How can we mitigate global warming?

[lynnvinc]

facebook.com/notes/west-antarctic-ice-sheet/proposal-for-the-creation-of-a-quebec-provincial-currency-unit-to-save-coastal-c/373261199364486
Proposal for the creation of a Quebec provincial currency unit to save coastal communities from threat of rising ocean levels
In my opinion it is going to cost trillions of dollars to do what needs to be done to protect towns like Truro, and Antigonish, Nova Scotia from the consequences of the cracking and sliding of a large part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the land based Greenland Ice Pack into the ocean.

The province of Alberta attempted to create its own provincial currency unit during The Great Depression but enormous pressure was exerted to ensure that their experiment in monetary policy was unsuccessful.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party

The province of Quebec seems to be in much better position to create its own provincial currency unit without facing the massive backlash from the financial community and federal government that Alberta experienced.

Dr. James Hansen has stated that the last time that global temperatures rose by three degrees ocean levels rose by 25 meters over four centuries. Canada and the world are NOT yet prepared for ocean rise of one meter every twenty years.

Nearly one hundred million people in Bangladesh alone will become climate change refugees in the event of merely a one meter rise in ocean levels!

This points to the issue that while the vast majority of measures to mitigate AGW save money (immediately, in the short- or long-run) or do not cost, measures to adapt to the consequences of AGW are extremely expensive – imagine building a dike around Florida.

Now, it is not projected that the sea will rise 3 feet (one meter) in the next twenty years, but that is the high-end projection for 2100 in a business-as-usual scenario. Of course, once the process gets really underway within 100 years, I’m thinking it could be a 1 meter rise every 20 years thereafter (I can look that up, or ask my scientist friends).

Unfortunately there is already a lot of warming “in the pipes” from what we have already emitted – one study suggests 2.4C warming.* And our human industrial GHG emissions – which only slightly warm the earth/atmosphere, causing greater H2O evaporation and the great positive feedback from water vapor – could in a short time lead to enough warming to trigger positive feedbacks, such as melting snow & ice (which is now covering darker land and seas), leading to greater heat absorption and greater snow/ice loss, etc; and melting frozen permafrost and ocean hydrates, thereby releasing vast gigatons of methane (CH4) & CO2, leading to greater warming, leading to greater CH4 release, etc. These processes are already starting. It’s sort of like we are on the verge of tipping over that domino that will lead to a chain reaction beyond our control. So there is not a lot of time to mitigate so as to reduce extreme harms (many harms already being “in the pipes”), and since it takes years to implement all the GHG reducing, money-saving/no-cost meaures (it took us 22 years to reduce our GHG emissions cost-effectively 70% below our 1990 emissions – and there are still many things we can and should do), we need to really get to work fast.

I’m also hoping and praying that some of the strategies for drawing down CO2 can be ramped up and made effective and not too costly (and their risks reduced) – like biochar, etc.

We, or rather our progeny will still have to adapt as best they can in a vicious killer musical chairs world of diminshing life-sustaining resources – either one that is possibly life terminating in the long run (if we fail to mitigate), or one that is bad but liveable for at least a portion of humanity (if we mitigate), or perhaps one that is not too bad and liveable for most people (if we mitigate and the CO2 draw-down measures work).

AGW is a problem without a one silver-bullet solution. We need to do all we can, many many different thing – including taking hankies for wiping hands in public restrooms and reusable shopping bags – and offer constant prayers.

---

*Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(38): 14245-14250. pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.full.pdf+html

 

[vz71]

This points to the issue that while the vast majority of measures to mitigate AGW save money (immediately, in the short- or long-run) or do not cost, measures to adapt to the consequences of AGW are extremely expensive – imagine building a dike around Florida.

You are assuming 2 different things here.

1. That sea levels are really going to rise.
2. that people wouldn’t simply move out of the way if they do.

Now, it is not projected that the sea will rise 3 feet (one meter) in the next twenty years, but that is the high-end projection for 2100 in a business-as-usual scenario.

