What does it matter if global warming is or isn't caused by man?

Question

The great debate as to wether mans eager consumption of fossil fuels contributes to, or indeed is the cause of, global warming seems to me a useless one. Does it really matter? None of the fossil fuels are an infinate resource, and the majority of what's left of the crude oil is to be found in areas of the world not exactly known for stability. Shouldn't we be making every effort to lesson our dependence on them as soon as possible, regardless of global warming?

Answer 1

As long as we eliminate the dependence on oil & coal, it doesn't matter what anyone believes about GW. The world will be a better place once a clean sustainable energy source replaces the current one.

Answer 2

To most of us, it doesn't matter, but to those who want to use the "global warming" myth to their advantage, it matters a lot.

Since it's debatable whether humans cause climate changes or not, it's important for these same powers to push the hoax to get their agenda for higher taxation passed.

There's actually no real connection between using oil and "global warming" except the one created by Gore and other opportunists. Remember, there's a whole lot of money pushing this hoax.

Notice that the ones who vehemently support the "global warming" hoax are either politicians or environmental scientists who depend on the money that this hoax robs from the average tax-payer.

The good thing is that we've been consistently decreasing pollution levels in the US since the 80's. I'm all for conserving resources and eliminating pollution, so I'm glad we lead the world in that area.

The real solution is to follow normal market trends. The US should be allowed to drill for oil since other countries are allowed to do this. Nuclear power is a safe alternative and there are new methods of burning coal that produce virtually no pollutants. We need power sources to keep such a robust economy going, so decreasing resources is not a solution. Alternatives are great, but the market should make the decisions, not the politicians.

At the moment, oil is the fuel that powers everything we do. It's used in just about every product we use from plastics to clothing to electronic devices. We have tons of oil available in this country if we are only allowed to drill for it.

When oil reserves starts decreasing, the market will shift as different fuels become necessary. There are a lot of ideas in the works and even other ways of extracting oil from the earth, so we should support those who want to keep the economy rolling instead of those who want us to go back to the stone age.

Answer 3

You're pretty much right. However, before we run out of fossil fuels, the damage by then we've done to our planet will be irreversible. Yes, we should be lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. If not to stop global warming, to at least allow civilization to stay in one piece once that last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.

The reality is that global warming is caused by man. It will become worse as we release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. What will happen, other than blistering hot summer days and warm winters? Who knows? Any number of things can happen - natural disasters such as hurricanes, an ice age to the degree the planet has never seen before, perhaps even a toxic atmosphere which will poison the very air we breathe in.

We developed countries need to do something about it. America hasn't even ratified the Kyoto Protocol. With my country, Australia, ratifying it, it leaves America as the only developed country in the world that hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Will America let itself be the country that said no to saving the world? Sadly, probably yes.

Answer 4

I agree we should be working to lessen our dependence upon fossil fuels as fast as possible. But the debate about global warming is not useless. The remaining fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) in the world will last another 100 - 200 years. Oil will run out first, but we have large quantities of gas and coal. Long before fossil fuels run out, the impact of global warming will be felt world wide, and the predictions for catastrophe are enormous. The largest impact will be the rise of sea level, affecting 10s of millions of people around the world.

Answer 5

it matters because we humans have the unique capability among all species of controlling what we do. if we truly acted as stewards of this fragile planet on which we are fortunate to have found the conditions for life, we should perhaps behave as if we cared about what future generations have to contend with as we continue to consume and waste as we have done for the 300 or so years, during which time the population has grown exponentially.

Yes, we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and small but significant strides are being made. Sadly, we are misled if we think that electrical/hybrid cars are significantly better than gasoline engines. electricity is generated in nuclear power plants (I have no problem with these though some do), by burning coal (very polluting and finite), or by damming rivers to create hydroelectric plants (not popular with those who want to preserve the wilderness). there's a cost to the environment to be paid no matter what we do. we need to get over our belief that we need huge 8-cylinder assault vehicles and do what the Europeans have done for generations: go small, very small. what sense does it make for one person to drive a vehicle designed to hold 6 or 7 people? what sense does it make to have more than two children?

we can't control what other people do, but we can provide a good example and make our own planet-friendly choices.

Answer 6

People didn't cause global warming but they did speed the process by a few thousand years. What sped it up was over consumption of fossil fuels and our arrogance that we could just continue to ravage the earth without consequence. Too late to quibble now. we just have to eat our just desserts when the time fully gets here...shouldn't be long now.

Answer 7

I think it does matter whether or not global warming is or isn't caused by human activity. To the extent that we can, we should lessen our harmful impact on the environment, if in fact we are causing it.

If we are causing it and can identify what we are doing, then we are better able to choose alternative ways to provide energy.

Point well taken about lessening our dependence on foreign oil. It would behoove us to do that for a variety of reasons (more control over our own energy resources; eliminate dependency on oil from unstable regions of the world, etc.).

Lastly, alternative sources of energy could help to create jobs and provide for a cleaner environment. This makes sense regardless of what is causing global warming.

Answer 8

Well, there isn't any "debate--" the human causes of global warming are proven fact.

But either way--yes, it is very important. The reason is simple: the fact that global warmming is caused by humans means we can stop it. We might--or might not--be able to do much about a natural cycle.

The thing you need to keep in mind is to get past the propagada and wild predictios--on either side. The science isn't nearly as colorful as the "deniers" pretty wwebsites--but it is correct.

The other thing is to recognize WHAT needs to be done--and wha tthe consequences of diong it are. Here's some examples of actions we can takke--and their other consequences:

>increase fuel efficiency of automobiles and promote a transition to electric or other non-gas using transportation. Effects: reduced consumer costs, independance from forign oil.
>Expanded mass transit. Effects: lower commutingcosts for individuals, reduced traffic congestion and cost of roadbuilding/maintainence
>Energy efficient homes/gadgets (such as compact flourescent lights, efficient appliences). Effect: long-term savings offset initioal cost, pllus further savings in reduced utility bills.
> Wind turbines for electric power. Effect: reduced costs to consumers.
>Solar energy: Effect: low operating cost fo r user. Initial cost is still high--but falling rapidly
>Nuclear power--Effect: lower consumer costs--current technology reduces the once high operating cost,and also resolves the safety and storage issues.

There's more--but I think I'vemade the point. Energy effciency and alternative means of producing energy are not only good for the environment, do't produce CO2--they are also more efficient, and cheaper. In addition, these growth industries create jobs and spur economic growth.

So what's the big fuss about doing this? Simple: the oil and coal companies are the losers--and they are the ones who have been dictating energy policy for years. The "debate" isn't real--it is manufactured by them to delay or deflect policy changes because in a really free market, they cannotcompete with modern alternative methods of generating and using energy.

Answer 9

It's not a debate any longer. In fact, it has been widely accepted as fact 20+ years ago. Why the inaction? Greed. It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY honey and always will be.The same holds true for our Health Care Industry and Pharmaceuticals' murdering of millions of Americans by not providing proper care or medicine: Greed, It's ALL About the Money. Read Green Paradise Lost by Elizabeth Dodsen Grey and Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About by Keven Trudeau (#1 on NY Times Best Seller List).

Answer 10

truthfully, not a bit- it really doesn[t matter who or how its caused. I do believe we should all try to help lessen its effects as best we can. Its totally dishonest to believe as some politicans and some others that its all mans fault that this is happeneing. I'm all for doing my part to help develop alternate resources but I am totally against people using it as a scare tactic and then trying to benefit from it. If you develop a technology that betters our current system by all means use it. But dont try to cram it down everyones throat.