Are the measures to control global warming very effective?

Question

Kyoto Protocol, Replanting of Trees, etc.
Are they really helpful?
Which of all the measures are the most effective?

Answer 1

No they are not. Global warming is a natural cycle and mankind has very little to do with it. To think that we caused it or can affect it in any significant way is the height of arrogance.

Most of North America was covered in ice 15,000 years ago. What happened to it? It melted. And the natives weren't driving SUV's or burning coal.

Answer 2

First of all, I'd like to respond to the people who think that climate shifts could not be affected by humans. Do you guys think that releasing billions upon billions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere by killing algae and laying waste to vast carbon recyclers and burning trapped carbon is not going to affect the global environment? Where do you think Ice Ages came from, anyway? Trees, algae, and biomass were all done away with when KT happened, and the joint affect of darkened skies and tectonic shift ensured that future Ice Ages would happen. The fact that we are used to temperate forests says nothing about the carbon mass that could be put to use in the biomass. Polluting waters that algae live in will ensure a lack of oxygen in coming years. Covering land with fields and roads instead of trees ensures that carbon will remain free in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels that kept our forests temperate means that nature's equilibrium will be upset, and it will be many generations before new species emerge to take the carbon load. The only thing that will save us will be to rethink transportation and living space. Does the Kyoto Protocol address this? Well, what we need to do is plant fast-growing trees where roads are, grow foods intensively rather than in fields, communalize our living spaces to share resources, and stop dumping chemicals into the sea. We can slow global warming and mass die-offs, but eventually we actually must reintroduce the trapped carbon to the atmosphere. It may be an uncomfortable world to live in, where we labor to breathe and sweat too much, but then we weren't the original inhabitants. The lizards were. The wisest thing to do may be to save all the fossil fuels for space exploration.

Answer 3

They are basically pretty useless. Certainly, planting trees doesn't score well; eventually, trees die and rot (or are lost in a fire), and the entrained carbon goes back into the atmosphere. Anything which might actually make a difference will be horrendously expensive; the UN has proposed a plan do deal with it at the trifling cost of $557,000,000,000,000 -- more than the total value of every asset on the planet.

Answer 4

Heck no.
How ridiculous that gore got a peace prize for inaccuracy.
This planet just has begun to come out of a mini-ice age the last several hundred years and now finally just finally warming up.
Watch what happens in 5-6 years. All this nonsense will change to a new theory and nobody will take credit for their stupidity today.

Answer 5

it depends on which polluting types are worse. i would say that when used large scale, it's all quite effective. but every little bit helps. controlling pollution even locally definitely improves people's breathing; some people's asthma and allergies really act up unnecessarily because of this, and in some areas, makes it quite impossible for anyone to enjoy being outside. the large-scale effects of local control should feed the reversal of human-caused global warming.

Answer 6

I think that having cars running on bio-diesel would help, and it would also help if people stopped eating meat.
It is a proven fact that a main reason why global warming is a problem is because of all the cows produced for the meat industry.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817&page=1