Obama Administration: Global Warming Will Cost Us Unless We Take Action

[Clive Howlitzer]

The problem with all issues like this is that people in general are extremely short sighted. If you want to fix a problem that won't affect them in their lifetime, good luck getting them to commit to it. Let alone want to PAY for it.

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

I am not disagreeing with you but it isn't exactly easy to get the funds for the R&D needed because again, short term benefit vs long term. Good luck getting taxpayer dollars. At least in the US.

 

[immortalfrieza]

What really needs to be done is we need to find a way that people can pollute all they want and it won't matter because we're balancing it out in some way, anything else will only be delaying the inevitable at best and completely futile at worst. We need either a means to get the CO2 out of the air as fast as we put it in or a way to prevent the CO2 from ever getting into the air in the first place, and we need to do it without it costing much. The more the solution costs and the more it inconveniences people the less likely everybody is to actually do it, and reducing carbon emissions alone is just is never going to cut it. If history has shown anything it's that humanity will only do something about a problem if it's either really easy to do it or if the problem becomes so big we can't afford to ignore it anymore and Global Warming is just another one of those things.

 

[Mortuorum]

While I am inclined to believe that humans have had an impact on global climate, the first things I look at in connection with any "scientific" study are (1) who performed the research; and (2) who commissioned (paid for) it. I can't place much credibility in a report produced by a government agency that has a history of overreacting (and whose continued existence pretty much relies on climate change) at the request of a liberal administration.

 

[Stupidity]

The only way we can support a modern society while cutting back Co2 drastically is a worldwide implementation of modern nuclear reactors. There is no other way and such a move would take dozens of years and have its own political and environmental consequences.

Solar(Foreseeable future)/Hydro/Wind power will never support our societies and any plan that involves us cutting our power use to a fraction of the current worldwide is a complete fantasy. Such a move would cripple the economy and military of any who tried it and the world isn't all 1st world countries with no uncontested borders. Far from it. Such a move would no doubt cause dozens of wars and starve thousands if not millions of people.

Even if we all started driving electric cars, the power for those cars comes straight from coal/oil plants.

So if Co2 is going to destroy humanity, it's the Eco idiots and their rabid anti nuclear rhetoric who are to blame. Not capitalism but a cult of men and women supposedly fighting to protect the earth from us and long ago stopped living in the real world.

 

[Fox12]

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World.

Whatever, we can't even agree on whether climate change is a thing (politically, at least). Within one country. Never mind the numerous countries that couldn't care less, or even welcome it.

What I'm trying to say is: https://youtu.be/bUFWXpYJKaI?t=2m23s

It is 2015...

 

[ASnogarD]

STOP! Stop telling us, go tell china, and India, go tell the countries that are polluting so much that they have smog warnings.

America can only do so much, and when the government "does something" it only means making up useless rules, or making a new tax that just drives business away and takes jobs away from Americans.

The US is equally at fault as China and India, the US refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement which calls for control of commissions.
Bush argued that unless China and other developing countries had emission control it would only harm the US economy, but it was pretty plain to see the influence by the oil and gas lobbyists.

Check this wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kyoto_Protocol

 

[Baresark]

Yeah, then do it.

 

[RealRT]

Yeah, you know what, US government? You do that, go take action and start working on fixing global warming. That would do far more good than you poking your finger in everyone else's pies.

 

[ccggenius12]

Bah, controlling Global Warming? That's just code for UN commissars telling us Americans what temperature it's gonna be in OUR outdoors. I say let the world warm up; see what Buchos-Buchos Gali-Gali thinks about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

 

[Phil the Nervous]

How the heck is he gonna get the other nations on board with this? Bribe? Coerce? Ask nicely? Also we don't have the money. Literally.
(Nobody really seems to give a $&@% about the national debt though)

 

[09philj]

All of our problems would be solved if we could find a way to produce viable fusion power. It's pie-in-the-sky, but better than ignoring the problems involved in the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, or sinking more and more funds into researching renewable for little actual gain.

 

[Stupidity]

All of our problems would be solved if we could find a way to produce viable fusion power. It's pie-in-the-sky, but better than ignoring the problems involved in the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, or sinking more and more funds into researching renewable for little actual gain.