A good way to look at it though is to ask yourself just how many of these predictions have proven false compared to the number that have proven true.
Thus far, I have seen a high enough ratio of inaccurate prediction to accurate that I feel safe placing bets that they simply do not know.

Unfortunately there is already a lot of warming “in the pipes” from what we have already emitted – one study suggests 2.4C warming.* And our human industrial GHG emissions – which only slightly warm the earth/atmosphere, causing greater H2O evaporation and the great positive feedback from water vapor – could in a short time lead to enough warming to trigger positive feedbacks, such as melting snow & ice (which is now covering darker land and seas), leading to greater heat absorption and greater snow/ice loss, etc; and melting frozen permafrost and ocean hydrates, thereby releasing vast gigatons of methane (CH4) & CO2, leading to greater warming, leading to greater CH4 release, etc.

The process you describe has already happened once in the past.
Yet it reversed. No one knows why it stopped. No one knows why it started.
I would think these answers would be fundemental to being able to accurately claim anything. How can we lay claim to some kind of environmental feedback loop without a full understanding of it?

These processes are already starting. It’s sort of like we are on the verge of tipping over that domino that will lead to a chain reaction beyond our control.

The climate has never been in our control.

So there is not a lot of time to mitigate so as to reduce extreme harms (many harms already being “in the pipes”), and since it takes years to implement all the GHG reducing, money-saving/no-cost meaures (it took us 22 years to reduce our GHG emissions cost-effectively 70% below our 1990 emissions – and there are still many things we can and should do), we need to really get to work fast.

But again, without a clear understanding of what is going on, how can we possibly know the best way to stop it?
For that matter, how can we know if it is happening at all? Or if it is, that we can actually effect it? Or that we should?
Remember, for every action, there is an opposite reaction. So if we really take on an activity designed to alter the climate, what exactly is that going to cause?

AGW is a problem without a one silver-bullet solution. We need to do all we can, many many different thing – including taking hankies for wiping hands in public restrooms and reusable shopping bags – and offer constant prayers.

I disagree.
I have seen no evidence that points to AGW.
Further, I think it unwise to embark in actions that we do not know the consequence for.

But on a tangential thought…Assuming for a second man is capable of effectively controlling the climate of the planet, what exactly should the climate be?
What country will be saddled with an arid climate to allow others to have a wet climate? Who will decide the average temperature? Will they be held responsible for crop failures, flooding, famine, disease, and any of a slew of other catastrophes attributable to the climate?
Would such a power be considered a wepon of mass destruction?

 

[lynnvinc]

You are assuming 2 different things here.

1. That sea levels are really going to rise.
2. that people wouldn’t simply move out of the way if they do.

A good way to look at it though is to ask yourself just how many of these predictions have proven false compared to the number that have proven true.
Thus far, I have seen a high enough ratio of inaccurate prediction to accurate that I feel safe placing bets that they simply do not know.

The process you describe has already happened once in the past.
Yet it reversed. No one knows why it stopped. No one knows why it started.
I would think these answers would be fundemental to being able to accurately claim anything. How can we lay claim to some kind of environmental feedback loop without a full understanding of it?

The climate has never been in our control.

But again, without a clear understanding of what is going on, how can we possibly know the best way to stop it?
For that matter, how can we know if it is happening at all? Or if it is, that we can actually effect it? Or that we should?
Remember, for every action, there is an opposite reaction. So if we really take on an activity designed to alter the climate, what exactly is that going to cause?

I disagree.
I have seen no evidence that points to AGW.
Further, I think it unwise to embark in actions that we do not know the consequence for.

But on a tangential thought…Assuming for a second man is capable of effectively controlling the climate of the planet, what exactly should the climate be?
What country will be saddled with an arid climate to allow others to have a wet climate? Who will decide the average temperature? Will they be held responsible for crop failures, flooding, famine, disease, and any of a slew of other catastrophes attributable to the climate?
Would such a power be considered a wepon of mass destruction?

I guess we’re getting our science from different sources

Though I do agree that the processes of initial warming (whatever its cause) melting permafrost and hydrates and reducing albedo (snow/ice coverage), leading to much greater warming has happened in the past – like during the end-Permian great warming and extinction event in which 90%+ of life on earth died. And also during the PETM, another extinction level warming event. And other times too. Nothing to smile about though.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s some HYPERMILING tips – some of which you all may be able to put into practice and save $$, while saving the earth Most are applicable for regular ICE (gasoline) cars, hybrids, and EVs.

This is based on (but with my changes) [www.gasolinecreditcards.com/ecotrekker/2008/03/04/ the-ultimate-guide-to-hypermiling-100-driving-and-car-tips-and-resources/](www.gasolinecreditcards.com/ecotrekker/2008/03/04/ the-ultimate-guide-to-hypermiling-100-driving-and-car-tips-and-resources/)

DRIVING TIPS

1. 
   *]Very slow starts & stops: Cars weigh a lot, and it takes a lot of energy to get them to start and stop due to momentum (velocity x weight). Think of an exponential curve as you begin your start or stop; once you have (or have reduced) momentum you can speed up or slow down more quickly without wasting enormous energy (gas or electricity). Coasting & slow stops also save your brakes.
   *]Drive at a constant speed once you are at the speed you wish to go.
   *]Drive a stick shift: this saves gas/money.
   *]Stop speeding: The harder you press the gas pedal, the more gas you’re using. If you’re driving over the speed limit, you might save time, but you’re definitely wasting gas and money. Slow down a little if you can so that you’re driving at or just below the actual speed limit.
   *]Coast instead of braking: When you see a stop sign up ahead or a traffic light turning yellow, immediately take your foot off the gas and let your vehicle slow down by itself. If you wait until the last possible minute to brake, then you’re wasting gas.
   *]Cruise Control: One automatic setting that actually helps hypermiling is cruise control, which prevents “you from “creeping” up in speed without realizing it.”
   *]Put your car in neutral: Coasting with your car in neutral takes the burden off your gas pedal preventing you from wasting fuel. If you’re not driving in heavy traffic, experiment with this effective money saver.
   *]Lighten the load: The heavier your car is, the harder it has to work to propel itself forward. Empty out your trunk and backseat of ice chests, beach chairs, and other items that you’re not using to lighten the load.
   *]Keep your gas tank half or less full if you are doing local, short-distance driving: a full tank weighs a lot and costs more to haul.
   *]Run multiple errands and plan your trips to avoid back-tracking and extra mileage.
   *]Find a route that’s easy on your vehicle: A story in the Washington Post discusses the benefits of “optimiz[ing] your route” when implementing hypermiling tricks. Instead of taking the scenic route to work, which could include more hills, twists, and dips, try finding a route that features level roads and less traffic lights or stop signs. Generally, “a longer route with better driving conditions” can use “less gas.”
   *]Roll down the windows if you’re not on the highway: After the scorching summer temperatures have retreated, stop blasting the AC and roll down your windows. According to Drive.com.au, “Air-conditioning increases fuel consumption by about 10 percent but winding down the windows increases drag, which is also an enemy of good fuel consumption.” If you’re going to be on the highway, keeping your A/C on low is still a good idea.
   *]Turn off the car before putting it in park: Joe Future suggests turning off your vehicle before putting it in park to save gas. If you don’t, “the gas engine will come on before you shut off the car.”
   *]Turn off the engine in drive-thrus: If you are going to be waiting more than 15 seconds, it pays to turn the engine off
   
