What can we do about Climate Change?

[MarquisBlack]

Great idea, H3ad, let's do this.

I'll start.

I think that solutions to Climate Change should be kept conservative, lest we run into unforeseen socioeconomic problems as a result of haste. An environment of urgency has been created around this issue, and as a result, people with real power in politics feel like there is little time to speculate.

But most of us spend alot of time on the internet/smoking the ganj, so we can make up for their shortcomings by allowing ourselves some real discussion on the issue.

First of all, we should address some of the possible causes of this "warming anomaly". This warming anomaly and the data that supports it are questionable, but the countries of the world are acting as though it isn't, so we would do best to at least entertain the idea, lest we are left out of the discussion entirely.

• The first possible contributor, obviously, is the combination of deforestization, and the burning of fossil fuels, which has increased the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere compared to pre-industrial times. Carbon is released into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 as the result of burning fossil fuels, which are ultimately made of decaying organic (carbon based) material. Coupled with the loss of many of our natural forests, we have less ability to process this CO2 into oxygen. This increased amount of carbon is thought to increase the atmospheres ability to absorb and retain heat from the sun, because carbon is a black element.

• The second possible contributor, which I'm quite fond of, (someone in the "Global warming??" thread brought this possibility up) is having paved a fraction of our planet with black asphalt, as well as a large number of houses with black roofs. If carbon in our atmosphere is absorbing enough radiant heat from our sun to show a warming anomaly, I'd be willing to bet this is a very significant contributor.

(I will add more contributors as they are brought up, in this thread the first post will be kept as a "record")

Now, let's discuss possible solutions. When offering solutions, we should also try to discuss potential repercussions of those solutions.

• As far as combating CO2 levels is concerned, we should first ween ourselves off of fossil fuels. Of course, we don't need a warming anomaly to justify this one, we should get off of fossil fuels so that we are no longer dependent on a centralized resource, available to a few businessmen/Middle Easterners. So in this thread, we should discuss alternatives, such as Wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.

• A great way to address the second possible causes, black rooftops/pavement, would be to start designing houses without pitched rooves, and advanced drainage systems to prevent cave-ins, so that people (even in urban areas) could start growing small vegetable gardens. An agricultural revival would do the Human race wonders, while also helping to prevent centralization, and helping with sustainability. Hell, we could even find a way to start repairing old roads with a "Green" asphalt. (Flat green, of course)

That's all I got for now, but I think it's a good start. We'll see if this thread gains any steam, I'm skeptical myself. Debate threads will always be more popular.

Discuss!!

 

[Stoner4Life]

sorry Marquis, imo this belongs with the rest
of the BS in the Global Warming thread.......

oh, open more nuclear reactor facilities

 

[MarquisBlack]

I definitely think this thread is distinct from the Global Warming?? thread as that was my intention in creating it. I sincerely doubt anyone will post much of anything in here, but if they choose not to and continue to bicker in the Global Warming?? thread full-time, we'll know who's being constructive and who's just out to argue.

For all I care the Global Warming?? thread can get locked/deleted. There is hardly anything constructive talked about, it's become home of the "Republicans vs. Democrats" BS.

 

[Haps]

The nuke plants in the land of lincoln are leaking radioactivity into the ground water, and will poison all our aquifers here in fifty years. They said there were no pipes to leak in the designs that were approved, so their competence can not be trusted.

It is global pollution that is the problem, not warming, that is just one aspect. We can not control warming, but we can stop polluting. And we can plant trees, and weed, both scrub the air.

On a personal level, I am trying to fart less.
H

 

[Hold Your Fire]

The corporate entities running the world make BILLIONS off burning/hoarding/controlling fossil fuels. Pollution is a part of this. Look at Ecuador circa 1981, when Texaco was dumping waste, directly into the water. They knew exactly what they were doing. They just don't care. Many of these entities, are in charge of global politics. Nothing will change, they don't want to lose money/power. Just my opinion.

 

[cork144]

lmao we cant do anything about climate change

 

[Stoner4Life]

it's so played out, all anyone can do is to do what you
or they can to lower their carbon footprint, period(s).......

no disrespect to you Marquis but what's created is an optimistic
sounding thread addressing one side of the global warming issue.

