Should the government limit the energy consumed per individual in this country to stop global warming?

Question

The square footage, the ceiling height, the volume to limit how much area we heat as humans and how much global warming we produce and how much in resources we use to produce the unnecessary luxury heat and materials to support one life?

Solid, whether or not we pay for it is not the question here. The question here is, if we keep allowing anyone to use what they can afford to pay for, will the energy consumed create enough heat to warm this planet into oblivion faster?

If the answer to that question is yes, then I don't care what you pay for, if it is killing all of us, you should not be allowed to have it! I am sorry you got raised to think you deserve to destroy all of mankind for your own selfish wants!

American, this country might have to go into that mode of limitation if it means saving this planet, if we have anything to do with it...the heat we produce individually from our use of energy.

Wiz , it is the government's responsibility to serve and protect. If it is found by our elected government, that we are going to kill ourselves eventually by creating heat on our planet, then something has to be done. It is pretty simple really.

I mean, why use more resources than you need in a planet that is limited in it's resources? But maybe we are not limited, somebody will have to come to useful conclusions about that.

Skullboy, effectively, when it comes to global warming, there are no clean sources as it were. Heat is heat! I don't care if you produce it with solar panels or oil, heat is heat. If we produce heat to make living environmental spaces on this planet, enough of them will produce so much heat that we will evaporate all the moisture from our environment. I am not sure how close we are to that now. We may be far away from it? But the polar ice caps are melting, aren't they?

proeduca.....If outside forces are creating global warming, but limiting our consumption and heat from energy consumed can have a surviving effect on our planet, our ship, shouldn't we take some action and just use what we individually need so that others can live?

Answer 1

No. A lot of people mistakenly believe tha tis what is needed to stop global warming. That's not surprising--the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money creating that myth.

But stop and Think. There are a whole range of technologies available now (and more under development) tha tproduce enrgy without pollution--or allow us to use energy more efficiently.

Let me take that last first. Energy efficiency does NOT mean limiting energy use--it means having systems that use less energy to get the same thing as older, inefficient systems. An obvious example is the compact florescent bulb. It costs more to start with--but last farl longer, more than ofsetting the higher cost. And, besides providing as much light with less than 25% of the energy, it cuts your utility bill.

As to energy production--we have the means to produce far MORE energy than we now produce, without using a drop of oil, or an ounce of coal. Wind turbines are already becoming common in many areas--and are cheaper to operate, as well as being non-polluting. Thats only one technology--there is solar, nuclear (modern technology makes it safe--and cheaper tan coal), tidal, biofuels.

Electric cars are feasible now--they jsut aren't being marketed. But they are cost-competative, perform well, and have plenty of range for urban driving conditions.

We are swimming in energy that can be used without polluting the environment. The fact that we are still stuck with an obsolete, expensive 19th century technology like fossil fuels isn't a matter of technology--it s a result of the undue influence of the special interests.

Answer 2

for some years, environmentalism has been the Left's superb excuse for increasing government administration over our strikes in techniques the two great and small. it is for mom Earth! it is for the youngsters! it is for the whales! yet before, the doomsday-challenge environmental scares they have trumped up have not been sufficiently vast to grant the sinister prize they % maximum of all: total administration of american politics, financial interest, or maybe guy or woman habit. With international warming, although, greenhouse gasbags can argue that automobile emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that purely international government can address such issues. national sovereignty? Democracy? forget approximately it: international warming has now added the Left closer to international government, statism, and the eradication of guy or woman rights than it has ever been till now.

Answer 3

it is not necessary, and very difficult to impose and control, but the governments of all countries should make the use of energy, especially energy from fossil fuels, more expensive to the users, and subsidize non fossil fuels sources of energy.
most governments do that already, but the few exceptions, like the US, are a major hindrance to the plan to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of alternative fuels and sources of energy.

Answer 4

I don't think that's the right way to stop the global warming.

Answer 5

No, this would - like all government programs and mandates - create more problems than it would solve. Government action is never the problem, NEVER!

Answer 6

This is exactly the reason that politicians like Gore manipulate peoples emotions. They want you willing to accepts something as sick as controlling every aspect of your life by taxing you. Let's put up check points and make everybody carry a little red book. I would truly hope that anyone who would say yes would just do the world a favor and move to a communist or third world nation.

Answer 7

Limiting the amount of energy consumed per individual will only make the poor, cold, hungry and living in the dark. The wealthy will afford better home insulation, enviro - friendly light bulbs, appliances, $65,000 hybred cars, etc. and live much better and healthier than the poor on the same amount of energy.

The government would do much better stopping our contribution to global warming by providing incentives and assistance to everyone needing better home insulation, enviro - friendly appliances and lights, and more efficient transportation.

Answer 8

Sure if you believe that changing what people are doing would prevent a climate disaster. Then I guess there are no government restrictions that would be too extreme. Why don't we just round everyone up and make them live in denser habitats during the winter like put them in like a sports stadium.

Just close all the gas stations and let the government ration fuel and energy for only approved uses. We'd just cut the power off to all private homes and industry.

Sure, its going to wreck the economy and strip every human being of every right they currently have. And the harsh conditions imposed will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousand if not millions of people. I guess its a small price to pay to save the planet.

But if your wrong, there's going to be a day o reckoning.

Answer 9

That approach would also limit how much people those contribute to stop global warming.

If instead we allow people who use greater than average resources to offset their excess, some of those funds can flow to reward the people to underutilize their fair share of resources.

One example of this tradoff is outlined in the proposed "feebate" system for car purchases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feebate

If people want a gas guzzler, no problem, as long as they pay for their unusual impact. The up front nature of this type of system works much better than gasoline taxes, since it's applied at the time of purchase and its impact on ownership cost is crystal clear to the buyer.

Answer 10

Ideally, the answer would be yes, but there are far too many things to consider in your question. If there is a demand for energy, there will undoubtedly be someone to satisfy that demand. What energy companies can do is raise prices or more preferably, find cleaner ways to produce energy.