Remember me
▼ Content

Is it Possible to Address the Problem?


Is it Possible to Address the Problem?20-06-2014 04:41
tarstarkus
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
I am new to the forum and this is my first post. I didn't notice a hello sub-forum, but I haven't used any forums that use this particular forum software so please forgive me if I missed it.

I don't dispute the problem, but I have thought about the problem a great deal and I just don't see how "we" can maintain our current lifestyles and energy consumption levels and cut CO2 emissions to zero barring some unforeseen technology from left field (a possibility that cannot be ruled out) that changes the game. Even if some game-changer came along, we would still most likely see rising co2 for decades.

What specific policies could any government come up with? A carbon tax is probably the most effective way to cut energy usage, but it would only be effective if it were worldwide, something that in my estimation is very unlikely.

I have a lot more to talk about, but I didn't want my very first post to be a long winded wall of text.

TT
12-08-2014 07:43
HollyM
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
For most of us, the Private Climate Policy forum might be better. But there doesn't seem to be much discussion going on here in general.
31-01-2015 02:25
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
tarstarkus wrote:
I am new to the forum and this is my first post. I didn't notice a hello sub-forum, but I haven't used any forums that use this particular forum software so please forgive me if I missed it.

I don't dispute the problem, but I have thought about the problem a great deal and I just don't see how "we" can maintain our current lifestyles and energy consumption levels and cut CO2 emissions to zero barring some unforeseen technology from left field (a possibility that cannot be ruled out) that changes the game. Even if some game-changer came along, we would still most likely see rising co2 for decades.

What specific policies could any government come up with? A carbon tax is probably the most effective way to cut energy usage, but it would only be effective if it were worldwide, something that in my estimation is very unlikely.

I have a lot more to talk about, but I didn't want my very first post to be a long winded wall of text.

TT


I can say that you really have a lot of ideas. The thing however is we are facing quite a complex problem. Something that cannot be easily solved by a single solution.

Rising C02 emission is just one thing. There are a lot more factors that contribute to our planet's over all health. These are complementary outputs of mankind's continued desire for technological advancement in all areas of life.

I think it would be better if we try to decompose the problem into simpler components and come up with multiple and highly efficient solutions to those rather than come up with a one solution fit all approach.
31-01-2015 12:37
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Perhaps CO2 emissions could be one of those smaller components. And since the production of the majority of our CO2 emissions involves concomitant emissions of other toxins, addressing this one small component would have synergistic impacts on other problems.
31-01-2015 15:48
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Abraham3 wrote:
Perhaps CO2 emissions could be one of those smaller components. And since the production of the majority of our CO2 emissions involves concomitant emissions of other toxins, addressing this one small component would have synergistic impacts on other problems.


Yeah, I agree with that. My point however is that we cannot just arrive at single solution to the CO2 emission problems. Its better for us to dissect it into smaller parts. Taking into consideration, what other issues contribute to this particular problem. Its like breaking the problem into smaller components.
01-02-2015 21:30
update
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
The worst air polluters are the highly destructive jet engines fixed to airliners and mainly used for pleasure purposes. If the jet engine had never been invented then aircraft would still be using propellers and we would not see so many people suffering from the medical impacts of climate change.
02-02-2015 01:04
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Jet engines are not the largest source either of pollution in general or of CO2
02-02-2015 05:53
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
update wrote:
The worst air polluters are the highly destructive jet engines fixed to airliners and mainly used for pleasure purposes. If the jet engine had never been invented then aircraft would still be using propellers and we would not see so many people suffering from the medical impacts of climate change.


hmm...that is an interesting point. Jet engines does contribute to C02 emission, but we can't say to what degree. Its highly unlikely that its the greatest contributor.

Also, I don't think that airliners are used for pleasure purposes. I mean it has helped in making air travel a lot more convenient and faster especially on long distances. I believe jet engines are more of an advantage to the world than a bane.




Join the debate Is it Possible to Address the Problem?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?513-03-2017 03:59
Articles
Ban Ki-Moon: Address to the UN Climate Change Conference
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Address to the United Nations on Global Climate Change
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact