How we can stop global warming

[josephask]

These are some useful tips to stop global warming.

• Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
• Install a programmable thermostat
• Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
• Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
• Do not leave appliances on standby
• Move your fridge and freezer
• Protect and conserve forest worldwide
• Encourage your school or business to reduce emissions

 

[skiesnpies]

The crazy thing is, most things that people could do to help reduce climate change, saves money - regardless of what you believe.

Reduce electricity use at home = save money.
Increase insulation at home = save money.
Install some renewables at home = save money.
Drive a lower emissions car = save money.
Drive less = save money.

If you drive a crazy over-sized 4x4 to go to the shops and burn loads of gas heating your house while the windows are wide open - feel free to moan that its the governments fault for taxing you - but its hardly their fault - you make your own decisions. The government are quite rightly making it tempting to be less anti-social.

Marks & Spencer are not doing Plan A cos they think its a nice thing to do (although they may think this), they are doing it because it makes them millions of pounds.

 

[AdamJ]

That's exactly the kind of sound-bite-believing nonsense which winds me up no end on this. I drive a huge big 4x4 to the shops. Why? Because occasionally I have to pull a 2 tonne trailer for work and anything smaller won't do it. Buying two cars doesn't make economic sense and while we're at it is also bad for the environment due to the CO2 in building them. But when I'm at the shops in a big 4x4 none of that matters, its just because I am an eco-terrorist.

As for 'drive less'. I spent nearly two hours this morning doing a 50 minute journey just for fun it would seem, or was it because the journey (in an earth-destroying 4x4) was necessary? 'Drive less' makes a great slogan, not to great in practice. I can't think of many people who will think "I'm a bit bored this morning, think I'll nip up the M1 from London to Edinburgh and back for some entertainment".

There is also a naive belief that if we all switch to a small car that the government will pat us on the head and say well done. In reality there'd be an almighty panic about the lost tax revenue and the big hole in the Government's books which would have to be replaced with something else very quickly.

As for the simplistic comment above more trees = less CO2. Have you seen the reports on the Amazon over the last few weeks, where it is creating more CO2 than absorbing?

 

[AdamJ]

Also, while my annoyance levels are up, my 'crazy over-sized 4x4' (a nice big Santa Fe for the record) gets better fuel consumption than a lot of 'normal' cars, including family-favourites like many Mondeo's, Insignia's, and even mid-sized cars like small MPVs (some Scenics, Zafiras) or some Focus's, etc. But never let ignorance get in the way of blindly following a slogan, after all, its easy to go by how something looks rather than maybe researching it a bit.

 

[skiesnpies]

I know LOADS of people who think nothing of driving 2hrs to take their kids out for a bit, when there are similar things that can be done within 2-3 miles of where they live. I know LOADS of people who don't think for a second about their driving habits - in fact this includes MOST people I know. Driving less is something I have learned to do and most people could think differently about it. Nobody said stop going to work or stop making necessary journeys - you simply made that bit up in your emotional response.

Its just a matter of reducing pointless or "really not required' journeys - of which there are millions of miles worth each year.

Same with the 4x4, I personally know loads of people who absolutely DON'T need one, they don't even pretend that they do. I would fully support reduced taxation for those that need one, and double taxation for those that clearly don't.

Re: trees and Co2, I have read the reports in a great deal of detail - not just the journalistic reporting - the actual research. They are NOT creating more CO2 than they are absorbing, the leaf litter BELOW the trees are releasing more CO2 - and the reason - because the climate is warming up the ground and causing it to change they way the leaf litter biodegrades. This is citied as one of the "tipping point" events that will make it harder to claw back a runaway increase - but this is very early day research and has yet to be validated by secondary reporting.

 

[skiesnpies]

Also, while my annoyance levels are up, my 'crazy over-sized 4x4' (a nice big Santa Fe for the record) gets better fuel consumption than a lot of 'normal' cars, including family-favourites like many Mondeo's, Insignia's, and even mid-sized cars like small MPVs (some Scenics, Zafiras) or some Focus's, etc. But never let ignorance get in the way of blindly following a slogan, after all, its easy to go by how something looks rather than maybe researching it a bit.

So your Santa Fe (a review I just read says they got 30mpg - ie. some research) does better MPG than some other cars - so damn what? What does that prove? It probably does worse than some other cars too - so what are you concluding?
Because other people have cars which do even lower MPG, so what? There are plenty of small MPV's which utterly blitz the MPG of a Santa fe also - so I am not sure what is proven here?

You seem to be assuming you fall into the "crazy over sized 4x4" category - I am not saying I think you are or are not - you volunteered to be in it I think, perhaps a little paranoid?

 

[AdamJ]

Leaf litter below trees is an intrinsic part of the forest... Kind of hard to have trees without it so it can't be considered as something separate.

