Global Warming: Who Cares?

Question

Let's assume that global warming is not caused by man. What difference does it make? Is there really a lobby out there that supports the emission of greenhouse gases? Is there any doubt that reliance on oil is the number one source of funds for many terrorist sponsoring nations? Shouldn't we be pushing to be the world leader in alternative fuel technologies? If americans could develop a quality hydrogen car before the Japanese, Germans or Koreans wouldn't we have the edge in the world auto market? What about other technologies that we could export around the world in order?

Why has this become a libs for it, neocons against it rant?

Kev: Did you read the question?

Mbush: I think many scientists are saying that a climate change of 5 degrees would cause massive flooding, perhaps wiping out NY and LA and cause many more hurricanes.

Antilib: Agreed. Carbon offsets are a shill game . . . wish I had come up with that idea LOL.

Some great answers! Thanks.

Answer 1

Why Global Warming becomes an "us versus them" rant is pretty much the same set of reasons that many other issues here are simply rants. I'm using the editorial "we," not expressing a personal preference for the way it's done here, by the way.
1. It's easier to hit talking points than it is to think about what we say. Many of us a intellectually lazy.
2. It's reassuring to hear others hit the same talking points we are hitting. Many of us are insecure about our own intellects.
3. It's perversely entertaining to belittle others. Many of us are still stuck in the 3rd grade intellectually.
4. It's how many of us have been dealing with the world since we were 6, and we either don't know another way or this way works for us somehow.

I was substituting as teacher in a kindergarten class once, and a little guy was throwing blocks around at other students. I took his little hand and led him to a different activity, and reminded him that "we don't throw blocks here." He said, "You can just suck my pantyhose!" This was something of a shock for me, and I said, "You can have some time in the time out chair for speaking to me that way." I helped him find a seat, set the timer for 3 minutes, and turned my back to leave him there. He said, "Wait, aren't you going to give me a good talking to?" I replied that anyone who spoke to me that way didn't get the pleasure of my conversation for a few moments. He looked shocked then, and quite sad. "But when I say that to our regular teacher, she ALWAYS gives me a good talking to!"

The libs and neocons rant because someone is willing to give them a good talking to.

I'm going to link an answer of mine to your question if you don't mind. You made my point better than I did.

Answer 2

Thanks for a great question Ken,

Why deny Global Warming is caused by man? I'll tell you who cares:

1) Alternative fuel? The big Texas oil companies care and will assure that their cash cow doesn't dry up.
2) Greenhouse gases? The hundreds of pollution producing industries' lobbies would withhold a whole lot of election/contribution money and then fund the opposing candidate. In my brother's old job, they used to send letters that basically pushed the employees into giving money to candidates that supported a lax standard for emission gases.

That's who cares. The ones pulling the marionette strings care. Do you remember that the tobacco industry denied the link between smoking and cancer for a long time and somehow the candidates who covered for them were elected over and over again, until it just couldn't be denied anymore when the litigators fine combed the evidence in court for years.
It's become the libs vs neocons rant because the neocons only see the bottom line and short term gain. I don't know how, and I don't know when but somewhere a few years back, the republican party got hijacked by these imposters who call themselves "conservatives". They don't even know the meaning of the word conservative, or they would have a different agenda.
Look at amnesty, they want the illegal aliens to be here for cheap labor, but they don't think long term at the social ramifications of their assimilation. They don't want to deal with the long term. The liberals aren't much better and their plans seem to never get executed. they just stay in theory and if they're implemented, they usually tend to benefit the wrong people and become incentive programs for the less than worthy. I'm so sorry to sound disenchanted, but for the first time in my life, I feel a truly disappointed in the state of affairs. It's quite sad.
Some of the same people up there who say they agree, have posted answers and questions in the past denying the whole concept of global warming and making fun of the naive gullable people who are fooled by the "farce". Oh, how the winds change as soon as a single speech at the UN given by the "commander in chief" acknowledges a warming trend as needing to be addressed. If I had time, I would dig up those same 'agreeable' poster's answers rediculing our made up paranoia of a nonexistant Global Warming!

Answer 3

What we can do and what we actually do are two different matters. We can easily build cars that run on hydrogen fuel but we continue to use oil burners.

Iceland is the world's leader in utilizing geothermal energy. They have also decided as a nation to eliminate buying foreign oil. In a few years all vehicles will be running on hydrogen or electric energy - even their fishing boats. Maybe the main reason they are able to do this is because if you live in the capital you can see the homes of most of your fellow countrymen from your home. They care about each other.

