Is there any way to curb global warming without restricting our freedom of choice?

Question

I sincerely believe there is a global warming problem, and it's probably our fault. But most of the measures I've seen to combat it involve raising taxes, forcing companies to regulate their emissions, and pushing laws to limit our everyday behavior (I think it was Australia that banned regular light bulbs) like how much electricity we use, and how we use it.

My question is, is there any method that will reduce global warming that doesn't lessen our freedom?

Answer 1

The methods proposed to curb or stop Global Warming interfere with our ability to generate the political will to do what is necessary to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.

According to the best estimates we would have to reduce the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions world wide to less than one tenth of what they are today if we are to have any chance of stopping Global Warming or even slowing it down significantly.

Without the use of draconian measures that are unacceptable in a civilized society, is completely unrealistic to expect that we could achieve reductions on that scale in any one country not to mention world wide.

The only alternative left to us is to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.

That will require that we develop a political consensus that will permit us to raise the taxes and fees necessary to provide the money necessary to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.


To mitigate the effects of Global Warming we will have to build dike systems similar to those used in Holland, all over the world to protect coastal areas from flooding.

We will have to upgrade the disaster preparedness systems around the world to handle much stronger and more frequent hurricanes.

We will have to provide supplemental water supplies and desalination plants world wide for those areas that are suffering droughts.

Global Warming cannot be stopped.

The required reductions in fossil fuel use are so large that they are not achievable by methods that are acceptable in a civilized society.

We must begin developing the political consensus to raise money now so that we will have the financial resources necessary to build the dike systems, upgrade the disaster preparedness systems, provide the supplemental water supplies and desalination plants when they are needed.

Answer 2

I think it's our governments duties to regulate the choices we makes with taxes or incentives relative to any products influence on our environment. By doing so we still have the choice to buy whatever we prefer. But if we prefer non-environmental friendly products the taxes we pay can at least help repair the damages we are causing. It will also make environmental friendly products more attractive and thereby encourage science and new development of new products.

In the best of worlds regulations like this wouldn't be necessary, but as long as people doesn't care about environment or other people's well beings (and that includes people on the other side of our globe) but only about their own money interests it's the only way to go.

Answer 3

Yes, in a free-market economy, you can simply add a tax to things that cause global warming, in proportion to the economic damage they will likely do in the future. This tax can replace other taxes. At present, our taxes discourage things that are good, like making more money and owning a home. If we change over to taxing the things that threaten our great-grandchildren's lives, like fossil fuel, this will encourage the repacement of fossil fuel with renewable resources and non-carbon-emitting enegery sources (such as nuclear).

One obvious political problem with this plan is: who decides how much things should be taxed? It seems to me that the most likely way to make it work is by a board of experts, with oversight by politicians, like the Federal Reserve Board in the United States, or the various World War II rationing boards. If politicians are allowed to tinker with the details, then politcal leverage will be applied, leading to all sorts of special exceptions. This will result in unfairness and perhaps the failure of the process.

Answer 4

Sure. There are lots of ways to reduce energy use, that will save you money. Better insulation, more fuel efficient cars, etc.

But some of this will have to be done by government regulation. In the 1960s the world was headed for a very smoky future, with clouds of air pollution making people sick, and really bad and smelly water that fish simply couldn't live in. Government laws to reduce environmental pollution are responsible for saving us from that. You can look at industrial towns in China for what our future could have been. Believe me, you wouldn't want to live (and die early) there.

This picture gives you the idea.

http://www.epa.gov/history/photos/p01.htm

Answer 5

Humankind's contribution to global warming isn't as great as some would have us believe. What a lot of these people that are crying "Global Warming" aren't aware of is that we are at the end of an Ice Age. Scientists have been able to drill into glacial ice and see the weather patterns for hundreds of thousands of years, and can clearly see that our climate has fluctuated, exactly like it's doing now, over and over again. This is due to a small change in the tilt of the earth's axis (less than one degree). If you look at the Earth's rotation over millennia, you'd find that the Earth is spinning much the way a top does... it's spinning around and around, but the axis is also rotating in small circles. This is why our climate is warming, and why it will cool again in a few hundred thousand years. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take steps to reduce pollution, just that the facts don't support the conclusions that have been thrown around concerning the cause of the recent climate changes. I know this puts me on the same "side" as the corrupt fat-cat Neocons, but I've got too much integrity to form any other opinion with the data that I have.

Answer 6

Well, if everyone chooses to change their life style then it was a free choice. If, however, changes are forced on us by government programs, then freedom is lost. This (taking away our freedom) of course is the true agenda of the liberal politicians jumping on the global warming band wagon.

Answer 7

Please refer to the website below. They have found a natural way of removing the Co2 that the ocean ommits. They have done this with plankton, it actually eats Co2. We just need enough put in the ocean to work. They are doing more reseach on it now but it has worked in all of their studies so far.

Answer 8

No... the only actual way is to reduce human population by 90% with the remaining 10% living a cave man existence...

Answer 9

NO. Expansion due to population growth, combined with our desire to have MORE of everything is the root cause of all pollution, Environmental Invasion, and resource shortages.

You cannot have significant change without demanding less from the earth. I believe technology can help, but is not the answer.

Answer 10

yes. All the people on glob must wake up at 5 AM and go to bed at 6PM