Government responses to global warming are often simply suggestions in lowering your quality of life (e.g. use public transport, turn off your lights, hang out clothes). I see problems with this:
1. This will not stop global warming, it only slows it down
2. For this to be at all effective everyone would have to participate, which is totally unrealistic.
3. Whether we use the energy or not, the greenhouse gases are still being pumped into the atmosphere in astonishing amounts.
Doesn’t the problem lie in the government’s means of power generation (burning of fossil fuels), not in the public’s power consumption. Are governments trying to avoid the costs by shoving the burden onto us. Where are the hydrogen cars? Hydrogen cars exist, but where are they?
I am aware the government’s income is from tax payers, however once the money is their hands they don’t want to spend it on nuclear stations/geothermals/dams, so therefore they tell us to use public transport (money in their pockets again). Whether we take the train or not, carbon emissions will still be pumped into the air and global warming will continue. I am from Australia and I may be wrongfully assuming that the US government is making the same moves.
Even if we made every single building in the world to use more natural cooling and heating methods that save on energy, tonnes and tonnes of carbon emissions will STILL be put in the air, regardless of how much is saved. If we spent that money on fixing the source of the power itself then our problem would be solved. The solution lies in the way we generate power, not in how much we use it.
No related posts.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
see it mite not make sense when one person does it but just imagine if everybody does it we mite be able to stop global warming.
Everyone should agree that Al Gore fat@ is an idoit!!!!!!!!!!!!
blind leading the blind ,some people believe anything that idiots like al gore says !!!
gosh that is a lot. um well go on ask.com
In part I agree. I don’t know where you live but different governments are doing different things. Many are promoting wind and solar power and beginning to look again at new nuclear power stations (but there is a long lead time on this). Regulations are being developed for energy conservation in new homes. Regulations are being developed to limit emission from motor cars. In some places a cost is being put on carbon emissions and targets set for overall reductions in carbon emissions. Biofuels are being promoted but the unintended consequential effect on food prices needs to be addressed. In all this the population has to carried along and the economy supported. There is very large resources required to develop alternative infrastructures and it will take time. In the case of hydrogen this may not be the answer due to high cost and electric vehicles may ultimately be the answer.
Global warming is a political position, bordering on religion. Doing all these things is about as useful as wading into the ocean, spreading your arms and trying to stop the tide from coming in.
For crapssake, the last thing we want to do is put anything in the governments hands to solve. Can you recall anything in the last 100 years that the government has managed to not make WORSE once they get involved.
Hi, hi(first poster), incase you havent noticed, “everyone” includes the people outside of the united states too, which unfortunatly makes up a much larger portion of the global population. It includes everyone in third world countries that burn everything in site in order to cook food, it includes everyone that drives a car that runs on petroleum ( 99.9% of them), and it includes anyone who is hooked up to an electrical grid.
Sure, my family uses electricity, but we are also tax payers, paying thousands upon thousands per year, and its not MY fault that the government isnt spending it on what I think they should.
And as ive said before, if we stop using fossil fuels in america, they will still be drilling for it, and selling it to developing nations, which will use it, meaning global warming wont stop, or be stemmed at all. You think the middle east will stop producing if we stop using it? Absolutely not.
And woopty doo… governments “supporting solar power” and nuclear still doesnt get me from point A to point B in the morning without using oil.
Hydrogen is a boondoggle. Even the hydrogen-powered V12 BMW only makes 260-odd horsepower (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/03/geneva-preview-giugiaro-vadho-uses-bmw-hydrogen-v12-engine/ ). I suspect that it’s being used as a diversion; it will go nowhere, but it allows the US government to claim it’s doing something.
Turning off lights you aren’t using doesn’t affect your quality of life; if anything, the saved money improves it. Drying clothes outside gets you out in the air, and I wish I could do it. But these are very small things.
A large fraction of our carbon use comes from heating, cooling and lighting our buildings; another large part comes from moving us between them. A serious government program to address carbon emissions would look at building codes and development patterns, e.g. putting well-insulated, daylighted condominiums right on streetcar lines going to work and shopping. Promoting delivery services so people find it more convenient to leave the car at home (no time required to park it, etc.)
I don’t see much of this.
Wow! Do you really believe this = “Are governments trying to avoid the costs by shoving the burden onto us”?!?
Where do you think Governments get ‘their’ money?
They must first virtually steal it from us!
You must be young? – I remember all the failed Entitlement programs that destroy families and make people into leaches on society. These ‘welfare’ programs exacerbate problems they were supposed to correct.
When gasoline goes well above $10 gallon – then hydrogen as fuel might become cost effective!?