janelane wrote:
Honestly, terratogen, you should really list your resources. At a minimum, we could use them to contrast with the ones I found below.

Google any of the ones your concerned with, I'm sure you will find several. The difference between the 95% and 98% Is how water vapor is accounted for.

"Cleaner" is certainly the operative word, however it is a source of much contention. How clean is clean? Can you answer it? Can anyone?

Good questions. So is whether or not these pollutants are causes and not merely correlations. Curbing consumption might by time, but how much time do we need before a technological answer is found? Can you answer that? Maybe we should all live like the amish until we can stand the heat. I don't think this is a practical solution.

The causes of global warming are not well understood... 98% of greenhouse gases are not produced by man and even though there is an apparent correlation to the human consumption of fossil fuels...

According to this EIA report, 95% of carbon dioxide is produced naturally. However, reports indicate that the update of CO2 by the environment is lagging production which means a net increase over time. It indicates that increasing water vapor emissions wouldn't affect the greenhouse effect, but does this include to a massive influx as in the "hydrogen solution" scenario above? Who can possibly know until we try?

That's right... We don't know! Like I said above, the causes of greenhouse warming are not well understood. Therefore we can not solve the problem with any reliability in any way. Panicking and destroying the economy might not fix the environment. Especially if your answer is a band-aid.

...70% of the warming happened 10 years before the industrial boom. Also there is a similar correlation between sun cycles and global warming, but this has yet to be proven as a cause as well.

Actually, Wikipedia puts the industrial revolution[s] between the middle 18th and early 19th centuries. Coincidentally, that's right before the global average temperature starting to increase in 1920. Some people agree that the globe was here trillions of years before us and will survive long after we're gone...in the meantime, wouldn't it be nice to keep some of the flora and fauna we're used to alive? We've already decided that the hole in the ozone layer (and associated CFCs) are intolerable; why not carbon dioxide?

The Temp. increase started in 1920, but the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes spiked around 1940.

I can see your on the Bush "let's through money at technology and technology at the problem" bandwagon. Consumption is the crux of the problem. No clean technology has the potential to provide the energy requirements of the U.S. (or China or India...). Period. Biodiesel cars would require a cornfield the size of Indiana. There aren't enough rivers to dam for hydroelectric, and solar cells aren't nearly efficient enough and won't be for several years. Why this abject denial that the problem should be dealt with now? Why not consider that certain industries may face hardship while other flourish? That some industries are already working to decrease waste and they are seeing both economic and PR benefits from their labors? That the United States is a gluttonous cow?

Technology is only short-term. You can use more efficient technologies, and by God research them until doomsday, but you can't use it as a crystal ball for how things might be 10, 20, 50 years down the line.

Consumption is not proven as a cause. Maybe you're crystal ball is different from mine. Slowing consumption might not have a significant impact. Even if a technological solution is over a century away, that is the most practical solution. We don't have an efficient economic or pollution efficient solution now, but many seem to agree that one is possible. Spending money to research this will speed along an answer without wrecking the already fragile economy. Controlling population growth should be more of a priority than controlling present consumption (as this will be a factor in scale for the future.).

There's no denying the problem is occurring, but there is argument as to the possible causes and likely solutions (if any). I think that creating more efficient technologies is a more viable plan then to scale back and milking cows in an amish like state. The lifestyles and industries already exist. It would be better to regulate the scale in plans which span a generation or so, but turning off the tap would shit up the works.

RE: UK Bush Interview: Enviroment, Trade, Africa, Iraq