Yes No, we're spending too much No, we're spending way too much No, there should be no public money for this at all see voting resultssaving...
15 opinions, 17 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
6 votes
Apr 18, 2015

The solutions put forth to fight global warming are those that reduce pollution.

Whether this actually reduces global warming or not, I think it's beneficial to reduce pollution, especially those that contribute to health issues, such as power plant emissions and tailpipe emissions. There is a definite benefit to reducing pollution regardless of its effect on our health.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

I find it somewhat ridiculous the fighting that's going on about pollution. Like you say, even if it doesn't stop global warming it's a goal worth pursuing in itself. If anyone can find a doctor that says inhaling coal smoke has no negative effects on health (and doesn't immediately lose their medical license) then there could be a valid discussion, but there is to my knowledge absolutely no disagreement.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 18, 2015

The "solutions" put forth to deal with global warming invariably enrich select groups at the expense of others without actually providing a meaningful benefit. At best, these are zero-sum plays to redistribute wealth (and not necessarily from rich to poor). At worst, they are actively destructive and will result in a degradation of people's standard of living excepting the exceptional few who are pushing this robbery.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 18, 2015

There is a difference to reducing pollution which we have done over the last 50 years or so in fact our air and water is the cleanest it has been in 50 years, but we should be cautious about a group who wants to sell us paper and put a majority of the workers out of there jobs in the name of something they can not even prove. The weather man gives the weather in 10 day forecast and yet that forecast is changed every day.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
25
4 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

Part of what is built into modern science is that nothing can be proven. That's the beauty of it because it allows us to rapidly change our scientific views when evidence merges that contradicts the current theory. So, basically, what you are saying is that we can never spend any money on scientific consensus because they don't prove anything. This is a dangerous position.

Second, there is nothing in our current attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions that will put "a majority of the workers of of [sic]there jobs." Might it hurt economically? Yes, but probably only in the short-term as capitalism does a great job of finding where the profit will come from.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

Will not put people out of work I am assuming you do not live in Southern Ohio, WV. PA. WY that sir is the coal industry and they are already loosing jobs by the 100s. So no job loss is BS from the left.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

Please re-read my post. There is nothing in there that says no one would lose any jobs.

Also, my position is not one "of the left" but "of the science."

subscribe
Load more (7) in reply to EatATaco's post (Part of what is built into modern science is that nothing can be proven. That's the beauty of it because it allows us to rapidly change our scientific views when evidence merges that contradicts the c...)
100
1 vote
Apr 18, 2015

We should be fighting against Pollution and corporate Corruption/Abuse, and fighting for Conservation and Restoration of sustainable resources. The "global warming" issues will take care of themselves if we focused on points we AGREE on. We are wasting too many resources fighting over conflicts when we could focus on solutions instead!

subscribe
100
opinion
1 vote
Apr 18, 2015

Yes it is worth it.. On a macroeconomic scale money is an abstraction. A way to keep score. But it has no reality.

Look at this logically. If we follow the deniers and they turn out wrong, we have seriously messed up our life support system. Billions could die.

If we do fight global warming and it turns out we were wrong, we end up with clean air and nice weather. As well the fight will have spurred the research we need to have sustainable energy so our descendants have access to a high energy civilization as we have enjoyed.

Therefore logic states we fight it as the penalty for being wrong is something good. While if we chose to do nothing and are wrong then the penalty may be species extinction.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
User voted No, there should be no public money for this at all.
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

"Look at this logically."

OK, does the money we're spending going to reduce climate change? No, when you really look at it you'll find this is nothing more than a wealth transfer to other countries and does little or nothing to stop AGW.

"Look at this logically."

Was there EVER a time when the earth's climate wasn't changing? No the climate is always changing. In fact we have evidence that the earth was cooling a little over 5,000 years ago (at least enough to cause at least one glacier to grow) that has since retreated back to where it was.

"..we were wrong, we end up with clean air and nice weather."