There are a dozen projects to produce exactly that.
Solar power is worth researching as well. today I think it's like 12% efficient, which means we could triple its effectiveness.
Also modern nuclear reactors are much safer and produce less/safer waste than most people imagine.

nextbigfuture.com is your friend for articles on the bleeding edge of tech, including fusion projects.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World.

To be fair, it's not politics--it's science! It just happens to be coming out of a politician's mouth. And there have been plenty of straight up science articles on this site, yo! There used to be a whole column devoted to science, as I recall. Lauren... Lauren something. Or... something Lauren did them. Or maybe not.

 

[Piorn]

"So, after years of debating, evaluating and disregarding scientific evidence and pressure from both nature and other countries, we're finally willing to acknowledge that the problem exists.
That is all."

 

[Strazdas]

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

I think the big problem is that we arent doing enough to find the tech that works and we aren't finding it fast enough. And even when we do, we arent switching fast enough because of economical factors. For example we know that hybrid cars work. yet the vast majority of cars purchased are still combustion engine online because they are cheaper.

true but that's mostly because they guys in charge of making those decisions see only the crazy people who want us to stop making everything, hell they could probably make hybrids cost effective in about 10 years but they wont due to the fact that those "eco-idiots" I talked about would consider it a victory and then use that to justify any other means they use.

its also good to note that those people (the "eco-idiots that is) are against clean coal burning research, better fuel efficiency in cars, and anything else that may reduce how many emissions were putting up just because it still uses current fossil fuels.

I think the so called "Eco-idiots" are just that out of desperation. yes there are legitimate crazies out there (greenpeace), but that is true for any large group of people. Sometimes though it does feel that no matter what you do the only way to be heard is to become one of those crazies. and sadly not everyone has enough resolve not to go that route.

And i think you misunderstood me slightly. It does not matter to me that hybrids are not cost effective comapred to combustion only engines. people should STILL buy them. Ecology should be more important than slight economical downturn. that is really the big problem with ecology nowadays, we dont do anything untill it becomes profitable, whereas we should even despite it being less profitable than alternatives. This is what leads to lack of research into alternative energy sources for example. they arent seen as cost-effective when its much more proftiable to put this money into research on how to make your ipods smaller.

Also the crazies shooting themselves in the foot doesnt help either. After Fukushima there was a wave of crazy in europe that lead to massive Nuclear reactor shutdowns. the result? they were replaced by coal and gas plans and europe still has brownouts. a completely ecologically neutral power source turned into a damaging one because of panic. thanks to those morons we are set back in nuclear technology for decades now.

Can you explain more about clean coal burning, i havent heard about that one. Better fuel efficiency has actually been slowly going forward for last few decades thanks to advanced electronics being able to manage fuel more efficiently. Also lately (few years ago) there are a lot of "more efficient" fuel showing up in gas stations around here. i was skeptical at first but despite it being more expensive, it does look like it indeed is more efficient as i can drive further with same amount of fuel. no idea how that works but it does.

The problem with fossil fuels is, thats never going to be a long term solution though. thats because fossil fuels are running out, fast. oil extraction already peaked and the reason we arent having shortage crisis is only because the raise in price made some drilling locations profitable (like the bottom of an ocean). Some fuels we got enough for a long time (coal) but that is supposedly the most dangerous one. Im still for Nuclear power. we got enough fuel to last us tohusand of years, has no ecological inpact, modern reactors produce very little waste (1 teaspoon per year in a reactor big enough to power entire city, heck, big enough to power my entire (small) country) and then we have thousands of years to figure out better methods.

snip about nuclear power

Despite your name, i completely agree with you.

 

[ecoho]

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

I think the big problem is that we arent doing enough to find the tech that works and we aren't finding it fast enough. And even when we do, we arent switching fast enough because of economical factors. For example we know that hybrid cars work. yet the vast majority of cars purchased are still combustion engine online because they are cheaper.

true but that's mostly because they guys in charge of making those decisions see only the crazy people who want us to stop making everything, hell they could probably make hybrids cost effective in about 10 years but they wont due to the fact that those "eco-idiots" I talked about would consider it a victory and then use that to justify any other means they use.

its also good to note that those people (the "eco-idiots that is) are against clean coal burning research, better fuel efficiency in cars, and anything else that may reduce how many emissions were putting up just because it still uses current fossil fuels.