   MAINTENANCE TIPS
   1. 
      *]Get an oil change: Keeping up with scheduled oil changes will help your engine run more easily. Adequate oil levels and lower-weight oil can also make a difference in how quickly your vehicle burns fuel
      *]Check your tire pressure: Tires that are beginning to lose air and go flat put more stress on your engine, making it work harder and burn more fuel. Keep a tire gauge in your car and frequently check the tire pressure.
      *]Engine Control Module: Your vehicle’s engine control module “controls various aspects of an internal combustion engine’s operation,” including the amount of fuel being used by the engine, the ignition timing, and the variable valve timing. Making sure your engine control module is working properly will help you gauge how much fuel your car is using on a regular basis.
      *]Tire Balance: If your tires aren’t balanced correctly, you could end up wearing out certain tires faster than others, causing them to lose air and forcing your engine to work harder. Get a check-up for your tires if you think yours are out of whack.
      *]Conduct a seasonal check up: During the winter, your car could become bogged down with extra weight from snow chains, heavier tires, or other items. During the summer, you’ll probably be using your air conditioner nearly every day. Before each season, give your car a check up to unburden it of needless weight and to make sure the engine, A/C and other systems are in proper order.

 

[vz71]

Drive a stick shift: this saves gas/money.

I have found that anymore, a lot of the higher end cars do not have a real manual transmission. The shift is really a system request to shift, and it may or may not actually shift.

As the axiom goes…your mileage may vary.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I just plain don’t believe in MMGW. I guess that makes me a “denier”.

But regardless, a lot of carbon can be sequestered by cutting old trees and selecting for “adolescent” trees. For hardwoods around here anyway, “adolescents” are trees that measure 15" in diameter, 15" above the ground. They’re the fast growers. Older trees are slow growers. Healthy “adolescents” will grow more in 10 years than an old or crowded tree will grow in 100 years. So, you cut the old ones and the junk ones and the diseased ones down, and “sequester” the carbon in houses, furniture, pallets and railroad ties. Besides, you can select species while you’re doing it, selecting the best acclimated for your region, as well as the ones that are more valuable and support wildlife. (usually, also, the best acclimated) Those are usually the species that were there when the settlers arrived.

Instead, it seems, what we do is let state and federal forests go bad; keeping old non-growing trees until they fall and are consumed in catastrophic fires that pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air. Most “adolescent” trees are actually fire-resistant if they’re healthy, and they rarely drop dead branches.

That’s my particular contribution even though i dont believe in MMGW. I do it for fun because I don’t like seeing good resources wasted and like to see fast-growing, healthy, valuable timber growing.

And, when you get down to it, trees are a really good temperature control mechanism. They shade the ground and expire moisture into the air to cool the leaves. They also “eat” sunshine. That’s why it’s cooler to walk in the woods than it is to walk in a field, and most definitely cooler than walking on asphalt or concrete surrounded by masonry buildings.

So, when are the MMGW enthusiasts going to pull up all the asphalt and concrete and tear down the cities? Even bare dirt is cooler because it expires moisture too. And when the grass grows where the streets and buildings were, it will “eat” sunshine and keep things cooler, though trees would be better. People in cities could dig holes in the ground to live in. That would save a lot of heating and cooling energy. To be consistent, MMGW people really need to do those things.

 

[lynnvinc]

I have found that anymore, a lot of the higher end cars do not have a real manual transmission. The shift is really a system request to shift, and it may or may not actually shift.

As the axiom goes…your mileage may vary.

I was thinking of leaving that out, but then thought some people might go for it. That’s all I ever drove as a young person many decades ago, but it’s not for everyone.

 

[lynnvinc]

I just plain don’t believe in MMGW. I guess that makes me a “denier”.

But regardless, a lot of carbon can be sequestered by cutting old trees and selecting for “adolescent” trees. For hardwoods around here anyway, “adolescents” are trees that measure 15" in diameter, 15" above the ground. They’re the fast growers. Older trees are slow growers. Healthy “adolescents” will grow more in 10 years than an old or crowded tree will grow in 100 years. So, you cut the old ones and the junk ones and the diseased ones down, and “sequester” the carbon in houses, furniture, pallets and railroad ties. Besides, you can select species while you’re doing it, selecting the best acclimated for your region, as well as the ones that are more valuable and support wildlife. (usually, also, the best acclimated) Those are usually the species that were there when the settlers arrived.