Weather isn't climate, and we are putting in place laws for clean water and air and have done so for many years. If you don't think so look at pictures of LA in the 1960's vs today. Back then you had smog a lots of it, the brown haze of LA. Remember the Jimmy Buffet song Come Monday there is one part where he sings "I spent four lonely days in a brown L. A. haze." It was true L.A. was covered in a brown haze for days at a time.

Also you'd fine that most people want clean water, air and will support sensible regulation.

"...spurred the research we need to have sustainable energy ..."

No, it's the high price of oil, that has done that. As long as there is a cheap form of energy people and governments will use it. Take your own life for example, which would you buy a gallon of gasoline for $5 or a gallon of gasoline for $10? The $10 gallon was made using algae (yes there are some forms of algae who's oil can be refined into gasoline) which would you buy? But, the price of oil is high enough that companies are looking into alternative energy that fit into our existing systems. It wasn't the government who forced them to this, it was economics; the price of oil is high then the price of the alternative energy. In general I'm talking about algae oil in which there are a number of test plants in production right now.

"Therefore logic states we fight it as the penalty for being wrong is something good. While if we chose to do nothing and are wrong then the penalty may be species extinction."

The penalty for being wrong is about $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP (Small Business Administration estimate). What could we do with that money if it wasn't spent of AGW. I don't know maybe give 3 million people a little over 5,500 dollars each and every year.

The penalty of species extinction is a red herring, there has been anywhere between 1 and 4 billion species that have existed on this planet, of which roughly 50 million still survive into the modern era given that man is a late comer to the game, if safe to say it's been happening for a long time. Also, at some point every species alive today including man will be come extinct.

Given the track record of environmentalist and their alarms it's would be a safe bet that they are wrong on this too, DDT, Population bomb, Global cooling, acid rain and forests, etc. And given that the math that the IPCC published doesn't work out, given that CRU can't reproduce their data set (they tossed out the original data) given that the government doesn't know if their weather stations meet their own standards, given that the models can't be set back more than a few hundred years and predict today's climate, give that they have (cru) proven at least some tree ring data is faulty (the divergence problem), given that the IPCC has use non-peer review data, and that they don't require the authors to give data, methods, math to the reviewers it's hard to trust the reports.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

No projection of global warming contends that it will cost billions of lives. This is a classic scare-tactic that makes the rest of us extremely skeptical of your arguments and goals.

It's projected that increased temperatures will actually save lives in northern regions, like the UK. I imagine it will be somewhat more destructive in other parts, but it's not universally a destructive change.

Global warming may be a problem, but it's not the end of the world the way you seem to be portraying it. Meanwhile, the restrictions on economic growth would hurt humanity as fewer resources are available to aid the growth of infrastructure in places that desperately need it, which may cost lives to disease, famon, ect. as well.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 18, 2015

Says the man who works for someone else and does not run his own business. Lets see how you feel when your out of work because it cost to much to do this silly things they want to do. The solar does not generate enough electric to pay for its self, and kills the birds that fly over it. The wind mills are the same they don't produce enough to pay for the cost. Now if you want to create Hydro electric, or Nuke its ok with me. Which we have done and it does pay for itself, so what are you people talking about renewable. Oil and Gas is made everyday by Mother earth and if you don't use it, it will come to the surface on its own it has and it will.

subscribe
50
2 votes
Apr 18, 2015

We have global warming whether it is man caused or not if it is man made we have a small window to stop it. If it is from natural causes if man cleans up his act we will have a cleaner planet to live on as the warming progresses. Either way what we are doing now is wrong and we need to move to have options that don't pollute. We don't allow litter or pouring polluting chemicals in our waterways why do we allow polluting the air. Is it because most of the time we can't see it?

subscribe
50
2 votes
Apr 18, 2015

What's the cost of moving everybody within 200 feet of sea level today to higher ground?

