To what extent will each american have to do to have a REAL effect on CO2 reductions?

Question

According to Global Warming alarmists, without serious reductions in Co2 emissions the planet is doomed. Obviously, light bulbs, planting trees and walking to work will NOT solve the problem. What will it really cost each American to reduce the US carbon footprint. Americans need to know the real cost to them in support of this junk science.

Answer 1

I'm not a person who is 100% sold on the alarmists' version of global warming. That being said, there are actually quite a few things that - if EVERYBODY did them - would result in a large decrease in electrical generation/consumption in the United States. Here are just two easy examples...

First of all: Get rid of the incandescent light bulb. Compact fluorescent light bulbs use a small fraction of the electricity that is used by incandescent lights.

Second: Turn off lights when you leave a room. There's no need to light up an entire house when you're using only one room at a time.

If you can afford it, buy a vehicle that gets better mileage, and drive that whenever possible. This last spring, I purchased a 2007 Yamaha Virago 250cc motorcycle to commute to work during the warmer months of the year on. Brand new, the bike was less than $4,000 (out the door). My monthly payment was $77.00. I used the bike from June until mid-September when I broke my foot and had to stop riding. The bike was averaging 77 mpg, which was a HUGE improvement over my 2000 Dodge Dakota 4x4 (5.9 liter V-8 engine) which gets between 15 and 16 mpg.

Unfortunately for me, the broken foot knocked me off the bike until next spring - because it's too frackin' cold to ride a motorcycle during the winters in northern Utah.

Here's one more thing that I wish the U.S. Government would require via legislation for ALL new construction (both residential and commercial): Mandatory installation of 1,000 watts worth of solar panels on the roof. Think about it... How many homes are being constructed around where you live? One thousand homes, generating 1,000 watts of electricity = one megawatt. Big businesses such as Wal Mart or Costco, or any warehouses have literally ACRES of "space" on their roof tops where they could be generating electricity.

It's too bad the electric companies will lobby with everything they've got to fight any legislation of that nature...


Oh, and don't forget conserving OTHER resources - such as water... Because remember: It takes energy to treat water to make it "potable" for human consumption.

There are thousands of ways that each and every one of us can save a little or reduce our "carbon footprint", and if each of us saved a little, it would cumulatively add up to a lot.

Answer 2

The world isn't doomed, no serious climate scientist will tell you that it is. The world is already changing and will continue to do so, many people have already been forced to adapt, more will need to adapt in the future. We'll survive.

Talk of the world being doomed is usually yet another example of uneducated skeptics deliberately distorting the facts and resorting to lies and desperation in an attempt to win support for their ideas.

At the end of the day, if every American reduced their greenhouse gas emissions to zero it will not stop global warming - only slow it down. To stop global warming requires a 92.5% reduction in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions - not remotely practical until we come up with alternative fuel sources, radical changes to land use policies, alternatives to plastics, cement, steel etc. That might happen but not for a long, long time yet.

From a scientific perspective there are various schemes under consideration, if they were a) successful and b) funded solely by Americans then the cost per person would be approx $7 for the cheapest scheme and $1,425,000 for the most expensive.

- - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENT: TO DUVEL

Interesting that you should single out Bob, Dana and myself who between us have got at least 7 degrees in subjects related to climate change and no reasons to take one side or another other than the pursuit of scientific accuracy.


COMMENT: TO BEN O

What the Stern Report said (Sir Nicholas Stern was the Chief Executive of the World Bank) was that the cost of limiting CO2 reductions could be limited to approx 1% of GDP and that this would benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion a year (so we spend 1% and earn 4%). The other mention of 1% of GDP was in relation to the present economic cost of the effects of global warming with the figure expected to rise to 5% of GDP (20% in the worst case scenario).

Answer 3

Despite what the alarmists say, global warming will NOT doom the world. But assuming you want to achieve the goal of the alarmists, which is the total elimination of all human sources of greenhouse gasses, the sacrifices would be EXTREME. Start with no gasoline at all. I mean tomorrow close EVERY gas station permanently. And that is just for starters. And the sacrifices would be totally useless if only Americans did it. Because China is now the #1 emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world, and their emissions are increasing VERY fast.

Answer 4

You could stop all CO2 production tomorrow and the ECO Wackos would not be happy, they would just find some other gas to wail about. Like they have been doing since the 60's.
Damn hippies.

The real cost is they will squeeze every penny they can out of you for any goofy scheme they can make up.

Answer 5

There is a report from the world bank calling for 1% of the GDP of the world to be spend on climate change. That comes to about 700 Billion a year.

That's a lot of money out of everyones pocket, but it's not the end of the world. I hope this wouldn't involve budget creep which seems to happen with programs which are difficult to cost.

Answer 6

Well--no ne change is sufficient.

But here's a list of some of the thing's that WON'T have amajor effect on lifestyle--and their other consequences. Note: at the end I'lll tel you how much these things would reduce CO2 emissions:

>Compact Flouresescent bulgs--saves consumers money
>higher fuel efficiency cars (not including hybrids)--cars cost the same, fuel costs drop 30-50%
>expanded mass transit--up front cost--reduces traffic and saves cosumers money
>home insulation/efficient appliences--saves consumers money, pays for investment over time
>planting trees--cheap, improves the "liveability" of urban areas
>new aircraft--now being delivered, cuts emissions and saves consumers money
>solar enrgy--breakeven now--but will save money when the next wave of start-up cost reductions hits (3-5 ears)
>wind energy--cost competative now--and utilities are investing more heavilly as I write
>additional effect: the above is sufficient to make the US independant of foreign oil.

Total reductin (20-30 time frame): absolute (thatis, below current levels, even after allowing for populition and economic growth:

60-80 %.

Now--thisis wat the right wing thinks is a "liberal plot." NONE involves expanding government power or activity. All of it either directly benefits consumers or is neutral as to its effect on the average person. And it ends our dependance on froeign oil.

Note: I didn't say one thing about global warming--all these t things reduce COw2 emissions--but the other benefits that are due to the value of the technology/strategy in and of themselves.

Seems to me if its a "liberal plot" its in the interests of every American to hope they succeed.

Answer 7

CO2 alarmists, like Bob, Dana, and Trevor, smoke lots of cheap shake. If you simply reduce the amount of cheap shake supplied to Gummo-Marxists, the amount of global warming will go negative. I'm not kidding!!!!

Answer 8

The real cost of ignoring environmental problems is higher than the cost of fixing them. The sooner we start the less costly it will be. If we wait too long the cost will be beyond our ability to pay for it. The money economy is a subset of the environment. The dollar cost only reflects a fraction of the true cost.

Answer 9

Some alarmist like Algore have been telling us for the last 30 years that we only have 10 years before it's too late.

There is never enough money. "Global warming" cannot be cured my man, as man is not the problem.

Answer 10

Life will end as we know it if the global warming psychos have their way. Basically, stop using everything, stop enjoying life, stop living.