... wouldn't "peak oil" and the pollution from coal be reasons enough to do all we can to speed up the research, development and implementation of more renewable energy sources?
The world's demand for energy will not decrease. To those denying greenhouse gases can cause global warming, do you really want to run right into peak oil with no other real alternatives than coal (or nuclear) power?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1681239,00.html
2007-11-12 01:49:49 · 20 answers · asked by Ingela 3 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Actually, I do not really care if people believe in global warming or not, as long as they don't contribute to the slow down of the process and development towards more sustainable ways of living. Having peak oil and polluting coal in mind is a way to show that we all have a lot to gain from working together and supporting renewable, sustainable alternatives.
2007-11-12 02:51:18 · update #1
No, I don't think that it would be enough.
What you are talking about is to forget about doing 'what is right for the future' and leave it to pure sense and market forces.
Market forces (high oil prices) will indeed spawn development and alternatives, but way too slow. It only happens when it is too late - when oil is already peaking big time.
New technologies can take as many as 5-10 years to come to the market.
I think we need to develop the tech now and get it ready for market - and then I don't mind leaving it to market forces.
To all those who don't want to believe in global warming because it's inconvenient: You are living in the past. That stuff is not up to date any more. Even Bush has acknowledged it and he's one of the hardest opponents. Denying global warming is sooo 2005.
2007-11-12 02:13:10 · answer #1 · answered by mgerben 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
um, we're already at peak oil. global warming doesn't create the state of peak oil, as oil is a nonreplenishing resource. and we'll just fry, the planet will be fine though.
the tougher question is not why don't you care but ok, what do we do now? people more or less don't give a crap/stay in a state of apathy when no course of practical action has been given to them.
and if global warming, something that peer-reviewed scientific community deems a real phenomenon that man is a definite contributor to, is a CULT.. then heh heh heh.
there's INDEPENDENT THOUGHT and then there's just i have the right to any opinion and i am going to dismiss everything else as the blind leading the blind...
furthermore just because something is a naturally occuring phenomenon, like the temperature of the earth rising, doesn't mean that it can't be exacerbated by other variables... such as releasing lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate that the planet is not accustomed to.
people who believe in global warming are not necessarily saying that this isn't "natural" aka not "man-produced." they are saying human contributions are making it a lot worse/happen much faster.... but whatever, the earth will be fine. can't say much for the human race.
2007-11-12 02:25:22 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is the big gamble question of the future of the human race as we know it. But having to "believe" in GW is the point, because in affluent western cultures, we burn coal all the time and lots of it. What has changed is we use scrubbers that remove the large particulates, and thus are left with invisible pollution, which as been theorized into climate change and proven with data and empirical observation.
It is this scrubbing of the coal emissions (that produces more effluent pollution), and the moneys spend after the clean air act forcing the rich to clean up their act, has today turned into again a stubborn defiance to the peoples well-being over profit.
aly....I could not have said it better my self.
2007-11-12 03:01:26 · answer #3 · answered by Kelly L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course we need to develop alternatives and environmentally friendly power sources. But the extreme agenda being pushed by the global warming kooks is actually standing in the way. The severe taxes they propose will stifle research rather than stimulate it. Taxes suck money out of the economy. And the government has a penchant for spending that money on foolishness rather than on things which could solve our problems. Going to mars is more important than health care. Supporting generations of lazy breeders is more important than energy research. Allowing our country to become over populated with illegals to drive down wages is more important than saving the environment. Our collective head is up our collective you know what.
2007-11-12 12:42:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of the research on global warming at the university level deals with this either directly or indirectly. I had a class recently where we went over all the known alternatives, and each had some baggage. The answer lies in not putting all of our eggs into one basket so the negative impacts from any one source of energy don't overwhelm the system.
As far as the knock on nuclear power, you do need to remember there are two kinds. Nuclear fusion hasn't been successfully harnessed yet and may be a godsend if and when we can and do.
Attached are some university research centers worthy of a close look. It's heartening to realize that there's a lot of young brainpower out there focused on the issue.
2007-11-12 03:07:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Whats the alternative? international cooling? How did that artwork out for the dinosaurs. climate exchange is a fact of nature. The earth is consistently warming up and cooling down. We only take place to be in a warming era. those sessions can final everywhere between 50 to one thousand years. we've in basic terms had precise international information for below 50 years which point out a average upward push in average temps. it somewhat is an surprisingly complicated subject which will take many greater years to absolutely comprehend. the subject now could be it somewhat is transforming into an marketplace. There are greenbacks in it. i will bow down and resign while and in basic terms while the fee of waterfront actual belongings in Sydney drops by using 10%. Any geoligist might actually help comprehend this cooling warming cycle has been around through fact the daybreak of time.
2016-10-02 04:43:22 · answer #6 · answered by fragoso 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With out a doubt we need to be the leader in the search for renewable resources. We don't have to believe in Man made global warming to push these ideas. Just for our own sake of comfort should we strive for renewable resources. Global warming is happening but it's not all man-made.. just not possible. Let's just get renewable resources to better humanity and our way of living and disregard global warming b/c it will get cooler again.
2007-11-12 04:35:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Since now it is known that global warming is likely to cross danger limit sooner than expected earlier, it becomes responsibility of all the nations to pool resources (science, human, finance etc.) to strive finding suitable alternative sources of energy to hydrocarbons. If energy management (including generation) is done collectively on international level, human race may find relief from catastrophic possibility of global warming.
2007-11-12 02:13:36 · answer #8 · answered by pritam k 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
President Bush has a better idea. Do not have a backup for peak oil. Insteady, go directly to WWIII. This will reduce the surplus population and reduce demand. Also, allowing auto companies to sell gas guzzlers will hasten the process.
2007-11-12 01:57:30 · answer #9 · answered by Neil 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Capitalism will solve the energy problem without the lies of global warming fear mongers, thank you very much. The security problem of the United States of America and her dependence on foreign oil will be the main driving force for finding an ecologically sound alternative to fossil fuel consumption.
2007-11-12 03:52:30 · answer #10 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