<p>I'm doing a term paper on the effects of global climate change and mitigation strategies. We need to reduce emissions now but the question is how. </p>
<p>What are your opinions? </p>
<p>Which one do you think is better at lowering greehouse gas emissions? Which one is more politically feasible?</p>
<p>The best way to lower greenhouses IMO is to subsidize cow industries. 1. Cows make a ridiculous amount of harmful methane which is dozens of times more destructive to the ozone. 2. It would tell McDonalds to **** off, and would lower heart disease by who knows how greatly. 3. Who the hell said milk was good for you in the first place? It's the BS commercials on US television that says milk is good for you, but in reality it's not. All it is is liquid fat, cheap carbs and sugar, and bacteria that we are often better living without. Milk messes with your allergies, immune system, etc.</p>
<p>Funny thing is, nobody ever mentions the effects of cattle on climate change. Instead they say "hey, let's impose limits on everybody so we can save the changing climate". Sad thing is, driving a Suburban for a year is going to have much lesser of an effect on the environment than owning 1 cow for a year is.</p>
<p>OH I GOT IT!!! we should all by SUVs, then run over all the cows in the US! That would work.</p>
<p>Both are crap and will never do anything but make the already terrible economy worse. Man made global warming is the biggest fraud scheme ever. Guess who would make money off of a scheme like this... <em>cough</em>algore<em>cough</em>cough*</p>
<p>If you have the money to buy an SUV, by all means go for it.</p>
<p>Global Warming: <a href="http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/</a>
(cool cow video at the link)</p>
<p>The sun's going to explode one day too. But I'll be dead by then, and thusly won't and don't give a sh**.</p>
<p>If the ice caps are really going to melt and flood new york, and fire and brimstone, and all is doomed, etc, all that rhetoric, well I say it's about time we had a little excitement around here, lol.</p>
<p>By the way, none of these corporations and businesses actually give one nano-sh** about global warming either. All this "going green" is just another way for businesses to advertise and generate positive publicity for themselves. Any see those airlines where you can actually <em>pay them</em> to offset <em>your</em> carbon footprint from flying? Pray tell me, how exactly does that work?</p>
<p>The only thing most big business in this country cares about was, is, and always will be, the almighty dollar. And they couldn't care less if we all go to hell in the process.</p>
<p>Place an embargo on all fossil fuels
Find a way to make people less materialistic and selfish. The same people who moan and complain about climate change rarely adjust their lives or "scale back." In high school, there was a large group of kids who pushed for alt energy and did all kinds of fundraising etc, yet each one of them drove to school instead of utilizing public transportation. Americans are selfish and rarely voluntarily cut back for the good of society, but rather blame the government. If people want change, they can advocate public transportation, and extension of such systems, and cut back on their energy consumption. How about instituting a personal energy emission cap instead of just one of corporations? I bet people wouldn't be so supportive if they're told THEY need to cut down on their energy use, but if its the big bad corporations, well good.</p>
<p>The best way is cap and trade. It creates a market for carbon emissions so now polluters have a price associated with their emissions. This will be a better way to push them to "go green". This is better than the government getting taxes from companies and the government trying to increase green technologies. I'm not sure if global warming is a problem. The climate is changing, but maybe the world is supposed to get warmer now and maybe the icecaps are supposed to melt. I don't think many people complained when that happened after the ice age. We'll see how stuff turns out I guess.</p>
<p>Wow... apparently no one believes that global warming is an issue... :(</p>
<p>It's only been the centerpiece of discussion in our current era, beaten to death repeatedly, with no broad consensus reached on possible solutions other than CFO bulbs, bicycling, mystical solar towers, and fairy dust-powered cars which may or may not do jack sh**. Sorry if I have better things to do.</p>
<p>And you can call anyone who doesn't live in utter darkness with no internet, phone, AC or heating a hypocrite for adding to the problem. lol</p>
<p>^^
Completely missed the point. The same people who complain about companies refuse to cut back on their consumption. Again, like the students who choose to drive to school everyday instead of taking the bus, while complaining that corps. are killing the enviornment...
People should look at how their personal actions add to the problem, and address them as they can control how much they pollute, but can't force companies to do the same.
It's amazing how much you missed the point.
