UH OH, Global cooling looming?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>dmd77; you bring up a very valid question. The “What If” factor. Because of economics, politics, technology, naivity, supply and demand, and other factors; mankind will find other sources of energy. Solar, hydro, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, etc… will become viable renewable energy sources that will be developed. It will, because it will be technologically and economically the right thing and what is needed. Consumers aren’t going to drive less or keep their homes cooler. The demand will still be there, but the consumer will fight the high prices. (That’s where the politics come in). The energy companies and such will realize that they have milked us for all they can using fossil fuels and will develope the other sources of energy.</p>

<p>It will reduce dramatically the human factor in CO2 contribution. (Not that it will have any real affect, because I don’t believe that humans make a significant contribution); but it will assist your concern non the less. Newer energies will be more technologically friendly. It will allow consumers to not have to “Refuel” as often, it will be cleaner (For non-global warming things like air, land, and water quality), it will be cheaper, and so on.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, for the immediate future; next 10 years; there will still be financial and political issues revolving around fossil fuels. The majority of the fossil fuel is used for producing electricity and at the industrial level. Approximately 60%. There’s also the politics of some countries where fossil fuels are their major gross domestic product. (How do you tell a middle eastern country; Venezuela, and others who’s major source of income is fossil fuels that no one is going to buy it anymore? Do you subsidize them like you currently do farmers? Do you let them go backwards economically; (Which leads to war)? Exactly how do you handle these fragile economies.</p>

<p>Yes, because of economics, poltics, and technology, new energy sources will be developed. Unfortunatelly, you can’t do it overnight.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>This is nonsense, pure and simple. I suppose if you don’t count a significant loss of even more jobs to China and India as “no harm” or increased costs of all goods making it even more difficult for the poor to survive as “no harm” then you may have a point. But, of course these are significant harms. The ironic thing is that the net effect of additional laws in the US to restrict CO2 emissions may have the net opposite effect. By shifting more production to China and India where the environmental laws are much more lax, not only will net CO2 emissions not be reduced, but other air and water pollution will also result.</p>

<p>Why is it that the left never sees the impact of secondary effects? With them it’s like a knee-jerk reaction - sock it to the big bad corporations (but ignore the fact that those same corporations are what employ our people and pass on their increased costs to us as increased costs of goods and services.)</p>

63

<p>Oops, FF, I guess I should have made it clear that my “we humans” include ALL of us, not just Americans.</p>

<p>I think we Americans have a responsibility to help developing countries develop in ways that don’t trash their countries as they produce cheap goods to export to us.</p>

64

<p>I think we Americans have a responsibility to help developing countries develop in ways that don’t trash their countries as they produce cheap goods to export to us.</p>

<p>You mean we can’t sell them our banned pesticides?
No more cheap cashmere?</p>

<p>[The</a> Seattle Times: Nation & World: That low-priced cashmere sweater has a hidden cost](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003498352_cashmere282.html]The”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003498352_cashmere282.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

65

<p>China plans to lead the world in the utilization of nuclear energy. Feel better?</p>

66

<p>China plans to lead the world in the utilization of nuclear energy. Feel better?
Yes actually- but protecting grassland still means no cheap cashmere.</p>

<p>[Wired</a> 12.09: Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom](<a href=“http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html]Wired”>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html)</p>

67

<p>Edad: as bizarre as it may seem to you that a radical left-wing Democrat might support the use of nuclear energy… I do. I even believe I have an answer to the waste disposal problem: I want to drop it into the Marianas trench, where it will be subducted and not return to the surface until time and radioactive decay has made it significantly less dangerous.</p>

68

<p>Actually, yes. I feel very comfortable with Nuclear.</p>

69

<p>Amazing. That is 3 for 3 supporting nuclear energy. I would assume that still means NIMBY.</p>

70

<p>[NCDC:</a> Climate of 2007 - Preliminary Annual Review](<a href=“http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html]NCDC:”>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html)</p>

71

<p>Not the old style nuclear plants-
but new technology has improved- perhaps youve heard.</p>

<p>[Seattle</a> Times Trinity Web](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/index.html#closer]Seattle”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/index.html#closer)</p>

<p>Incidentally, both Dmd77s D & mine attended the only college in the country where undergrads are the primary operators of their nuclear reactor.</p>

72

<p>We live close to a nuclear plant. They were protesting it 25 years ago. It is still operating and we are not glowing in the dark.</p>

73

<p>“Oops, FF, I guess I should have made it clear that my “we humans” include ALL of us, not just Americans.”</p>

<p>Well, certainly if the whole world signed up for reduction of CO2 it would change the dynamics to some extent, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon. In the mean time, any efforts by the US and Europe to reduce CO2 will have no positive impact on the environment and will likely cause more jobs to be shifted to Asia. If the candidates want to talk about Global Warming and what they plan to do about it, they should start with how they propose to get the WHOLE world to comply first and THEN talk about what they want to do reduce CO2 emissions. It’s kind of like the issue of illegal immigration - we need to be convinced that the borders are sealed before we can go to the next step.</p>

74

<p>edad,</p>

<p>I live pretty close to a nuclear plant now and lived close to one in Japan as well. I’m not exactly scared every night I fall asleep.</p>

<p>fundingfather,</p>

<p>Reduction in CO2 emissions doesn’t necessarily have to lead to such a dramatic as you suggested. There are clever ways (credits come to mind) to reduce emissions and still keep the GDPs growing. Not everyone on “the left” is blind to economics. </p>

<p>It’s also not like the West shouldn’t reduce emissions just because the Chinese and Indians won’t do so immediately. I mean, just because the Chinese violate human rights doesn’t give us a reason to do so as well. Leading by example and all that, right?</p>

75

<p>“I mean, just because the Chinese violate human rights doesn’t give us a reason to do so as well. Leading by example and all that, right?”</p>

<p>The difference being that observing human rights in the US is an independent event from what happens in China. That is not the case with CO2 reductions. A better analogy for that is “whack-a-mole” you can beat it down in the US but it will just come up in Asia. The net effect on the environment will be nil (or a net negative); the net effect on US jobs will be negative.</p>

76

<p>Yes, you are correct. However, it’s not necessarily true that CO2 controls here will absolutely send jobs to China. People seem to think that outsourcing is done flippantly-- it is not. There are ways to reduce emissions that won’t necessarily chase out jobs and production.</p>

77

<p>Jan. 7, 2008 set a record high for the day in my hometown.</p>

78

<p>[Year</a> of global cooling - - The Washington Times, America’s Newspaper](<a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140]Year”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140)</p>

<p>I believe it just snowed in Florida too.</p>

79

<p>Big deal. It was cold & snowy where I live in December. Lots of snow and record low temperatures. As another poster pointed out, records mean nothing, high or low.</p>

80

<p>And it snows just about every year in Hawaii too. Whether people call it global warming or global temperature change, they will still blame mankind for all of this. We are so much more powerful than mother nature. If it snows in Southern California, it’s mankind’s fault. If it’s a drought instead, it’s still mankind’s fault. It doesn’t matter if it’s too hot or too cold. Too dry or too wet. Too many hurricanes or not enough. No matter what, there will be those pointing out to say that it’s all mankind’s fault.</p>