Will using CF bulbs and driving hybrid cars be enough to stop global warming?

Question

Or will massive changes in everything we do be needed? What do the Kyoto protocols call for?

Answer 1

Since all transportation is 25% of US CO2 emissions, and lighting is only 2.5% of CO2 emissions (residential lighting, commericial and industrial lighting are already mostly flourescent). And CFLs only reduce use by 50% (that's a 1.25% savings) and hybrids only reduce emissions by maybe 33% (that's a 8.33% savings if we are VERY generous), that's only a reduction in energy usage of maybe 10%. Also, the US is expanding by 3% each year, so over 3 years any savings will be destroyed by population increase.

Besides, AlGore says we need to reduce CO2 by 80%. Without a MASSIVE solar/wind/hydro expansion that would require massive amounts of energy--you don't think windmills just come out of thin air do you--this would require us to look at exactly how to reduce energy usage by that much. 10% reduction wouldn't even meet Kyoto because of our population expansion.

Just remember, they are overstating the effects and understating what is required. Everyone does it when trying to get support, it is more effective than the truth. But the Earth is changing, and we are having an effect. I just don't believe it is the "single greatest danger to continued human existence" nor do I believe that it "is worth the cost" or that "it won't cost that much."

Answer 2

No, CF bulbs and hybrids are only a way to make a statement. Saving gasoline and electricity is as simple as driving less often and turning the light off when you're not in the room.

Also, hybrids and CF bulbs pollute much more when produced, and are a major problem when they wear out and need to be recycled.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a die-hard environmentalist - but CF and hybrids are simply an easy-to-measure way of slowing global warming. Its easier to look at mpg figures and kwH used than to take in the big picture.

Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution. Its a step in the right direction, but I think we need to educate people about what's going on, and convince them that sacrificing some creature comforts is required in the long run. People are inherently suspicious of scientists, and what they can't see doesn't worry them.

Answer 3

Well right here I cross once more. It could be very elaborate to admire any signal of common sense in a liberals argument whilst you situation it subsequent to a template categorised fact. When the early European settlers arrived in North America it and the leisure of the arena had been a lot extraordinary. There was once almost no technological know-how. People would learn and write even though and a few did. In the 1600s the japanese coast of North America was once more often than not forested style Florida to Maine. Very few breaks within the timber. No towns. No concrete anyplace. No roads. No electrical energy. No coal. No oil. If you desired mild at night time you had to make use of a candle or an oil lamp. Candles had been made out of tallow. Oil for lamps got here from whales. We now have the ones amongst us who do not suppose we must be consuming meat or harvesting whales. Not so surprisingly the equal men and women do not like oil and coal. Perhaps the sunshine from the wooden hearth within the hearth might be ample for them. They could even protest wooden harvesting. The such a lot correct time piece was once a solar dial while the solar was once out. That was once provided that you knew find out how to make one. Billions of bison roamed the plains that had been more often than not grass. Un-mowed grass. There had been no roads. I marvel how the extra lucky helped the fewer lucky at the moment. Now how a ways again must we cross? What might be development? Is guy a normal inhabitant of earth? Should we kill off part of the populace. Would that be serving to the men and women we killed off? Should we bust up all the concrete roads and structures? Where do I placed my vegetable lawn in New York? My factor is some of the liberal pondering comes from the Alinsky angle. Pick a goal factor and vilify all that is going with it considering the fact that such a lot men and women are dull ample to suppose it.

Answer 4

No. Those things are a start--not a complete solution.

Will we see massive changes? Yes--any technological change brings a lot of social change as well.

But that change will be positive, not negative. Thee's a myth--created by special interests (mainly the fossil fuel industry) that environmental action is bad for the economy.

But--new products like CF bulbs create new jobs--and save consuers money. Hybrids are a transition--in 10-15 years you'll be able to get an all-electric that 's cheaper to buy and operate than regular gas-driven cars now. Making homes energy-efficient pays for itslelf--and stimulates small business right in the town you live in. And so on.

The only ones who have reason to oppose any of this are the oil companies, coal companies, etc. They're becoming obsolete and they know it--and are trying to delay the inevitable.

Answer 5

The Kyoto would of destroyed the USA . If u cut the fossil fuel by 30% it is going to hurt some onevery much. The global warming is a scam and will help the rich and u poor and elderly can walk, or die.

Answer 6

No, CFLs and hybrids are only a small step in the right direction.

The Kyoto Protocol only called for a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. It was also just a small step in the right direction.

We need to make a 50-90% reduction in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which will require government regulations.

Answer 7

To stop Global Warming the best estimates are that the world wide emissions of carbon dioxide would need to be reduced to less than one tenth of what they are today.

Hybrid cars and compact fluorescent light bulbs will not get you anywhere near that kind of reduction.

We would have to shut down the economies of all of the countries in the world to get that kind of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

We need to accept the fact that global Warming is part of modern life. We need to plan how we will mitigate the effects of global Warming.

The sea levels will rise.

Fortunately we can protect coastal areas form flooding with dike systems similar to those they use in Holland.

Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent. We need to help the affected countries upgrade their disaster preparedness.

Droughts will become more frequent. We need to help the affected areas with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.

We cannot stop Global Warming, but we can mitigate the effects of Global Warming at reasonable cost if we start now.

Answer 8

Definitely only just a start! I need to learn more about Kyoto protocols. Certainly we have all been learning alot more lately about conservation.

Answer 9

I think that people need to be educated on the problems that our environment is in. A lot of them are apathetic about the entire "green" concept. Education is the key. Start in elementary schools. Sometimes the child will teach the parent!

Answer 10

Enough? No the only way to stop or reverse global warming is to stop overpopulation, and that is not going to happen.