Global warming has been talked about endlessly, and hasn't been proven, as in now debates center on global cooling. Maybe it's the fact that you have 7billion+ people, plus an entire eco system, sharing one planet. The amount of oxygen consumed contributes to climate change, and just basic things such as human waste are natural consequences which have often been overlooked, as in they contribute a lot to climate change, as does emissions. The whole Al Gore climate crusade is getting really old. The fact is, no one has proved what exactly is causing climate change, I mean, the world had an ice age long before cars existed.</p>
<p>I'm not complaining about companies. I said they don't give a hoot about this problem. And frankly, neither do I.</p>
<p>Yeah, the cause hasn't been determined, but I think the scientific community has certainly proven that "global warming/ climate change" is happening.</p>
<p>What I'm saying is that, of the people who contend everyone should reduce their energy usage/ carbon footprint, I question -- well to what extent? One can always do more, always reduce it to zero.</p>
<p>Although a bus or a train cause less polution that a swarm of cars, they STILL CAUSE CARBON POLUTION. So does any electricity usage. So it's like, how much do we cut back? What about people who live in bigger houses, or have bigger families? Do they cut back proportionately or simply the same numerical wattage? What about people who don't have access to public transportation? I worked at a gym last semester and always turned off/ on all the lights of the facility. Gurantee you that an hour of that place up and running uses more electricity than if I turned everything on in my house and had it running all day. So does turning the hall light off as I leave the house for an hour really meaningful in that regard?</p>
<p>So my position: the hell with it. How bout instead of me cutting back, you cut back twice as much, because you care that much more than I do. Me? Well, I'll sit back and enjoy the fireworks, if they ever come.</p>
<p>Every kind of "carbon tax" will just be passed on to the consumer. If electricity costs more b/c the government is imposing a tax, there is no way the company will choose to make less profit instead of raising their prices to account for the tax. Remember that the next time Obama stands up and says nothing will happen to the taxes of 95% of the population.</p>
<p>Europe has a fake market for carbon emissions... it collapsed recently along with the other markets, so now the companies can pollute for way cheaper...</p>
<p>WHAT THE <strong><em>!!!! I'm glad I live in Canada. I can't believe some people would actually believe that respiration by humans is the main contributor Global Warming... holy *</em></strong>. *** then the dinosaurs probably died because they expelled too much carbon dioxide and then when 10000 T Rexes farted simultaneously it doubled the GHG in atmosphere causing the temperature to spike to 100 degrees and killing all dinosaurs... Ok I'm sorry I was just really angry. But how can anyone say that Global Warming is not proven. The fact that there are people saying it's false is only a representation of a perverse PR campaign by oil and coal corporations. That was what happened in the 80s about smoking. Except instead of lung cancer we'll get global famine and 100x Katrinas. </p>
<p>^^
The point of the carbon tax is not to save money from the consumer. It's SUPPOSE to make the consumer pay MORE. Obviously, Americans care more about their wallets than the world. Hence, the only way we can reduce global warming is to make people pay more. I don't see how Americans are naive and foolish enough to pay several trillion dollars supporting the war in Iraq when there's a ticking bomb in the rapid rate of GHG accumulation... </p>
<p>When Bush attacked Iraq no body said that there was DEFINITELY WMDs in Iraq. Yet, the mere possibility of WMDs make enough people support the war in Iraq. Solving global warming is way cheaper than having a fight in Iraq and the threat is way bigger... so why aren't we acting now?</p>
<p>Out of sheer coincidence, I just attended a Thomas Friedman lecture today (well yesterday, it's 2 in the morning) and he had a line that I particularly enjoyed:</p>
<p>"I don't like cap and trade, it's like hiding the ball [Friedman pretends to hide a ball behind his back]. Where's the ball? I don't know [audience laughs]. With cap and trade you're pretending that CO2 is not taxed. Cap and trade sounds like an investment, and you know what investment banks do with investments. If you like derivatives, CDOs, [Friedman lists off financial acronyms], etc., you're going to LOOOVE cap and trade."</p>
<p>Typical Canadian response. Look, I knew the war was a farce from the start, and I never supported it. Everyone knew there were no WMDs in Iraq - but who's going to stop the f'ing President. The government always has it's own interests in mind, not the people's -- haven't you taken enough history.</p>
<p>And saying I paid for the war through taxes is a joke. Listen, if you ever bought an American product (which is pretty much guaranteed in Canada - let's just state the obvious the country borrows from American culture quite heavily) - then you paid sales taxes to the US government who funds the war in Iraq.</p>
<p>And yes the average person in the US may be naive, ignorant, and greedy - but they are just as naive, ignorant, and money-hungry in Canada - just as much. We are all the same apes here. But what has your country done to stop climate change, huh? And why did your Prime Minister suck Bush's d*ck, send troops to Afghanistan, and send military officers to Iraq?</p>
<p>I'm sick of Canadian's anti-american criticism. We leave your country alone because we simply don't care. I have several canadian friends but some just go off on this country because they are so insecure and defensive about their own. If you don't like America's foreign policy, why don't you come down here, become a citizen, and cast a meaningless f**king vote like the rest of us do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every kind of "carbon tax" will just be passed on to the consumer.