On the cars, the blind judging of other people's choices and finding it wanting is a cancer at the very heart of the debate. You still say you know people who dont 'need' a 4x4, but that's based on the misunderstanding that 4x4s are far and away the worst cars out there. A lot of 4x4s are better than a lot of other non-4x4 cars - who really needs a Ford Galaxy or S-Max, Chrysler Voyager, Renault Espace, etc. etc. - all of which are alot more thirsty than my 4x4. And families managed just fine without them before they came along. Who needs a sporty petrol Mondeo or Mazda 6? Or Focus? Why buy a Scenic, Zafira or any other of the myriad mid-sized MPVs as they don't give you more seats but do often have worse fuel economy than a good modern 4x4. Why not hold these up?

I do not and will not denegrate someone on the basis of a blind assumption about their car or lifestyle as who knows what the rest of their life is like. Someone may have a Range Rover V8 as they really like Range Rover V8s, and go to Tesco every week in it, but live in a well insulated house, don't have any kids, eat locally sourced food, etc. A 4x4 is just a symbol empty souls who like wagging fingers at others use without engaging their brain first to research some basic facts.

 

[AdamJ]

So your Santa Fe (a review I just read says they got 30mpg - ie. some research) does better MPG than some other cars - so damn what? What does that prove? It probably does worse than some other cars too - so what are you concluding?
Because other people have cars which do even lower MPG, so what? There are plenty of small MPV's which utterly blitz the MPG of a Santa fe also - so I am not sure what is proven here?

You seem to be assuming you fall into the "crazy over sized 4x4" category - I am not saying I think you are or are not - you volunteered to be in it I think, perhaps a little paranoid?

I'm consistently getting about 38mpg, hitting 42 if I'm careful. And my point is that you held up 4x4 as 'crazy over sized' which is a tired old comment that gets trotted out time after time after time. My point is that, as with most things environmental, it goes much deeper and a greater level of knowledge is require before trying to convince others. Holding up 4x4s as somehow worse by focusing on them is misguided, ill considered and shows a level of ignorance about the whole issue.

As for am I paranoid? You bet. I didn't 'choose' a 4x4 - as I said earlier, I have to have something with enough pull and weight to do my job, but I did choose one which is better than a lot of other cars for CO2. And yet I've still had it keyed twice and all four tyres let down once purely because of its shape. Never happened when I had my Scenic, which did far fewer mpg, or to my wife's sporty Focus, which does fewer mpg, but park a 4x4 outside a supermarket and the brain-dead come out to play.

 

[skiesnpies]

So you decided its "hype" because you don't have time to find out about it? Doesn't seem all that logical? Would it be true (I really don't know - just asking) to say that you choose to see it as hype because that suits you better rather than it being based on any facts?

 

[skiesnpies]

Why is it "hype" then - and why did you bother to comment?

 

[skiesnpies]

I think much of the anger towards 4x4's isn't just related to MPG its (my personal opinion)
a) They are a greater danger to pedestrians (thats a statistical fact)
b) They are hard to see past when driving (leading at least one person I know to buy an even bigger one) - an arms race of every increasing car sizes (look whats happen in the USA to see where this ends).
c) They are as you say an easy target.

I have to say, (c) may seem a little unfair, but given the number of very large 4x4's out there that return 15-20mpg, compared to people carriers and sports cars, I see more Range Rovers than I see 15-20mpg sports cars.
I have a people carrier, don't use it much, but it regularly carries 7 people and returns 50mpg+ if driven carefully. I reckon if you averaged it out, 4x4's on average would be FAR worse on MPG than people carriers, of course there are exceptions - and to be fair, I would never have included a Santa Fe as an 'crazy oversized 4x4' - you put yourself in that category.

Clearly its ridiculous to vandalise a car because it is a 4x4 and I sympathise, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there are dozen's of mums picking kids up in v8 4x4's in my village very single day. I know for a fact those cars are not needed and are just for pose value (they would admit as much).

I happen to think your point about a big 4x4 owner who does little else to pollute, should have every right to pursue a hobby as we all do. The government may solve the issue - in the carbon allowance that they are considering- this will level the playing field somewhat I think if they do it right. If you want to fly to Florida every year to your villa - go for it, if you want to drive a 4x4, go for it, if you want to use lots of gas or electric, go for it - but you will have a fixed allowance and going over it will cost a lot. You will need to make choices about whats important - and enjoy doing that.
The poor, or the extra careful will be able to sell of their allowance to those prepared to pay more to use more fossil fuels.
Its controversial indeed - and I expect a few strong opinions, but an interesting point to debate?

 

[AdamJ]

Actually, I kind of agree with that, surprisingly. But it has to take everything into account. Having kids is the single biggest impact regarding CO2 that many adults will ever do so number of kids has to be taken into account, which will upset many.

For cars specifically - we already kind of have that. A thirsty car uses more fuel so costs more to fill up, and more journeys means more filling up, so those with thirsty cars or who drive unnecessarily (if there is such a thing...) are already paying a charge for their use. Off-setting it against low or no kids, a well insulated house, etc. would be great. I'd get cheaper diesel.