What's the cost of migrating the cattle herds of Texas north? (with the massive culling they've already started this process)

What's the cost of every property owner in Arizona and New Mexico watching their property become worthless as the water disappears?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 18, 2015

Whatever it costs, it seems justified to me. I'd much rather live in a broken world than die.

subscribe
50
2 votes
Apr 18, 2015

To those of you who believe in Global warming why are you still driving a car, using the AC in your home, or electric shouldn't you immediately stop doing all of that as your way of putting a stop to it and stop trying to force me to do it. We both should have the same rights shouldn't we. If you think someone taxing you more for what you need is a good idea then hey communism is just around the corner I know that's what Chavez convinced the people of and look where they are economy has not collapsed again. Always be cautious about how much power you give your government under the pretext of freedom, and protection. Look at the patriot act it was to protect you but what it does is take away your right to a lawyer, judge and the constitution.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Apr 18, 2015

Yes we need to take a look at this. All the studies are in and we know what to do. Government needs to educate the world and our people the results. We must face harsh realities and do our part. It should not cost very much just to speak
the truth. Government has a way of making issues cost and we have paid now it is time to hear the results

1)We are making to much pollution in this world and the protective layer s in our atmosphere are failing. Burning Fossil fuels are to blame - coal - Oils

2) environmentalist have been an enemy and untruthful about the dangers of alternative sources of energy

3) We have stopped using some of the hydro power and removed production from the grid.

4) Car manufacture has been over slow to respond to electric options.

5) The wind and solar options are just not viable for anything more than supplement to other sources

6) The environmental resources are out currency so cost is relative

subscribe
0
0 votes
Apr 18, 2015

Unfortunately, the hundreds of billions will be mis-spent and thrown into the hog trough at which all the piggie corporations nuzzle leading to fatter businesses and net-zero results in fixing a worldwide problem.

or...

business as usual.

subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
May 30, 2015

Yes, we should fight poltion and make this planet a cleaner place, but if we take a look at the history of the planets temperature it had its lows and its highs and we are just getting up on the high bit. I have read somewhere that humans have increased the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) production for about 1%... so yeah clean the planet make other souces of energy and don't worry about global warming it had always been a thing.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jul 20, 2015

The economic problems caused later will exceed what we spend to fight it now by orders of magnitude.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jul 20, 2015

I believe that we should spend that much money on global warming because even though global warming is a natural occurrence known as climate change, it has been sped up by human interaction.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jul 24, 2015

The long-term cost of climate change is far, far greater, and the changes required are relatively modest and once the initial investment has been made will be self-sustaining.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Aug 4, 2015

We get one planet! JUST THE ONE! why cant we seem to save each other from ourselves? the fact that there are no votes makes me loose faith in humanity. The entire worlds population needs to remove their heads from the profit part of their rear end, and think about the human species in general. dang.

subscribe
0
User voted No, there should be no public money for this at all.
0 votes
Sep 2, 2015

We are still in the middle of an ice-age. We had warmer times where the biological diversity exploded. Biologist say that global warming is the best that can happen to earth. Furthermore one big volcanic eruption might trigger a dramatic decline of temperature. As long as we do not understand the mechanisms behind the climate we should not spend ANY money.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Sep 28, 2015

Yes.

First of all, global warming is a problem with potentially cataclysmic outcomes. Everything from food production to urban spaces could be changed drastically. The belt of arable land and that is comfortably habitable may change. It's a crucial

Second, almost all of the private and public efforts to push against global warming are also crucial for every other aspect of sustainability. Reducing carbon use is the only way we will conserve a non-renewable resource, reduce pollutants that harm real people, and protect the planet. We need to have a sustainable system based off of renewable energy. Similarly, restoring old-growth forests and other carbon sinks would be vital to replace the damage we've done to ecosystems.

Third, the efforts to fight global warming aren't just sunk costs. Efforts to push fuel efficiency benefit people. Efforts to switch to sustainable energy creates new jobs and industries. The myopia shown on this front by people is really startling: Crises breed innovation and change.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: