Something to look forward to...

[Stormknife]

"And they would parachute into dangerous areas with fantastic makeup. And a fantastic gun! And the guys on the ground are all 'Hey, get a look a these guys! Suckers. They've got guns! They've got guns! Jesus! Where's my gun!"

</ Izzard>

[Vahene]

Well, every politician in power at the moment in the United States seems
to have the "let's not even try to do this, because we'll fail". There's still
oil in Texas and other southern states that could be dug for, but our
officials want to open a federally protected land reserve to dig for some in
Alaska. Go figure - I mean, who wants to protect the environment these
days anyway?

They have the attitude that if we dig, nothing will happen, because, after
all, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh and other die hard Republican radio
hosts, the greenhouse effect and global warming is an illusion, its political,
and it isn't happening. I'd like to ask, if its not happening, why are my
summers warmer and my winters colder? That must be an illusion too.

Ohio right now has 2 nuclear facilities (Perry and Toledo), multiple coal
mines (the entire state is one large slab of coal), natural gas pipelines
across the state, and lakes and rivers just sitting there waiting for hydro
energy to be taken advantage of. Not to mention, our largest crop is
corn, really, so we have ethanol all ready (which isn't any cheaper than
regular gasoline). Our summers are getting hotter (the illusion!), and we
could easily take advantage of solar energy as well.

I don't buy into the attitude "don't try, you'll fail". I think its a big load of
crap.

K

[kikkelipoika]

I'd like to ask, if its not happening, why are my
summers warmer and my winters colder? That must be an illusion too.

The global warming certainly is happening, but how much we humans contribute to it isn't really known to anyone. There are lots of things happening to our planet, and we can't tell for sure what is causing what here. We only know that global warming is a truth, and that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, which in turn contributes to the global warming. There is much speculation and very little knowledge. Still, i think that something should be done about the global warming: research. Lots of research. We need the knowledge if we are to survive the coming rather radical change in our environment. All the calculations that have been made regarding the subject are based on known factors, and since we don't know all the factors involved, we can't completely rely on these calculations, and they should only be taken as general guidelines.

[Vahene]

How much research do we have to do though before the world accepts the fact that things have to change? It doesn't matter to me how much we contribute to it. If we just contribute .0000001 percent, that's too much if we can use natural sources of energy. I've always been pro-environment, but I wonder how when I was taught 10-15 years ago in high school and college about the greenhouse effect being reality - why is it somehow now being seen as wrong? The more prudent question is:

What if its NOT wrong?

K

[Chia]

Exactly what Vahene said.

Short of being shattered by thermo-nuclear warfare, the planet will survive pretty much anything.

The problem is that we, as a species, have limited tolerance toward environmental changes.

Moreover, the population currently inhabiting the planet cannot be fully supported even now (just look at Africa), whereas the conservative estimate is that if things progress as they are, billions of people will be forced out of low-lying areas of the globe by the raising waters. This will also cause incredible loss of farmable land, both by the necessity of accomodating such vast population move as well as the flooding.

Add to this the upcoming constraints of energy use, and it's not a picture I'd like to be a part of.

I think we are long past the point where majority of Western governments care about their constituents. I sincerely doubt the public would be informed of any conclusively negative report if simply to avoid widespread panic.

The focus now is on the perception of serving the citizens, not the actual act itself.

[oaknott]

I embrace the imminent disaster. I long for the days when mankind roams on a post-apocalyptic wasteland in modified vehicles etc

If you want that, join the Army and go to Iraq.

Been there, done that, spent most of the time in NBC kit (Nuclear Biological and Chemical defence kit - charcoal lined oversuit, rubber boots and gloves and gas mask) hiding in a hole in the ground at 50 degrees C, sweating my b#ll#cks off, with twenty other guys, unable to do any of the most basic human necessities waiting for the all-clear for up to eight hours at a time, because there was another imminent, threatened or actual, air attack.

Mad Max it aint!

[Lord Zhengyi]

Well, I was finally able to listen to the video urgualamand posted. I've already found the hole in the guy's arguement, and it goes something like this:

His logic makes one giant assumption - that the outcome in position B2 of the grid will be far worse than the outcome in position A1.

I submit that both outcomes would be equally horrible. I believe a global economic collapse would lead to decades of territorial clashes, widespread looting, war, and generalized destruction across every populated corner of the planet. It would be a worldwide destabilization that we would never fully recover from. Healthcare would become virtually non-existant, as would affordable food and shelter. Disease, malnutrition, riots, possibly even nuclear confrontations... you get the picture. In essence, the outcomes in A1 and B2 are one in the same, and that is why it isn't as simple a decision as the guy in the video wants it to seem.

