WatchOk let's start this debate by assuming that atmospheric scientists and policy wonks are correct: the Earth is getting hotter. Let's also assume that this is directly due to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
WHAT are we going to do about it? If this is such a planet destroying problem, don't you think we should stop messing around and fix it already?
The problem becomes this: How do we FIX atmospheric overheating on a global basis?
Let's explore the options, their benefits and limitations.
1) Stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is really the only solution that global warmists have proposed. It has many problems, not the least of which is the fact that the US and nearly every other developed nation uses a majority of fossil fuel combustion to produce energy. This is only getting worse as nations like China and India ramp up their industrialization. Folks in these countries are just at the point where they all want to own cars and drive everywhere. We have 400 million people in the USA. They have three times our number. If the US went "green" tomorrow and completely ceased use of fossil fuels for cars and electricity - somehow - we can be assured that in a few years China will make up the difference with its rapidly expanding economy and fuel use.
I propose that this method of fixing global warming is impossible to actually implement. Also scientists predict that complete implementation of their best models for cap and trade would require over a hundred years to lower earth temperatures by half a degree.
This method will only enrich lawyers and politicians and give scientists who toe the line welfare jobs for life. It won't actually fix anything.
2. ??!!!!
What's our second plan? Why haven't more solutions to this "critical" problem been proposed?
I've heard several that had a chance of working, but I'd like to see what the patnet community can come up with.
Also I'm sure that some people will say that I'm wrong about cap and trade being a totally non-viable solution. If you're in that camp, you need to give good reasons!
The world may be dying. How can we fix it?
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,267 comments
31 male
Premium
Quigley says
time out. you mean that won't work? WE ARE FUCKED
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
leoj707 says
Nuclear power would at least *slow* CO2 emissions by replacing coal power.
Follow
Befriend (2)
17 threads
443 comments
Reston, VA
Conserve: Eat less meat. Drive less by combining trips, some telecommuting, etc., thermostat regulation, stop building Taj Ma Houses, grow some food, stop buying useless crap that wears out or goes out of fashion every other year.
Energy: develop biomass, solar, nuclear, wind, etc.
Knovel technology: sequestration, transport efficiency, new alt energy
Transport: public transport, some more walking/biking
Buildings: much better insulation when warranted by local need (best energy savings per buck)
Socio/economic: get people to believe, care, and implement these ideas instead of using everything under the sun as a reason to argue politics. Get economic systems in place to encourage action.
Personally, I think that the social issue is the biggest hurdle. Plenty of scientists are working on ways to reduce global warming and quantify this benefit. They may not get as much press as the climatologists and political summit-goers, but they are there.
As far as China and India go, we in the US need to set an example. We can hardly wag our fat fingers at the Chinese while we are stuffing our faces with meat, driving SUVs all over the place, and buying and using half of the products that they are producing. When China burns coal to make steel for a product used in the US, we can hardly complain about "their" global warming emissions. Europe and Japan are trying to lead. We need to join them and hope that we can succeed. By the way, there are a lot of successful stories of energy saving programs in Chindia and Europe that we in the US could learn from.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
Leoj707: "There are only two solutions."
It's this kind of thinking that ensures we never will find a workable solution. CO2 is hardly the only greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Methane also works that way, and water vapor is more effective at 1)solar radiation shielding, and 2) trapping infrared radiation than CO2 by a factor of 100. Why then, only focus on this one gas when attempting to cool the planet? One different idea was cloud formation over key oceanic positions.
Freak80: yes nuclear is an option, for certain nations. Others like Iran, well, everyone seems to get their panties in a wad when they do it. Nuclear is pretty safe and mostly carbon neutral. For achieving the goal of producing less CO2 for our mass energy needs, it is about the only option.
Follow
Befriend (5)
32 threads
2,344 comments
Premium
Quigley says
There have been several interesting ideas, but they don't favor either major political party. The Republicans insist that global warming is not occurring, even though it is. The Democrats recognize that it is occurring, but their only proposal is to raise taxes on carbon, which won't solve the problem at all, thus enabling the same policy to be repeated. (It's the logic of any failed policy, including most wars: "step one, use force; when that doesn't work, use more force.")
Pollution in the 1970s led to more cloud formation, which caused global cooling. It also caused serious problems like acid rain, so I'm not recommending deliberate pollution as a way of forming clouds, but there are probably better ways. Others have proposed arrays of small mirrors in orbit; the mirrors could rotate to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching areas that are suffering from heatwaves.