Instead, it seems, what we do is let state and federal forests go bad; keeping old non-growing trees until they fall and are consumed in catastrophic fires that pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air. Most “adolescent” trees are actually fire-resistant if they’re healthy, and they rarely drop dead branches.

That’s my particular contribution even though i dont believe in MMGW. I do it for fun because I don’t like seeing good resources wasted and like to see fast-growing, healthy, valuable timber growing.

And, when you get down to it, trees are a really good temperature control mechanism. They shade the ground and expire moisture into the air to cool the leaves. They also “eat” sunshine. That’s why it’s cooler to walk in the woods than it is to walk in a field, and most definitely cooler than walking on asphalt or concrete surrounded by masonry buildings.

So, when are the MMGW enthusiasts going to pull up all the asphalt and concrete and tear down the cities? Even bare dirt is cooler because it expires moisture too. And when the grass grows where the streets and buildings were, it will “eat” sunshine and keep things cooler, though trees would be better. People in cities could dig holes in the ground to live in. That would save a lot of heating and cooling energy. To be consistent, MMGW people really need to do those things.

I saw this neat segment on mule-logging, used by private landowners to log their mature hardwood trees, leaving the adolescents and babies unharmed. The loggers would cut down the mature trees, and then chain them up to a mule, that would pull them out to where the truck was to haul the logs away. It was a great, and they made good money, without harm to their forest, even though it may not have been as efficient as those monster machines that mow down whole forests, baby trees and all, leaving a moonscape that turns into a mudslide next deluge.

Your idea is really great, but it might not be profitable for pine or cheap-wood forests, only for expensive-wood forests. Then the wood can be used for furniture, etc.

 

[vz71]

I suppose it could reduce carbon emissions a great deal if we started utilizing nuclear energy to a greater degree.

Sort of the opposite end here. Rather then reducing energy consumption, increase the efficiency of the production.

 

[lynnvinc]

…So, when are the MMGW enthusiasts going to pull up all the asphalt and concrete and tear down the cities? Even bare dirt is cooler because it expires moisture too. And when the grass grows where the streets and buildings were, it will “eat” sunshine and keep things cooler, though trees would be better. People in cities could dig holes in the ground to live in. That would save a lot of heating and cooling energy…

There’s lots that being done and being suggested for cities. First of all, they figure the “carbon footprint” of urban dwellers is less than that of rural and suburban dwellers, I think bec of the shorter distances they need to travel.

It’s suggested that roofs and roads should be made white to reflect the sun.


There are also roof-top greening projects for city roofs, “green roofs,” like having a garden on the roof.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/green-roof-save-money-1.jpg

I saw one on TV where they had a vegetable garden and the restaurant in the building served those veggies.

There are also other things, like “green walls” that cool the cities. See gardenopolis.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/growing-a-green-wall/


And then there are “green buildings” that are not only energy efficient with passive and active solar, insulation, etc, but they turn their garbage into energy and fertilizer for their green roofs. In one project they used pyrolisis to turn garbage into biochar that was plowed into

And there are city sewage projects that turn sewage into energy, fertilizer, and clean water…

And finally Abu Dhabi (where my nephews live) is building the first “carbon neutral” eco-city, Masdar. See masdar.ae/en/home/index.aspx

Info re its “positive energy” eco-headquarters: carboun.com/sustainable-development/sustainable-design/masdar-headquarters-the-first-positive-energy-building-in-the-middle-east/
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Innovative new world, we are here!

 

[mdgspencer]

I hate to be a wet rag, but to me the original question is like someone asking, how can I meet Santa Claus? I would hate to say this to someone who had a deep-set conviction about him, but there is no Santa Claus.
I have noticed that now people are talking about climate change rather than global warming. This might have something to do with the fraudulent ways the chief scientists promoting global warming have promulgated their views, as revealed by the media a year or so ago.