I think the so called "Eco-idiots" are just that out of desperation. yes there are legitimate crazies out there (greenpeace), but that is true for any large group of people. Sometimes though it does feel that no matter what you do the only way to be heard is to become one of those crazies. and sadly not everyone has enough resolve not to go that route.

And i think you misunderstood me slightly. It does not matter to me that hybrids are not cost effective comapred to combustion only engines. people should STILL buy them. Ecology should be more important than slight economical downturn. that is really the big problem with ecology nowadays, we dont do anything untill it becomes profitable, whereas we should even despite it being less profitable than alternatives. This is what leads to lack of research into alternative energy sources for example. they arent seen as cost-effective when its much more proftiable to put this money into research on how to make your ipods smaller.

Also the crazies shooting themselves in the foot doesnt help either. After Fukushima there was a wave of crazy in europe that lead to massive Nuclear reactor shutdowns. the result? they were replaced by coal and gas plans and europe still has brownouts. a completely ecologically neutral power source turned into a damaging one because of panic. thanks to those morons we are set back in nuclear technology for decades now.

Can you explain more about clean coal burning, i havent heard about that one. Better fuel efficiency has actually been slowly going forward for last few decades thanks to advanced electronics being able to manage fuel more efficiently. Also lately (few years ago) there are a lot of "more efficient" fuel showing up in gas stations around here. i was skeptical at first but despite it being more expensive, it does look like it indeed is more efficient as i can drive further with same amount of fuel. no idea how that works but it does.

The problem with fossil fuels is, thats never going to be a long term solution though. thats because fossil fuels are running out, fast. oil extraction already peaked and the reason we arent having shortage crisis is only because the raise in price made some drilling locations profitable (like the bottom of an ocean). Some fuels we got enough for a long time (coal) but that is supposedly the most dangerous one. Im still for Nuclear power. we got enough fuel to last us tohusand of years, has no ecological inpact, modern reactors produce very little waste (1 teaspoon per year in a reactor big enough to power entire city, heck, big enough to power my entire (small) country) and then we have thousands of years to figure out better methods.

snip about nuclear power

Despite your name, i completely agree with you.

I don't know the specifics but clean coal burning is a more eco friendly and cost effective way of burning coal. In the last 10 years ive seen about six different stops and starts to it due to "eco-idiots" saying burning coal is bad no matter how you do it, then again I live in Wyoming which is the largest coal producer in the country so maybe its just a bigger deal to us.

also your right fossil fuels are not a long term plan but we need scaling back and more cost effective green methods, not just flat out use this because its better for the environment. Also if I hear one more person say were killing the earth I may just hit them, the planet will survive long after we all die out unless we literally blow it up at the core.

 

[Strazdas]

I don't know the specifics but clean coal burning is a more eco friendly and cost effective way of burning coal. In the last 10 years ive seen about six different stops and starts to it due to "eco-idiots" saying burning coal is bad no matter how you do it, then again I live in Wyoming which is the largest coal producer in the country so maybe its just a bigger deal to us.

also your right fossil fuels are not a long term plan but we need scaling back and more cost effective green methods, not just flat out use this because its better for the environment. Also if I hear one more person say were killing the earth I may just hit them, the planet will survive long after we all die out unless we literally blow it up at the core.

Perhaps it is more prominent talk in your region then. we dont even have a single coal plant in my country (most of energy comes from burning gas importer from Russia) so probably most people dont care.

I agree that more cost effective green methods should be found. but i also think that some things, such as being "more green" is worth paying extra for. And yeah, the whole killing earth shtick is getting old. Though what we are doing is killing our enviroment, as in, the flora and fauna we are used to having around. those are dieing out. massively. we may as well kill ourselves in the process of we continue to do nothing.

 

[FalloutJack]

I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

Geeky tie-in? Come now. We have a straight-up political section. That means we're open to that sort of thing here.

OT: Okay, Mr. President. I'm on board. What should a guy like me who doesn't create the problem in the first place do?