[/quote]
Isn't that the point? Passing the price onto the consumer is a good thing if you're trying to combat global climate change because you're getting to the heart of the problem--overconsumption.</p>
<p>Peter: I'm not saying Canadians are any better on this issue. But we don't have the resources to do anything about it. Our whole country has the same GDP as California. Do you think we can do much? </p>
<p>But, you're right Canadians are just as apathetic. During the last election, where was about 49% voter turn out. Obama's much better than Harper.</p>
<p>
[quote]
WHAT THE ****!!!! I'm glad I live in Canada.
[/quote]
Why, so when Global Warming gets intense the weather in your country will finally be nice?
[quote]
But how can anyone say that Global Warming is not proven. The fact that there are people saying it's false is only a representation of a perverse PR campaign by oil and coal corporations.
[/quote]
There are many intelligent scientists on both sides of the spectrum. You can just as easily say the scientists talking about Manhattan sinking under water are being paid by Green-companies. Everyone knows the Earth is warming, but the argument is over how much, did we do it, and will it cause mass chaos?</p>
<p>
[quote]
When Bush attacked Iraq no body said that there was DEFINITELY WMDs in Iraq. Yet, the mere possibility of WMDs make enough people support the war in Iraq. Solving global warming is way cheaper than having a fight in Iraq and the threat is way bigger... so why aren't we acting now?
[/quote]
Think about it logically for 10 seconds. Did Global Warming hijack an airplane and kill 1000 Americans? No, and when it does, it will get the reaction the War on Terror did. And solving global warming is cheaper than Iraq? Haha yeah right. The earth is warming, whether we like it or not. Buying a bunch of swirly-lightbulbs won't make it cold all of a sudden. to stop global warming entirely (if that's even possible) will require us to change our entire lifestyles and the way everything is structured.
[quote]
But we don't have the resources to do anything about it. Our whole country has the same GDP as California. Do you think we can do much?
[/quote]
Typical Canadian response. WAH WAH WAHHHH our country sucks, let's wait for America to fix the problem. Oh wait, our economy sucks as well and we blew all our money on Iraq - sorry Canada.</p>
<p>^
1. There's no relationship between Iraq and terrorism prior to the American invasion. Saddam was a very "good" dictator in that he had absolute control over Iraq. For him, Al-Qaeda was a competitor for influence not a friend.
Al</a> Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)
9/11</a> panel sees no Iraq-al-Qaida link - Security- msnbc.com</p>
<ol>
<li>3 trillion dollars, or the cost of the Iraq war so far can buy a bit more than just a "bunch" of lightbulbs... To get the GHG concentration under 500 ppm would only require 2% of global GDP, and given that the world GDP is only 54 Trillion US dollars that would mean you'd only need 1.01 trillion USD to stabilize the climate. That's 1/3 of the amount spent on Iraq. Think about it this way: 3 trillion/population of the US is about $300,000. $300,000 is enough to get you almost everything you need to survive through the whatever increase in prices caused by global warming.
<a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf</a>
The</a> three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
The point of the carbon tax is not to save money from the consumer. It's SUPPOSE to make the consumer pay MORE. Obviously, Americans care more about their wallets than the world. Hence, the only way we can reduce global warming is to make people pay more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't that the point? Passing the price onto the consumer is a good thing if you're trying to combat global climate change because you're getting to the heart of the problem--overconsumption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I dunno... Obama said he wasn't going to raise taxes for 95% of the population, so I guess the answer is: no, the goal is not to pass the price onto consumers. Or, Obama is massively lying... your choice.</p>