Methane can be reduced if we stop subsidizing beef, which is unhealthy anyway. Both major parties insist on subsidizing the most unhealthy foods. Also we should find some way of picking up the frozen methane off the ocean floor so it can be burned as fuel, maybe robotic crabs or something, because the methane sublimates and bubbles up to the atmosphere. There is a huge amount of it off the southeast coast of the U.S., so much in fact that some people have suggested it may account for some of the unusual number of boats lost in the "Bermuda Triangle." Emitting less methane, and burning more of it, would accomplish a lot more than trying to reduce carbon.
We could also stop recycling paper. That policy began in the 1970s, to "save trees," because at the time the lumber companies were not doing a good enough job of re-planting. Today most paper comes from sustainably harvested forests, so recycling paper to "save trees" makes as much sense as quitting bread to "save wheat." Trees are carbon sinks. Instead of using energy (and emitting carbon) to recycle old paper, we should grow more trees to produce new paper.
Free advice, worth every penny. It doesn't fit a major party's trench warfare talking points, so it will be ignored.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
Unless one is correct, assuming that C02 is not the major contributor to global climate change will lead to a high probability that workable solutions will not be found. We first need to agree on what is causing the warming in the first place.
I am well aware of the effect that water vapor and methane has on warming. That said, recent study has found that C02 is the major contributor to climate change. That is why the scientific community has focused on C02, not the other gasses.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Yes, it would slow CO2 emissions, but slowing them is not a solution.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
YesYNot says
I think the economics is the biggest hurdle. It is so much cheaper to just keep burning fossil fuels. That and the massive valuation we put on fossil fuel producers.
Here is an article that explains -- far better than I could -- the economic reasons why we will not stop using fossil fuels:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
curious2 says
Ug, thank you! It is nice to hear someone else say this.
I always get very skeptical looks (and sometimes straight out stink-eye) when I bring up the futility of recycling paper.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
curious2 says
You mean like the "defining marriage as 1 man + 1 woman = hate" talking point? ;-)
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
leoj707 says
Recycling paper does seem pretty silly doesn't it? I suppose if it's cheaper than harvesting "fresh" trees it wakes sense, but not otherwise.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Also, and/or if it caused less pollution to recycle than harvest, but it does not.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Or, perhaps a "marriage of 1 man + 1 man = unholy, against nature and disgusting to boot" talking point.
;)
Follow
Befriend (5)
32 threads
2,344 comments
Premium
leoj707 says
Actually, we really don't, and if our other intractable disagreements are any indication it's probably better just to skip that step and consider what can we agree on. Climate has always changed, for various reasons, and we have no way of managing the process currently. Those who believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years (which alas most Republicans insist it's younger than) can also agree that climate change can exterminate the dominant species, e.g. large dinosaurs perished because they could not cope with global cooling. If we could somehow quit shouting about blame and denial, we might re-direct attention towards solutions.
Follow
Befriend (28)
182 threads
4,616 comments
Premium
The US needs to nuke 5 billion people who don't belong here.
Then claim eminent domain over the depopulated lands of the earth.
Then enslave non-US-citizen survivors.
If Romney puts this in his election campaign platform, guaranteed he'll win.
Follow
Befriend (5)
32 threads
2,344 comments
Premium
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
That's an idea, combat global warming by inducing nuclear winter. BTW, the Mormons are also "preppers," with warehouses full of food and other supplies, for Mormons only of course.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
curious2 says
I agree that we need to stop the "shouting game", but we also need to agree on the cause of global warming. If everyone agrees that it is a problem that needs to be urgently dealt with, great! But, if half the people stubbornly believe that the only solution is to put smoke scrubbers on volcanoes and kill all other solutions then we have not solved anything.
But, yes we first need to agree that it is a problem in the first place. Then second we need to agree on the cause.
*tick-tock*
We, have still yet to agree that it is a major problem.
*tick-tock*
...
*tick-tock*
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
" the only solution is to put smoke scrubbers on volcanoes"
I think you're either getting this wrong intentionally or you really don't understand what has been proposed. To give a current example, the volcano in Iceland that erupted two years ago did a real number on weather here in the Northern hemisphere for a year or two. Here we had one of the coolest summers on record with the most rainfall as well. That helped end a years-long drought here in California that had reservoirs nearly dry and farmland turning into a dust bowl. That was one volcano. It spewed millions of tons of bad shit into the atmosphere, closed airports in Europe for about a month, and cooled the Earth appreciably, if temporarily.
Why not learn from Nature? We wouldn't even have to close any airports! Here's the link to a wall street journal article regarding this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
Neither, I was only using that comment as an example of how the cause of global warming needs to be agreed upon, and a large enough group that will only accept a non-solution (scrubbers on volcanoes) will lead to no solution. Even if the magnitude of the problem is agreed upon by all.
Quigley says
Yes, I am familiar with the idea of purposefully spewing particulates into the atmosphere in order to block out the sun and strike a balance. (FYI, Rush Limbaugh used to push the idea that volcano's were the cause of global warming -- not man)
As stated earlier in this thread pushing particulates into the air can cause a host of other problems. Due to the highly questionable nature of this type of solution I would need to see more data on the side effects before I would consider it to be an acceptable approach.
curious2 says
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
You say particulates. That's not the proposed solution. It's putting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere where it can act as an insulator. We already spew billions of tons of this into the lower atmosphere. This would just be redirecting it a few miles higher, where rather than causing acid rain it would cool the planet down. Think of it as a volcano MINIS the particulates.
Actually, this "wait and see" approach you recommend here is pretty nonsensical. On the on hand you say that the worldwide cap and trade idea is next to impossible, which I agree with. And you conclude that since this proposed solution ( assuming it would even work) is unworkable, the planet is doomed.
Along comes this new idea to save the planet in a different way and you want to cherry pick "side effects?"
That's like an appendicitis sufferer scheduled for surgery electing to postpone until some other solution can be found that doesn't leave a scar.
Ridiculous!
Follow
Befriend (5)
32 threads
2,344 comments
Premium
Quigley says
Most appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics; no surgery, no scar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17611098
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
How do you guarantee that it is going to stay up in the upper atmosphere? A planet sized cloud of sulfur dioxide is not something that we want drifting down on us.
Quigley says
Wait and see? Where did I advocate that approach? I would love a miracle solution to come along, but I think the probability of that is very low.
Quigley says
You mean the solution of creating a stable shield of sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere? I think the idea of putting huge satellite mirrors to deflect sunlight is probably a cheaper and more realistic lasting solution.
Quigley says
I would not call this idea "new" it has been around for many years, and I have yet to hear a version of it that sounds like a workable solution. We don't even have a way that we could get the required amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, let alone know the implications of it all floating back down on us.
I would love to see a study that shows how a "shell" of sulfur dioxide could be created at just the right altitude that it would not float back down to earth yet not so far out that it just drifts out into space, and at the same time be thick enough to "shield" the earth.
Quigley says
No it is nothing like that. The surgery for appendicitis has a proven success rate will well documented prognosis. We don't even know how we could even get the sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere let alone what it would do the the planet. The "cure" could very well end up being worse than the disease.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,655 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
There's an extremely slim chance that scientists in the future can solve global warming by injecting aerosol particulate pollution directly into the upper atmosphere via VERY tall towers (or balloons) located around the earth, and take advantage of global cooling to offset global warming. The idea is you make the upper earth atmosphere more reflective.
I think this would work, but I don't think humans are going to be smart enough or unified enough to ever attempt it. There's an equally small chance that scientists will screw up, that they will make a mistake in the reflectivity calculations, and take the planet into an ice age. This argument will be used to defeat the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
Yes, it is reason 12 on this list as to why we might not want to geoengineer the atmosphere.
"12. Human error. Complex mechanical
systems never work perfectly. Humans
can make mistakes in the design,
manufacturing, and operation of
such systems. (Think of Chernobyl,
the Exxon Valdez, airplane crashes, and
friendly fire on the battlefield.) Should
we stake the future of Earth on a much
more complicated arrangement than
these, built by the lowest bidder?"
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
If you are actually interested in weighing the pros and cons of pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere you may want to read this paper:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
I am still unconvinced that the risks are worth the benefits of trying it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,655 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
It's a catch22. By the time it becomes clear that desperate measures are necessary, the world will not be in any position to spend billions of dollars on a project that right wing nuts will claim isn't going to work.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
Desperate measures are needed today, by the time it becomes clear that desperate measures were needed in 2012 it will be too late for desperate measures.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,655 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
That's pretty much why I'm going to watch the show and assume the human race is going to destroy the planet. I don't think there is any salvation here.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
2,455 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Oh for God's sake!
Phase 1 - raise a gazillion dollars to fund project. (Mr Gates or Mr Buffet should be able to fund this without even having to move a decimal point in their checkbooks.)
