"We didn't wait to invade the beaches at Normandy, so why would we wait to act on the Global Climate Crisis?" I know I know.. I watched the discovery channels special about the 5 biggest world dangers. Global warming was number 1... ahead of nuclear war, bio-terrorism, asteroid impact and the sun exploding.What do you want me to do? hmmn? Go around and pour sewage into all the SUV gas tanks in my city? That's what I call biodiesel!According to http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-10-22-carbon-emissions_N.htmCO2 emissions inreased by 35% from 1990-2006. So that's a yearly average of 2.18% per year. That's pretty scary. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionsThe US accounts for 22.2% of all man-controlled worldwide CO2 emissions. That sucks, because we only account for like 4.5% of the population. So we are all a bunch of freaks. We should stop driving right? Businesses can still use trucks and stuff, but we should all ride bicycles. Check out this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.pngLet's just assume that through carbon trading, personal responsibility and government intervention we can reduce industrial, transportation, and power station CO2 emissions by 50%. That would be badass! US Emissions would be reduced by 26%!Well, that would only reduce the worldwide C02 emissions by 5.7%. That would get us back to 2003 levels!!!So, what if we could get the whole earth to reduce CO2 emissions by 26% by 2030? That would get us back to 1994 levels.. But we'd still be screwed right? The death would be slower, but we'd still have more C02 than the environment can handle.The way I see it, there are only two answers... 1: Figure out a way to power the world with clean energy2: Go back to the pre-industrial revolution standard of living. What should we do Mr. Gore?In the meantime, if Global Warming is more dangerous than nuclear war or bioterrorism, why aren't we building more nuclear power plants? (Only 19% of our electricity is powered by nuclear) Seriously? You think throwing away incandescent bulbs will make a difference but you won't increase nuclear output? Great.Go ahead and guilt trip me into riding a bicycle.. Who cares if it doesn't make a difference? I could use the exercise.
This is hard to understand.
Quote from: mugatu on June 03, 2008, 02:21:34 PMThis is hard to understand.I'm sorry. I'm often hard to understand.1: Global warming is supposedly going to destroy the planet if we don't do anything about it.2: Conservation alone won't cut enough of the global C02 to make a difference. (It will just take us back to 2003 levels, which were already dangerous)3: Those global warming commercials don't help, they just cause guilt. 4: Said guilt might cause the electorate to put a certain type of politician in power.5: Politicians just have goals, but they don't actually have solutions. 6: Nuclear energy is one practical solution, but people would rather spend money on stupid commercials and presidential campaigns than on nuclear power plants.
That's better.Guilt is probably more powerful than you give it credit. Statement #5 still doesn't make sense. I urge you to extend and enhance this argument.Furthermore, statement #6 is laughable.