 

[vz71]

I hate to be a wet rag, but to me the original question is like someone asking, how can I meet Santa Claus? I would hate to say this to someone who had a deep-set conviction about him, but there is no Santa Claus.

Whether or not it exists, I believe it is a good idea to reduce waste as much as possible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There’s lots that being done and being suggested for cities. First of all, they figure the “carbon footprint” of urban dwellers is less than that of rural and suburban dwellers, I think bec of the shorter distances they need to travel.

It’s suggested that roofs and roads should be made white to reflect the sun.
http://tdubwhitney.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/white-roof.jpg

There are also roof-top greening projects for city roofs, “green roofs,” like having a garden on the roof.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/green-roof-save-money-1.jpg

I saw one on TV where they had a vegetable garden and the restaurant in the building served those veggies.

There are also other things, like “green walls” that cool the cities. See gardenopolis.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/growing-a-green-wall/

http://gardenopolis.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/greenwall18.jpg?w=490
And then there are “green buildings” that are not only energy efficient with passive and active solar, insulation, etc, but they turn their garbage into energy and fertilizer for their green roofs. In one project they used pyrolisis to turn garbage into biochar that was plowed into

And there are city sewage projects that turn sewage into energy, fertilizer, and clean water…

And finally Abu Dhabi (where my nephews live) is building the first “carbon neutral” eco-city, Masdar. See masdar.ae/en/home/index.aspx

Info re its “positive energy” eco-headquarters: carboun.com/sustainable-development/sustainable-design/masdar-headquarters-the-first-positive-energy-building-in-the-middle-east/
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hi9OfxGMI...SY/u63CHQLs5Oc/s400/Masdar+headquarters01.jpg
Innovative new world, we are here!

Interesting. Also interesting that a significant part of the U.S. is now covered with pavement and heat-absorbing materials of all kinds. One has to wonder just a bit what that adds to the air temperatures. I recall reading that some of the “warming” peoples’ temperature testing stations are near “heat sinks” like that. There might not be a whole lot more to know about “global warming” than that.

 

[mdgspencer]

While it is good to reduce waste, and actually I see that we should take care of our environment, what of the measures being taken to reduce the “carbon footprint” of industries? The measures that have begun to be implemented will drastically effect whole industries and it will mean trillions of dollars in costs. The very latest development may mean a world-wide trade war involving the airline industry, caused by the EU’s efforts to effect this industries’ “carbon footprint.”

Whether or not it exists, I believe it is a good idea to reduce
waste as much as possible.

 

[lynnvinc]

I hate to be a wet rag, but to me the original question is like someone asking, how can I meet Santa Claus? I would hate to say this to someone who had a deep-set conviction about him, but there is no Santa Claus.
I have noticed that now people are talking about climate change rather than global warming. This might have something to do with the fraudulent ways the chief scientists promoting global warming have promulgated their views, as revealed by the media a year or so ago.

There are actually 3 terms for it, and none of them are adequate:

• The Greenhouse effect – sounds warm and friendly
• Global Warming - people up north might like it a bit warmer
• Climate Change - people (confusing climate with weather) saying, yeah the climate changes all the time; we like to live in a place with seasons & leaves turning read and gold in fall.

It’s been suggested we need a word that captures the death and destruction we are headed toward, but I think words fail us.

The problem with “the Greenhouse Effect” term is that we’ve known for over 100 years about the natural greenhouse effect that has made life possible on earth – other wise we’d be 32C colder & no life.

The problem with “Global Warming” is that there is much more happening, not just warming, but also its knock-on effects & co-problems: droughts, floods, wildfires, disease spread, ocean acidification, etc.

