What are you doing against Global Warming

Oooh, I used to love these threads when they hit the political palace.

I don't believe in global warming. The planet is increasing in temperature, but since humans pollute they cause clouds to form. Clouds cause solar dimming which decreases temperature! SO POLLUTE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE VERY HORRIBLY!!

Oh yeah, and the melting of the polar ice caps might not be that big of a deal. The increase in fresh water in the world's oceans might not cause the oceans to rise as much as some scientists forecast. Chemistry 101. Plus, there might be more oil underneath those icebergs! Burn baby, burn!

Originally Posted by ramoth

Honestly, I challenge someone to present an argument against energy conservation and researching of renewable energy. Seriously. Try me.

Too easy.

Until conventional sources of energy are exhausted there will be no spur to make researching or implementing more alternative sources of energy viable.

When the oil production of the US topped out in the late 1970's, and OPEC placed a oil embargo on the US this started a flurry of research into alternatives. Practically all of the alternative energy sources we have are a direct result of these two events.

I'm not too worried about industrial civilization. It'll sort itself out.

Originally Posted by ramoth

But the "doom & gloom the planet is dying lol" attitude is not even what I'm talking about. Oil is a limited resource -- we only have so much, and we will eventually run out. Taking every step you can to conserve oil and switch to something else just makes sense, and anyone who doesn't see doing that as an urgent priority is vastly short sighted.

In the grand scheme of things the individual does not matter. Are you seriously telling me that individuals can save more oil if they're more efficient, as opposed to say if efficiency on a industrialization level was stressed? Where do you think more waste occurs?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Do you think it matters if you water your lawn during the middle of the day during a drought?

I don't think anybody would particularly care if I urinated on my lawn during a drought. I'd just be expending resources that I could've hoarded for use if the situation became life-threatening desperate.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yeah well think about it, by the time the population does get cut in half we'd have still been consuming resources at the same rate, only advanced with China and India in the game, so not only is your idea inhuman and unnecessary, it's also ineffective.

It also sounds like genocide.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I didn't mean to dick around with analogies or this topic..... so I'll spell out my position.

Any energy resources you're not willing to burn I'd be happy to use up, and so would the billion or so people in the developing world. The poor countries are already priced out of the game. The way this fits into the analogy is this; the "water" (let's call it oil) was already used up when I drank it. I just found a efficient way to deal with the "waste". By "watering" (urinating -on-) the lawn during the drought. (oil shortage)

As energy becomes more expensive the economies that will perform the best will be the ones that utilize the resources we already have out of the ground. Even renewable energy sources require some amounts of nonrenewable energy to be created. Energy is not going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon as demand exceeds the preexisting supply we have access to. Economic growth is a nasty beast that'll only consume more. It's a shortsighted mistake to think we're not going to use every drop of oil or lump of coal we extract from the ground. Which is why when you boil down practically any environmental issue like diminishing energy resources, clean water, topsoil, etc. the easy answer is to kill off three billion or so people. (I'm not trying to pick on you, Chibi. I'm all for population control. Just not like that.) I find it incredibly lacking for more then one reason.

Energy conservation is a noble goal, but a unrealistic goal.The only plausible way this could happen is if economic incentives were thrown in. Whether they're brought on by choice, (doubtful for the majority) or economic hardship. (likely for everyone) With entire industries that are set up to waste nonrenewable energy as quickly as possible (ie: tourism) because it is more profitable, the difference between what a industry could save by it's elimination or emphasis on efficiency would far outweigh the few drops of energy you personally save. The energy saved could/would be redirected to other "greener" investments. I'm not arguing against personal conservation or a switch over to renewable sources of energy because in the long run it's going to save you money making it economically viable. Nor am I arguing for people to use "less". That is not economically viable. I'm arguing that pre-existing resources could be better utilized and/or redirected at a industrial level to facilitate a "greener" economy. Whether that be to combat global warming, (which I don't care about) protect the environment, (which I do) or spur more investment into green (renewable) energy. (which everybody should care about)

This is just one idea (that doesn't involve genocide) about how to cope with environmental issues. It may or may not include heinous amounts of government regulation. Not that it matters. Economics is ultimately dictated to by Mother Nature.... and not Marx's model of a central command and control economy. (for all you liberals)

Oh yeah, if there isn't enough contradictions about me in this thread I'm a Republican. Though if you read the entire post that probably became apparent.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Of course, US natives are barely experiencing replacement birthrates and European countries are in the negative. It's doubtful that we'll really need population control, since as people move away from subsistence farming, there is not a need to have extra kids (hands) in order to create more wealth. The same thing will happen to China and India... eventually.

The problem in rising demographics is in the Third World where birthrates are exploding, just like the population of the United States / Europe did when they were in the beginning stages of industrialization.

Short of the global economy collapsing (which is a possibility) the added stress more mouths puts on pre-existing resources is a factor that deserves considering when contemplating economics, energy/water/topsoil shortages, global warming or whatever else that involves the world.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by GRUN-2

Watts, the thing is, we're already starting to see companies adopting more green practices since they do see economic incentives.

I know, that's what I was mostly basing my model off of. Boeing is trying to grow jet fuel made off of ocean algae. If this is successful then a new realm of possibilities will be opened up with "blue" (ocean) energy. That's just as clean and renewable as "green" energy.

The part I wasn't basing this on was how I was viewing industry. Not from a race to the top of efficiency, but to a race to the bottom. Which would result in it's elimination. Barring any massive government subsidizing, that might not even be a option.

I was speaking idiomatically.