Have we quit caring in the U.S.A.? I think this is one of the big problems. In L.A. every person drives - if you and I decide to go to the convenience store together we will probably step into separate vehicles and meet at the store.

Thank you for your question. Until we settle the issue of CARING it feels like a waste of time to discuss solutions. Slowly we are making some progress.

Answer 4

Well, its true, that our politicians are moving on the wrong path with this global warming thing, and want to use it to forced smaller countries to slow their economic development and avoid treathening the Western economic dominancy!
But it must be said, that Hydrogen cars will NEVER solve the current situation, as hydrogen is very energetically expensive to make, and will need the power of several thousands more power plants (maybe coal or nuclear) to be marketable accross the US. Transforming water into hydrogen is not an easy task as you might think...

So yes, it should be great to increase the emphasis on the development of new energy sources, like the Fusion reactor (Tokamak), that is said to need 50 years before applications... The truth is, that this technology could be push ahead and could be ready in less than 10years, if our politicians would REALLY care about global warming, but they are much more happy to create a carbon tax, which is is the REAL objective of this Global warming disinformation campaign!!

Answer 5

I care. So do most of those who answered. Two posters already answered your question of "why is this just another excuse to rant," so pardon me for addressing a tangential issue...we pretty much know that we need to conserve and develop alternate forms of energy. I'd like to suggest there are some things we shouldn't do -
We probably should not be pursuing corn based ethanol. It consumes a huge amount of energy to produce, and the mono culture farming techniques are horrible for local ecosystems. Yet because it is seen as a "new market" for corn producers, it's being endorsed by politicians of all stripes.
We probably shouldn't be going hog wild on hydrogen. Same problem of consuming almost as much energy as produced, with the added problem of needing to restructure existing infrastructure.
I'm not a nuclear fan, because we've never addressed long term consequences--REALLY long term and serious consequences--of storage of the waste. (I've lived in a community with producers of the waste and now in a community that is proposed as a storage site.)
Not everyone lives in a section with a 4 rating for wind use, and putting the power where the people are living can be tough with wind energy, but it is, to me, the absolutely best alternative to the other options out there.
Thanks for a civil discussion here.

Answer 6

I agree. This is not a Liberal vs. Conservative debate. Global warming is happening whether it is man made or nature made. But using alternative fuels to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and to reduce harmful emissions is a good idea. I am for alternative fuels, as long as they do more good than harm to the environment.

I do care about the environment, because it affects my health. Last thing I want is to live in a polluted environment. This should not be a political issue.

However, I want to clarify that I do not support Gore's idea of carbon footprints and carbon tax. I think we should be encouraging clean energy instead of taxing people with carbon tax. We have enough taxes already, we don't need another tax.

Answer 7

I agree with you on this Ken. We seem to have forgotten what made this country great: innovation. I would love to see our car companies start competing again with Toyota, Honda and the others. If the technology is out there, why are we sitting on it? If it is only the Almighty dollar that the oil companies are making off on car and SUV's that get poor gas mileage, why are we as a country allowing it? Take a look at the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car". It was eye-opening for me.

It can only improve our environment if we pursue this. I believe we all as parents and grandparents have a duty to leave this world better than we found it.

Answer 8

Ken:
You should have been around in the 40's when pollution was a far more defining "problem" as people living in Pittsburgh, St.Louis, Cleveland, etc. experienced.
The Cuyahoga River caught fire due to the "problem."
Lake Erie was "dead."
Breathing black air was normal in these areas.
Of course, fighting the war had nothing to do with the "problem."
All those problems were solved without Al Gore, and technically, the left was closed eyed to the problems as they ran the country until Eisenhower.
So, put down the playbook for a while, go outside and take a few deep breaths. Get a drink from your tap, and take back all those toys you bought for the kids that say "Made in China:" You should be OK.
Try trusting thinking souls to keep us safe, pursuing happiness,& productive. Neocons like me have plans beyond ourselves without more useless committees paid for with your money.

Answer 9

Good point. When an American built car can collectively kick the butts of Toyota and Honda, that will indeed be a turning point. The "libs for, neocons against it rant" is simply an echo of George Orwell's insight into mass psychology -- four legs good, two legs bad. Or perhaps John Lennon's wordage: Elementary penguins singing hare Krishna.

Answer 10

Ken, awesome question. I believe that we can do nothing to prevent the inevitable and that we didn't cause it. I would always like to see (and breathe) less pollution. I wouldn't mind alternative reliable POWER... especially if the US supplies it and it's more affordable. I also feel that both sides care but it is stereotyped that the left sees man as the cause and that the right doesn't care about the environment but cares about the almighty dollar.

A star for best question of the week!