Which brings us to “Climate Change.” I think that’s the term scientists prefer, but people who can’t distinguish climate from weather just don’t have the ability to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

There is also a new name for our geological epoch gaining traction: the Anthropocene (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene ) – following the Holocene, which lasted 12,000 years during which agriculture and civilization arose. Those are the things – agriculture and civilization – that are threatened by the new Anthropocene climate of hysteresis great warming, as well as massive extinction of species, which is currently underway at a rate never experienced before in earth’s history. A few scientists even warn we could push the system into a “Venus Syndrome” of runaway warming and end all life on earth, well before its scheduled demise when the sun gets too hot in about a billion years on its road to self-destruction.

If a person could just carry a hankie to wipe hands in public restrooms or say a little prayer now and then for life on earth. Maybe later think about implementing a few of the various solutions mentioned in this thread (and reap $100s or even $1000s in savings).

I don’t know if we can save ourselves from self-destruction, but I think it’s worth a little try.

 

[vz71]

While it is good to reduce waste, and actually I see that we should take care of our environment, what of the measures being taken to reduce the “carbon footprint” of industries? The measures that have begun to be implemented will drastically effect whole industries and it will mean trillions of dollars in costs. The very latest development may mean a world-wide trade war involving the airline industry, caused by the EU’s efforts to effect this industries’ “carbon footprint.”

I said reduce waste, not increase economic problems.

My specific POV I believe is better for the planet then any ‘green’ initiative.
Reduce waste, economic and otherwise, as much as possible and let the planet take care of itself.

 

[vz71]

It’s been suggested we need a word that captures the death and destruction we are headed toward, but I think words fail us.

Assuming you believe we are headed for destruction, there is a word.
Apocalypse.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Since the so-called global warming “disaster” is a natural cycle that has repeated several times in the past I suggest those wishing to “stop” it leave planet Earth.

 

[vz71]

Since the so-called global warming “disaster” is a natural cycle that has repeated several times in the past I suggest those wishing to “stop” it leave planet Earth.

Well there is something to wanting it stopped.

Looking at the history of the planet, the present climate works out well for us.
I am not so certain we want it changing back to anything else.

Of course, I left my climate control device in my sock drawer on the spaceship and am afraid I can do nothing to stop it…just as well. You don’t want people that haven’t a full understanding of the climate monkeying around with it.

 

[lynnvinc]

While it is good to reduce waste, and actually I see that we should take care of our environment, what of the measures being taken to reduce the “carbon footprint” of industries? The measures that have begun to be implemented will drastically effect whole industries and it will mean trillions of dollars in costs. The very latest development may mean a world-wide trade war involving the airline industry, caused by the EU’s efforts to effect this industries’ “carbon footprint.”

No, more like billions in savings without lowering productivity. That is, for companies that are willing to reap those savings (that also save the earth). I would never have believed it, except I was developing a course on “business and the environment” some 15 years ago and came across numerous remarkable stories:

3M’s 3P program, Pollution Prevention Pays. See solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-Sustainability/Global/Environment/3P/ . The company sent me a video in which the CEO had told all the workers from janitors, line workers, engineers, etc to come up with solutions to meet new regs coming into effect that would not cost too much; instead they came up with solutions that have saved them over a $billion.

One plating company in MA saw regs coming and knew it would have to drastically reduce its highly toxic pollution into the river. They tried various strategies, then finally hit upon a closed-loop water recycling system, whereby they kept using the same water, filtering out the toxins, which were actually valuable chemicals. They figured the savings in water would pay for the system within two years, but a few months after they installed it the city water main broke and there was no city water for 3 days, but the company was able to keep going, saving it enough money to pay for the system in those 3 days. (Note that reducing water consumption in this way also lower the carbon footprint, as it take energy to pump that water – much more than the energy for their system.)

I found many many other stories – some in which the company was able to stay afloat due to implementing environmental measures, and being able to reduce price of their product a bit and stay in the competition.

Another good source for ideas is natcap.org . If you are in a business that could benefit, it might be good to get the NATURAL CAPITALISM (which is fairly cheap on Amazon now).

I now really believe in miracles of all kinds. The only thing that worries me is us – the Fall in the Garden, then Cain & how we bear his mark (look, for instance, at all the abortions). That’s the tough part – us.