Phase 2 - build a giant drill in Yellowstone or other comparable super caldera
Phase 3 - drill down a few thousand feet to just above the magma chamber
Phase 4 - detonate a series of super H bombs to open the drill hole to a reasonable size. A gigaton of energy should about do it.
The chamber pressure will be released, the chamber will erupt, and billions of gallons of SO2 and sunlight reflecting ash will be released into the stratosphere. Temperatures around the world will drop to ice age levels. Elephants will revert to mammoths and mastodons, panthers to sabertoothed cats, puppy dogs to dire wolves and somehow terror birds will again roam the plains of the world. The few humans remaining will revert to hairy, smelly beasts dwelling in the dark recesses of caves.
AGW problem solved, you're welcome.
Follow
Befriend (9)
436 threads
4,261 comments
Baltimore, MD
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
You could do the same thing with a plague, and not get any of the blame.
Follow
Befriend (9)
436 threads
4,261 comments
Baltimore, MD
iwog says
I thought that reflective surfaces orbiting the earth directing the suns energy away from the planet would work. I think I saw this on an episode of ??? (Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama,???).
And I'm not referring to this one:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
2,455 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
At $15k/lb to launch ANYTHING just into low earth orbit I don't think the mirror idea is a good one.
It'd be shredded by all the crap whizzing around the earth in short order anyway.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
Maybe this issue is being revisited?
Does anyone still believe that the US has the power to reduce global carbon emissions?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
Alone? no.
With a "coalition of the willing"? yes.
Can emissions be reduced without the US in cooperation? no.
Will the US make any serious effort to reduce emissions? no.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
CO2 to oil is ridiculous. Any chemist could tell you that the energy required to deoxidize a molecule is >>> the reverse. So it would be like riding a wagon down a hill and when you get to the bottom, you have to push it back up the hill. Except it just rained and the ground is now muddy and it's going to be a real bitch.
Also the space elevator is a brilliant concept but there are many many unsolved engineering problems with it, besides the fact that it would cost about the GNP of the US for a year or more.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
Ok since this idiot deleted my comment in his thread I will repost it here. WARNING: do not post comments on any of his threads! He deletes anyone who disagrees.
KarlRoveIsScum deleted this comment of yours:
He's right. The US contributes only 16% of worldwide carbon emissions, and our emissions have decreased over the last decade thanks to more efficient technology and alternative energy sources being developed. This has all been done without the carbon tax proposed by al gore and his ilk. However the carbon output of the rest of the world has increased dramatically, as developing nations like china, Indonesia, India, and the rest of Asia has required more energy consumption to fuel their industry.
The only reason that they signed the treaty that we did not was that it gave them a free pass to pollute. These developing nations will not sign a treaty that requires them to pay a global commission to oversee their carbon emissions.
The carbon emissions worldwide will only increase from here. This, as rational humans, we must accept as fact. What to do about it is another issue. Clearly attacking emissions with sheer political effort will not work. Technology may help tho. Several proposals for decreasing worldwide temperatures have been made that would work, with minimal environmental blowback.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
576 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
Yes fine, I didn't read your linked article. Algae production of fuel isn't that new. The idea has been around for a decade. The energy required comes from the sun, which is cool, but you need lots of sun and thus lots of land to make this work. Making fuel this way that is competitive with fossil fuels could be tricky. Certainly it's worth doing tho.
By the way, this is my thread and I will delete the shit out of posts you make here that are 1) offensive and/or name calling, 2) repetitive, or 3) too numerous. Try to fit your thoughts into fewer posts. Unlike you, I don't delete posts simply because I don't agree with them.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,102 comments
Quigley says
Funny thing that the cows and goats in India produce far more gases.
Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html
Now, however, India's ubiquitous cows — of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world — are assuming a more menacing role as they become part of the climate-change debate.
By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.
With new research suggesting that methane emission by Indian livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete smaller amounts of the offensive gas. (See pictures of India's largest ruminant: the Asian elephant.)
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
Earlier in this thread...
leo707 says
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
2,115 comments
Plan B: Joel Salatin (featured in the Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan) claims that his 'solar powered (aka grass fed)' animal farming operations sequester carbon. He mimics natural processes (moving, mobbing and mowing) to run an more efficient livestock operation. Neighbors have allowed him to run animals on their property to renew spent land; one of the byproducts of his operations is new soil. He bills himself as a Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-capitalist-lunatic-farmer; it's definitely worthwhile if you can hear him speak in person (or check him out on Youtube). His net sequestration comments should be viewed with a healthy skepticism, but they're certainly worth further investigation.