I hate those stupid Global Warming commercials.

[jack24]

"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.htm
CO2 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_emissions
The 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 link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

Let'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 energy
2: 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.

[mugatu]

"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.htm
CO2 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_emissions
The 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 link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

Let'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 energy
2: 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.

[jack24]

This 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.

[mugatu]

This 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. 

[jack24]

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. 

Thanks for the urge.  You're the man.

And thanks for telling me that #6 is laughable... are you too busy with something to tell me why it is laughable?
The global warming activists would probably do more to combat impending doom by becoming nuclear power activists.
Do you disagree with that?   

[mugatu]

Nuclear power plants: could cost multiple billions of dollars
Discovery Channel commercial: doesn't cost that much.

So, the theory that one could stop the commercials, but then just spend the money on nuclear power plants is laughable.  You can't go buy 0.001% of a nuclear power plant and get anything out of it.

[jack24]

All gore is planning on spending 683 million dollars on climate change ads.
I'm not sure where he got the money, but that's what he said.  And those commercials aren't on the discovery channel.  I watched a 2 hour special on the discovery channel.  The commercials were during the NBA playoffs.

I'm sorry that I implied that money was the answer.   I'm not saying that we can solve our energy problems with 683 million dollars.  I'm just surprised by the fact that anyone would feel like those commercials were the right place to direct their energy and financial resources.  The money, energy, and attention could be more wisely dedicated to nuclear energy, math and science education, and new transportation technologies. 

And even if you want to argue that guilt caused by the commercials is driving conservation efforts, I would be VERY surprised if guilt is making anywhere close to the impact of $4 per gallon gas.

[mugatu]

I agree.  Getting hit in the wallet is much worse.  Gas should be taxed to $8/gallon and we should spend that money on transit.

But we don't, so that's that. 

As far as the commercials go, there are still a bunch of people that use things needlessly when they could be much more efficient.

[just dot]

I think the reason there aren't nuclear power plants flying up is because nobody wants one next door.  They're trying to build some new ones down here (I'm in Florida) and they're having a rough time getting approval and finding places to build them.  

Great points, jack.  I agree with a lot of your post, particularly this comment:
"The way I see it, there are only two answers...  
1: Figure out a way to power the world with clean energy
2: Go back to the pre-industrial revolution standard of living."

Unfortunately, there are no quick and easy solutions to this problem.  

[jack24]

I'm going to assume that Obama wins the Election.

He wants to reduce carbon emmissions by 80% by 2050 and he doesn't even mention Nuclear Energy.  He believes that a cap and trade policy will work.  That's fantastic if it works, but he can't exactly enforce this policy on china and india.  From what I know of economics, caps and regulations aren't usually pro-innovation.  If scientists can significantly improve the cost benefit ratio of photo voltaic solar panels, that will reduce world-wide CO2 emissions because it will be more economical for china and india to use solar technology than fossil fuels.  We should encourage the innovation, not discourage it by overregulating the companies involved.

Obama says he wants to require 25% of our energy to come from renewables by 2018.  That's fantastic, but what can the president do about that?   He thinks the answer comes from spending more money... but he doesn't seem to have a way to make it more profitable for businesses to operate and innovate.  Why should we tax companies at a higher rate, so we can give money back to companies?  Why not just give tax breaks to companies that produce clean energy?

It seems to me like the two most practical and immediate solutions to our energy woes are to either promote nuclear energy, or to search and drill for more domestic oil.  Both of them have environmental side effects though, and I don't think Obama has the stones to make either one happen.