[kikkelipoika]

How much research do we have to do though before the world accepts the fact that things have to change? It doesn't matter to me how much we contribute to it. If we just contribute .0000001 percent, that's too much if we can use natural sources of energy. I've always been pro-environment, but I wonder how when I was taught 10-15 years ago in high school and college about the greenhouse effect being reality - why is it somehow now being seen as wrong? The more prudent question is:

What if its NOT wrong?

K

The greenhouse effect is indeed reality, but there are more factors than carbon dioxide that contribute to it, such as methane and some other gases. Then there are a lot more factors that contribute to the climate change than the greenhouse effect. Some studies suggest that the sun is more active than it used to be, some suggest that the magnetic field of the earth is going to go upside down in relatively near future and things like that.

And things have to change you say? Well, it's the law of the markets that govern such changes, and i fear that whatever we're going to do, we're not going to make it in time. If you ask me though, i say we'll have to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide released to atmosphere and quickly, but we need an economically viable solution, or things will degenerate to a point that i do not wish to see. Right now the only solution seems to be nuclear power, but it's not the answer to all of the problems. That's why we need to do more research, otherwise we lack the means to operate.

Gosh that sounded stupid

[Demos]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rench.html

[SnorriHT]

Regardless if one believes in global warming or not, we have to change the way we live. The realisation may not have hit USA or Europe yet, but in Australia we have had a continuous drought for nine years. It is getting to the stage that Australia's major cities will soon not have enough water. I've heard that the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia have now convinced George Bush that there is a problem. A lot of people think that Bush is a dolt, but if a deal can be stiched up with APEC, then his lasting legacy could be real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and a decrease in global oil consumption.

[Melthavion]

Interesting conversation. Deph made a good point way back. There's actually a lot of oil still out there. Historically the cost of reclaiming, refining and selling it has been greater than the profit from said sale. As scarcity drives up prices, the cost of reclaiming, refining and selling those secondary fields drops below the sale price, and it becomes worth while. However, there is a problem. No matter how we look at it, whether global warming is happening now or not, or how much impact we have on it, it's pretty much understood we simply cannot dump the carbon from the entire world's hydrocarbon fuel reserves into the atmosphere with no dire consequences. I think what we know of these effects today and some other economic and political forces are changing the landscape of energy research.

It's amazing how necessity is the most powerful motivator for innovation and invention.

Something so often overlooked is that much of the funding for research (of any type) comes from one of two sources. The government, or grants from private industry. Both are motivated by personal interests to where they allocate the funds for those grants. OPEC and other oil giants, through research grants and powerful government lobbying, have subverted research into alternate fuels and even efficiency improvements for a very long time. Public education (along with some misinformation) along with changing economics of oil supply has started to change that landscape in the last 10 years, an effect I think will continue to accelerate in the near future. Alternate energy sources will become economically viable.

As for nuclear energy, most of the arguments made against it I've ever heard are almost entirely baseless and flat out wrong. Historically, nuclear energy has been cleaner to produce and distribute with less environmental impact than the oil industry could ever dream of being. With some foresight and management the waste from fission reactors can be managed very effectively compared to oil, and with advances in technology, the viability of fusion reactors would reduce this even drastically lower. The real problem with this is the problem of any advanced technology. It's a dual edged blade, with large potential for abuse. As it proliferates and becomes common, it's potential for misuse approaches an almost certainty thanks to human nature. However, on that front, we have far greater things to worry about than nuclear energy, such as biological technologies. Also, Australia has a large supply of the world's naturally occurring uranium deposits, so I'd think nuclear energy would be a no-brainer for them

Interesting fact, this past year the US corn crop was the largest it's been in over 40 years, due almost solely to ethanol fuel production. This has drastically driven up the cost of corn, which is a staple in livestock feed, and the second largest source for sugar production. This has in turn affected poultry and other meat prices in the food market across the country, as well as dairy prices (anyone noticed how expensive milk has gotten?) Funny how everything really is linked. Considering a small handful of nations produce a vast percentage of the world's food supply, we don't want to get ourselves into a situation in which we have to choose between starvation or freezing (or not being able to fill up the car).

The key, no matter what route we take, really is foresight and responsibility. We can not continue to "live in the moment" and trust to our descendants to come up with a solution to the problems we are surely causing, whether they be environmental, political or social.

[Atharin]

You guys forgot none of this matters.

The world will go KABOOM in 2016.

[kikkelipoika]

yeah, the new fusion-messiah will save us all! We don't have to react to the climate change at all because FUSION SAVES!!!! FORGET JESUS, FUSION IS HERE!!! WOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!

[Atharin]

All hail the Fusion god, whom we will offer our lives to when it errupts as an earth-consuming supernova.

[Lord Zhengyi]

I thought it was December 21, 2012. Isn't that when the Mayan calendar ends?