 

[MarquisBlack]

It's that way for a reason, I'm coming from the other side of the fence. The so-called "denier" side. This is a way for both camps to sit at the table as equals and discuss this issue like adults. "Whether or not Global Warming is happening" prevents those who have their doubts about the magnitude of Global Warming from adequately explaining their opinion on the matter to others. One of the main reasons for doubting Global Warming is the ridiculous measures politicians and Non-Governmental Organizations have been suggesting to combat Global Warming.

As soon as you start arguing about whether or not it's happening, you excuse yourself from the table of the real discussion about "What do we do now?". And therefore we have little control over the outcome.

Just because Global Warming as it's been described/hyped, might not have all the merit some might have us think it has, doesn't mean we should do nothing. We can address issues like independent energy, sustainable agriculture, all of which are ultimately harmful to the "ruling class". Certain groups would rather us "leave it up to them", and that's what I'm trying to avoid with this thread.

It seems the best strategy at this point is to enter into the real discussion and show people how we can tackle the alleged "solutions" to Global Warming, without completely handing the issue over to the Gov't.

Many of the people on the "Global Warming Believer" side of the fence become convinced that "deniers" don't care about the environment, and are going to continue to pollute. They then begin to see anyone who doubts Global Warming as "the problem". As a result, these people, who normally wouldn't, start advocating Gov't intervention on these issues.

Can you guys now see how the argument of whether or not Global Warming is taking place is ultimately excusing half of us from the table, and leaving Gov't intervention as the only plausible solution?

If you have nothing constructive to say, please leave my thread.

 

[stink.whistler]

I definitely think this thread is distinct from the Global Warming?? thread as that was my intention in creating it.

I absolutely agree with you, the other thread should be more about the science behind whether it is happening or not, to what extent, and the causal factors. Whereas this should be about policy to address it.

I sincerely doubt anyone will post much of anything in here, but if they choose not to and continue to bicker in the Global Warming?? thread full-time, we'll know who's being constructive and who's just out to argue.

...

I don't think that a fair statement considering you yourself have stated these are two separate topics. Considering much of the anger is around policy, I'm hoping the angry people will gravitate to this thread - and the folks interested in the science behind anthropogenic climate change will gravitate to the other.

I suspect there is overlap between the two groups, but personally I have very little interest in policy and will therefore not likely be posting in this thread much. I don't think it fair to say that means I am not being constructive.

On a related note - scientists generally are terrible politicians, and politicians are generally terrible scientists...

 

[MarquisBlack]

I suspect there is overlap between the two groups, but personally I have very little interest in policy and will therefore not likely be posting in this thread much. I don't think it fair to say that means I am not being constructive.

On a related note - scientists generally are terrible politicians, and politicians are generally terrible scientists...

That's a very good point, Stink. I probably shouldn't have made this into a "challenge" the way I did. However, I did not say that anyone who chooses to post in the other thread will have outted themselves, rather, I said those who choose to bicker in the other thread. (Or this thread, for that matter, now that I think of it.) It just seems like the argument over "whether it's happening" begs for those who disagree with the proposed policies to attempt to undermine the science behind Global Warming. When instead, we should just address those policies that we disagree with and offer alternatives.

I don't think that a fair statement considering you yourself have stated these are two separate topics. Considering much of the anger is around policy, I'm hoping the angry people will gravitate to this thread - and the folks interested in the science behind anthropogenic climate change will gravitate to the other.

That's a fair point as well, but I think those that are discussing the science of Global Warming should be equally willing to discuss possible solutions, otherwise it seems more like "the sky is falling, let the Government catch it."

Thanks for stopping in, dude, I've enjoyed many of your posts in the other thread.

 

[SoCaliSmoker]

it's so played out, all anyone can do is to do what you
or they can to lower their carbon footprint, period(s).......

no disrespect to you Marquis but what's created is an optimistic
sounding thread addressing one side of the global warming issue.

Sorry Marquis, have to take Stoners side on this one. Before I even read the opening caption to your thread, I was already in the midst of my yaaaaawning........

