warmon protocol, be described as the 'hottest on record'. Now that 'record' is only 160 years. And it a pretty good bet the Medieval & Roman periods were warmer STILL the Warmon issue is 'hottest' So yeah they're being weasels... but these weasels are looking for 'Change' that is bad. Islands flooding & dead polar bears - not vast new croplands available in Siberia.

Answer 4

Are you stupid? Yes, I've researched both sides of the argument for at least 20 hours of my team to put together a 40 slide powerpoint for a final grade for one of my classes, Im not an ignorant fool who follows whatever Bush or Al Gore tells me. Mkay.

True, many new technologies end up hurting the environment in the process of making it (ahem look at corn ethanol), but I hope you do realize that we actually have a legitimate chance to face really bigass problems with climate change? It's not like this hasnt happened before (theres been many mass extinctions since the cambrian explosion, a lot reflect climate changes, specifically one 251 million years ago and about 55 mya with the dinosaurs, each most likley having methane crystals being melted, which could happen again, like as in now).

Just because an issue isnt writtin instone as factual or not doesnt mean it suddenly doesnt matter. Anthropegnic Global Warming is not written in stone, but it looks like it. So now its, MAYBE this stuff will happen. Ok, so that means we should probably do someting about if it does happen, right? If it doesnt eh, we wasted a lot of time, but if it DOES and we do nothing, uh oh, we get SHAFTED. BAD.

Also as new technologies become more and more used and not so new anymore, the cheaper and less hazardous they become, so IMO its an issue of time.

Answer 5

Yes you are right, often the attempt to fix one problem can lead to others. However to answer some of the following:

-Flourescent bulbs use about 5 times less electricity = good. The enerdy it takes to create one, is only a fraction of the energy they save over their life time, plus this energy sometimes comes from by products of other industrial processes. Mercury vapour is lethal to humans, but not if it is kept inside the globe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
You will also find that smashing one bulb will not kill you, it is only cases of constant exposure to mercury that causes issues. I would say the carbon monoxide from the equivalent coal fired powerstations required to produce the energy that flouro bulbs save would have a greater detrimental impact on people.

Batteries in electric cars are changing quickly. See
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/27/nanosafe-battery-tests-show-minimal-loss-of-charge-capacity/
With 15,000 charges - thats one per day for over 30 years, they will last a long long time. Compare that to the process of refining some thousands of litres of fuel. The environmental positives out weight the risk that there will be leakages in a crash. Besides - you have a lead acid car battery in every car anyway.

Hydrogen produces water vapour yes, but this is only a green house gas at certain altitudes. So we will never see hydrogen powered planes, but cars are fine as the vapour condenses before it gets into our upper atmosphere. Just someone trying to critisize fuel cells I think. The problem with hydrogen is that it is hard to store, we dont have much hydrogen infrastructure set up and it still takes energy to electrolise water to get the hydrogen. It makes more sense to store it in a battery.

And waterless toilets use other means to control bacteria. Trust me, you cant introduce a product into society that is going to make people sick. Posting comments like "we will be returning to the days of the black plague" shows that you really haven't looked into the science behind it.

Often it is too easy to stay in one place rather than moving forward because you let one little negative displace a major positive. You have to look at overall impacts and weighted effects then decide on the next step.

Answer 6

If you're concerned about mercury pollution, you must run out and buy compact fluorescents and replace your incandescent bulbs.

Using compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) actually reduces mercury pollution.

Fossil fuels contain mercury. Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants. More than the tiny amount (0.005 grams) that is in a CFL.

It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released. But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

If you're concerned about breaking one, you must remove every regular fluorescent bulb from your house. They contain 2-10 times as much mercury as a compact fluorescent and are much easier to break.

Batteries in electric cars are easily recycled.

Water vapor is no problem as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, because it is closely regulated by the natural "water cycle".

So, you can stop worrying and start campaigning to fix global warming.

Answer 7

OK. I understand that at the beginning of the change there will be some negative aspects and problems with becoming "green." But in the long run, I believe that we will greatly benefit from changing our lifestyles. We can't ignore things like the latest IPCC report, or what most scientists predict will happen if we continue to ignore this problem.

There are other things besides electric cars and hydrogen power (both are not being invested in as much as hybrid cars and solar/wind power). Right now we use nuclear power like at Yucca Mt. and look at the nuclear waste there! Water vapor is a problem but so is grandfathering coal plants!

"Your ideas" as you call them are better than no ideas at all. I'd rather have people know about the climate change problem and try to solve it than ignore it altogether. Taking three potential solutions to the climate change problem and using them as sole examples doesn't portray the entire push to stop climate change.

Answer 8

Where do you get this crap...Rush Limbaugh? lol

Very small amounts of mercury are more harmful than "all global warming"? Hmm..might wanna rethink that one.

All batteries contain acid

And..the answer there is to dispose of them properly.

People like you do not seem to understand that even global warming aside, we cannot continue at the rates of consumption that we've been on. The Earth only has so many resources and cannot renew them as fast as we use them. There have been several studies which point out that we will nearly run out by 2050-2100.

As far as global warming is concerned, politics aside, the great majority of scientists believe that we are experiencing global warming and that a good deal of it is manmade. We cannot afford to risk taking chances with the ONLY planet we have. We need to treat the earth well, and everyone does need to take on some social responsibility, to do their part. Imagine a gigantic source of our freshwater supply, the glaciers, melting into the oceans, gone forever. Things like this are extremely critical and if there is even some evidence that we may be contributing, we've got to roll back, because once a large process like this begins, it takes many many years to reverse, just like it took many years to put into motion.

You right wingers take a scientific theory and make it into a political fight. Its atrocious. Everyone and their generations are going to suffer greatly if it happens to be correct or even somewhat correct. To constantly ridicule Al Gore, when he is only using evidence collected by scientists, not by himself, is pitiful.

3DM - Umm, yes it is lost forever, melting into the ocean .Ever try drinking a glass of salt water? Nuff said

Answer 9

I agree the cure is worse than the disease, but your statements are irrational.

Cutting CO2 by 20% or 50% or 90% as some climate scientists say we must will basically cut the economy by 20% or 50% or 90%. People who think we can make these cuts with minimal ecconomic impact are dreaming. The modern economy depends almost completely on cheap energy, and sudenly forcing a switch to expensive energy will casse massive inflation, unemployment, collapsing governments, and so on.

But your statements about flourescent lights and some other things are off target.

Answer 10

You are wrong, and, What do Waterless Toilets have to do with Bubonic Plague?and the "Water Vapor"! oh no! not the dreaded Water Vapor!

Your points ( all of them ) amount to fear-mongering, but, they have the same stink to them that many Anti-Earth idiots who post here smell of-Ignorance used in a political manner, with mindless repetition!

Perhaps there are lots and lots of people who will oppose anything at all-even things that will help them and the Earth.

So, to you, and to them-We understand the pros, and the cons, and we VOTE.

Earth, Love it or leave it.

To sign up for the Stop Global Warming Virtual March, please visit http://www.stopglobalwarming.org

Answer 11

OK, I am far too tired to even get into this conversation right now. However, because I am sick of hearing people brush off the possible dangers of global warming (and respect for Earth in general) as a liberal cause, here is a link to something you might find interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638277/


Liberals? No, I don't think so.