What's the downside of trying to reverse global warming?

Question

For those who are claiming it is not happening....what is the advantage of poisoning the earth. We can reduce carbon monoxide without causing economic hardships. We can reduce air and water pollution without throwing people out of work. In fact, the health related benefits we will gain such as reduced cancer, emphysema, asthma, allergies, etc. should more than make up for the cost of cleaning up the environment.

So even IF there is a chance that global warming is not occurring....isn't it better to cut down on pollution?

Mike...carbon dioxide is not the problem. And some fixes are less expensive than others. Solar energy could replace a large amount of fossil fuel electricity at competitive prices. Hybrid cars could reduce fuel consumption by 50% and actually save you money in the long run.

Answer 1

First your assumption that we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions at little or no cost is not correct.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to avoid the problems of Global Warming will cost a great deal of money.

Coal burning power plants are one of our biggest sources of pollution. Coal is contaminated with mercury, radioactive Uranium and Thorium.

When coal is burned some of the mercury, Uranium and Thorium goes up the smoke stack with the flue gases.

The remaining mercury, Uranium and Thorium is concentrated in the ashes and stored in a large maountain of ashes on the ground.

The ashes blow and contaminate the surrounding area. When it rains water leaches the mercury, Uranium and Thorium out of the ashes and into the rivers lakes and streams.


I agree that we should stop the use of coal for producing electricity. Unfortunately over half of our electricity is produced by the use of coal. We have to replace that generating capacity with a source that does not cause pollution or create greenhouse gases.

That will cost a lot of money.




Edit: To asker:

Electricity generated by solar cells has a cost approximately ten times current costs for generating electricity. That is an enormous cost.

We have been promised for the past forty years that the cost of solar photovoltaic cells is just about to come down dramatically and that the efficiency will go up dramatically.

It is extremely unlikely that the cost of solar voltaic cells will come down enough in the near future to make them an economically viable source of energy.

You cannot base policy on some hoped for reduction in cost in the future. When you are a lawmaker you have to base your policy decisions on what is possible now.

Those wonderful promises of a bright future of low cost solar photovoltic cells have a way of not materializing.

You will destroy your economy if you try to rely on solar photovoltaic cells for your electricity.


Hybrid cars only reduce carbon dioxide emissions by half. That is not anywhere near enough. You have to reduce emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today at minimum.

The cost to accomplish that is enormous.

You have also been mislead if you think that carbon dioxide is not the problem. Carbon dioxide is a very big problem when it comes to Global Warming.

You have been geatly mislead in terms of the cost of reducing emissions.

I have much more expertise in this subject than you do.

You apparently are not aware of the one thing that made the Presidency of Bill Clinton the greatest Presidency since that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

That was the focus that Bill Clinton placed on a healthy economy.

Most people have no concept of the remarkable focus that is required to have a good economy. We must be extremely careful when we make changes to our means of supplying energy to homes and businesses that we do not destroy our economy in the process.

Many of the ideas that people have for creating a cleaner environment would destroy the economy and cause poverty and misery on a scale that we have not seen since the great depression of the 1930's.

If you are a leader in this country and you destroy the economy you are no longer a leader.

A good example is George Bush.

He was handed a very good robust economy when he started his first term as President.

George Bush has destroyed the economy.

That actually is the main reason that so many people despise George Bush.

The war in Iraq is given as a reason, but if you really talk to people and find out what is really bothering them, it is the bad economy and the destruction of many of their hopes and dreams because of the bad economy.

I advise lawmakers, you do not.

When I make a recommendation to a lawmaker there is a good probability that my recommendation will become law.

I have to make certain that my recommendations will not only solve the problem but that they will also not damage the economy.

You do not have those concerns, so you are free to recommend any fantasy that you wish because your recommendation will never be implemented.


My recommendations have been and will continue to be implemented.

Answer 2

Mike is right, Carbon Dioxide is the problem. At least it is what all the scientists are saying causes global warming. Other pollutants like Carbon Monoxide are a problem, but not related to global warming. Everybody knows that, or I though they did.

The source says, "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 ..."

Solar energy could NOT replace a large amount of fossil fuel electricity at competitive prices. If it could, you would see greedy power companies building solar power collectors and selling that power and making money from the savings they got from not having to buy fuel.

Hybrid cars can reduce fuel consumption, but not by 50%. Anyway, 50% is no help. All it would do is make the polar ice cap takes twice as long to melt. But we want to totally stop the melting, not just slow it down.

Answer 3

Global warming is good. The sun provides all the energy that is available to humans, even fossile fuels such as oil are stored energy from the sun.

Warming temperatures makes growing plants and food possible on a larger area of the earth. Many regions that are too cold to occupy now can become new virgin territory for humans to live in.

More energy, more food, more land. What a wonderful time to be alive!

Answer 4

Nothing wrong with doing things to save energy... that saves money too. But to mandate much of these things by law would, in fact, cause economic hardship... especially to lower income people... The fact is that in order to reduce carbon dioxide enough to make any difference at all would require draconian measures... and anything less than the all out effort is useless. It has always been political.. a method to redistribute wealth and get control of peoples lives...

Answer 5

Just look at the articles on this site:

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

There has been much damage done to people and environments already by countries that are following the Kyoto Protocol.

By the way, it isn't carbon monoxide that they want to control It's carbon dioxide. CO2 is essential to the earth as it feeds life in the entire plant kingdom including necessary phytoplankton in the ocean. The animal kingdom gets it's carbon from food. That carbon gets into our food from being originally absorbed by some plant life. If there was no carbon in our food, we would die.

CO2 is not pollution. We should definitely cut down on pollution. There are gases which are toxic to life, CO2 is not one of them.

Better to wait until we really understand climate and the CO2 cycle before we pass legislation that would be impossible to reverse once they are in the books.

Congress passed legislation to get fluoride in our tap water many decades ago and today it has been found that most health problems in the US can be connected to thyroid problems which is the direct affect of too much fluoride! This law has never been reversed.

Same would be true if carbon laws are passed. It can only lead to bigger problems in the future.

Answer 6

I don't think we can reverse it nor would we want to. It is nature. We may be able to reverse or slow down any excess caused by pollution.

I don't think there is a downside as long as we keep it reasonable and don't go crazy just yet. We need to get off foreign oil for our security, and reduce pollution anyway.

The earth is changing temperature very slowly. About one degree every 100 years. It has been warming for hundreds of years. As the worlds scientists study it more, we will understand it better and will probably be able to make better decisions about more specific steps we can take.

Answer 7

it is going to take care of its self. Once it reaches past the point of no return it actually does just the oposite. It becomes an ice age. Which gets rid of all the polution, the people which is the need for polution and cleans the air.
When the apmosphere blocks out the sun it will turn cold.
Also, there is this jet stream of water that once it warms up melts this polar thing and well it is another ice age.
Did you see that movie about what global warming will actually do? Can't remember the name but it was supose to be scientificially correct.

Answer 8

The best way to reduce global warming would be to intorduce more capitalism into the world. Look at all the third world countries like China, Bangladesh, India, Viet Nam and compare them to countries like Canada, France, UK, and the USA.

There is less pollution per any standard in countries with more capitalism then there are in socialist countries. To end global warming, end socialism and provide more capitalism.

Answer 9

It is always a good idea to cut down polution.

No down side to reducing green house gases.

The culprit in the reduction of American jobs is the corporations having moved their manufacturing to third world and then shipping the product to the US and other G8 countries.

Answer 10

There are things like using up all the food supply to make ethanol and not even reducing CO2 emissions for the effort.