But I do appreciate your concern!

 

[BeardedClam]

I deal with Climate change with a coat and shoes or shorts and flipflops.

The rest is BS.

 

[MarquisBlack]

This thread is to discuss solutions to "Climate Change". If you want to express your opinion on whether or not Global Warming is happening the way it's been portrayed, then by all means, but address the policies you disagree with that are being put into place regarding AGW, or suggest policies that you think would be beneficial, otherwise this is not the place.

If you would like to only comment on the validity of Global Warming, and the science surrounding it, then there is already a thread for you.

The worst part is.. People think I started this thread to "further the Global Warming agenda"... *Scoff*

 

[alaskan]

It's that way for a reason, I'm coming from the other side of the fence. The so-called "denier" side.

I'm on your side for the most part, but at the same time assuming "we can do something about it" is like saying you're on the "acceptor" side.

Unless we do something about the people in control of our countries - the people in control of the technology and in effect the emissions - we can't do anything but bicker and moan back and forth.

Less global warming threads, more global government threads please...

 

[MarquisBlack]

I'm on your side for the most part, but at the same time assuming "we can do something about it" is like saying you're on the "acceptor" side.

We absolutely can "do something about it". If the mechanisms they've proposed are accurate, it would be very simple to cut back and minimize the "warming trend". If they are inaccurate, the solutions I've already proposed will tackle the issue of warming, while making the average citizen less dependent on the Government and Big Corporations.

It's a win-win situation.

You of all people should understand that the real environmental movement has been hijacked and is now actively advocating socialist/communist policies as the solution.

Well, it's been made clear that no amount of skepticism toward the science is going to keep the powers that be from locking in a centralized One World Government before the science is adequately debunked. So let's shift gears and bring back the real environmental movement, rather than acting in opposition to it. When we act in opposition to the REAL environmental movement, we give them an enemy. We show them that some people just aren't willing to "do their part". And if people don't "do their part" the Governments are going to take action.

I've had an epiphany about this issue recently, and I'm going to do all I can to bring the fence down between the two camps. Divide and Conquer is unbelievably effective.

PS: With this being a thread discussing policies regarding Global Warming, I am completely open to discussing One World Government theories, as world leaders have come out recently proposing this as the only solution to AGW.

Do you see where I'm coming from now?

 

[ka0tik_kreati0n]

when it gets cold, I put on double layers, when it gets hot, I will wear next to nothing..problem solved.. well except when it gets too hot cause obviously I cant go outside naked, dont want to disturb the locals... LMFAO

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Very good thread, Marquis...
Sad that it is misunderstood and you are mischaracterized as a result, but it should still be an interesting discussion... I agree that the environmental movement should force governments to follow their agenda, not allow governments to take the cause away from the people and use it to further the government control agenda...

Here is an idea that seems like a no brainer....
Road surfaces that convert absorbed solar radiation into power instead of merely trapping heat...

 

[MarquisBlack]

Here is an idea that seems like a no brainer....
Road surfaces that convert absorbed solar radiation into power instead of merely trapping heat...

Seems like a no-brainer, but I never would have thought of it.



BTW everyone, I'm open to criticism regarding the format of this thread. It's a work in progress.

 

[stink.whistler]

...

I've had an epiphany about this issue recently, and I'm going to do all I can to bring the fence down between the two camps. Divide and Conquer is unbelievably effective.

...

There is no doubt that all sides (almost said 'both' sides ) can find common ground on reducing the use of fossil fuels, whether the benefit that you recognize and see value in is reduced dependence on imported oil, reduced CO2 emissions, cleaner air, etc...

But I do know quite a few people who are very pro reducing dependency on imported oil, while also being very anti increasing gas mileage standards.

I know you, Marquis, are mostly anti federal government regulation - where do you stand on enhancing CAFE standards? (I am fer it, btw)

 

[severian]

Only the steady advancement of technology will help save mother nature.

Governments should use tax incentives to help reward industries that create alternative energies.

Governments are ineffective - or worse - when they dictate to private industry their moral and pseudo scientific ideologies.

Let market forces - guided by tax incentives - be the driving impetus towards technological advance.