 

[skiesnpies]

Well because the last thing i read the polar ice cap is growing.
Now im no expert at all and I would not even say I know much about it. But from a layman's perspective how can the global warming be as bad as its supposed to be if the above is correct???

Well, because its hugely complex essentially, there are no certainties and there is much we don't know. But there IS a balance of data pointing one way or the other.

Research that contradicts the general scientific consensus that climate change is man made and very much happening- ie. the story you mention, makes a MUCH more interesting news story than one which backs up what we already thought. The media love controversy, and its boring to keep saying "look more of the same sort of evidence" - who wants to read that except boffins in labs?

There are definitely odd facts coming out, and unexpected results (like the one you mention), but there are also LOADS of other research findings coming in which utterly confirm what was thought, and these don't make mainstream media (but they do reach scientific journals). An academic I know tracks just this, he amalgamates research from the 4 corners of the globe and assess where the general balance of research is pointing. It is currently 90-95% in support of climate change being a very real threat.

Climate change deniers generally find "oddities" and use these to try and justify their position - but they don't have much other data to back up their position, and can't seem to explain the wealth of data which contradicts their position. This is what science is about, a balance of data, and repeating research to try and more firmly prove a theory.

It might not be true, there is clearly 5-10% doubt, but would you bet the earth on those odds? It really might be that simple.

 

[skiesnpies]

Actually, I kind of agree with that, surprisingly. But it has to take everything into account. Having kids is the single biggest impact regarding CO2 that many adults will ever do so number of kids has to be taken into account, which will upset many.

For cars specifically - we already kind of have that. A thirsty car uses more fuel so costs more to fill up, and more journeys means more filling up, so those with thirsty cars or who drive unnecessarily (if there is such a thing...) are already paying a charge for their use. Off-setting it against low or no kids, a well insulated house, etc. would be great. I'd get cheaper diesel.

Glad we agree I think its an interesting idea, if implemented well (for example what happens in your case if you need a vehicle for work - would you get an extra allowance - or would your employer get the allowance?). Its the detail that will make it work or not work, but I think if you take the assumption that there is a pollution problem, then providing an allowance is one way to deal with it, and heavily taxing those that stray over their allowance.

Here is a horrible problem though. Is it a "per person" allowance? If so, would there be a temptation (as with child benefits) to breed like rabbits to get more allowance, or should your kids actually take up some of your allowance until they are old enough to have their own ? I think the latter, but its a hell of a job for the government to sell to people (they will certainly chicken out of that one).

 

[skiesnpies]

Thats precisely the point, the media report it as if the scientists can't agree - and they pretty much do and have - well a majority (90%-95% have) - you just don't hear that in the diabolical media reporting.
I have declining respect for the media - even the BBC, they are a HUGE problem in so many walks of life, certainly mis-reporting science of all kinds has been very irresponsible - remember the MMR scare - putting lives at risk by utterly stupid coverage. Journalists have got lazy, the quantity has gone up, the quality down.

 

[skiesnpies]

Yes BUT, and dont take this the wrong way....

Until all these scientists and professors can sort themselves out and decide what is happening either way then its not something I shall concern myself with as my life is to short

And may I be a little cheeky to suggest, you don't want to look too deeply as it may not suit you to find out there is something in it ?

 

[skiesnpies]

Its so hard to know when we get freak weather, what is "normal" weather and what is as a direct result of climate change. We always had an always will have extremes of weather and record years, but which of these are a result of us meddling is hard to know.
As far as I know Queensland has always flooded, whether it is flooding more now or not is hard to know.
The general picture of the planet is that we ARE getting many more of these events, but which individual ones are caused by CO2 insulation - who knows!

 

[onlineseoserivce]

plant trees and preserve the beauty of nature

 

[garytulley]

Anyone that knows what to look for can see the effects to global warming, even if it is a small, almost insignificant change.

I found this statement on the web:

"Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Ice extent in January 2011 remained unusually low in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait (between southern Baffin Island and Labrador), and Davis Strait (between Baffin Island and Greenland). Normally, these areas freeze over by late November, but this year Hudson Bay did not completely freeze over until mid-January. The Labrador Sea remains largely ice-free."

Many people may deny global warming is a threat but the warning signs are there, England itself has begun seeing tornados which is due to the fact o rising temperatures, in the past reports of tornados in England were practically none existant.

I still remember when a tornado was spotted by a tornado pilot up in Scotland somewhere I think. That is when I realised global warming was begining to get a foothold on the planet and I have a bad feeling we may have left it too late to act.

 

[Digger]

"I still remember when a tornado was spotted by a tornado pilot up in Scotland somewhere I think. That is when I realised global warming was begining to get a foothold on the planet and I have a bad feeling we may have left it too late to act."

Not to worry - Britain has more Tornadoes/Twisters than anywhere else in the world ( according to land mass) an average of 30 plus - and geographically prone - so....not really surprising at all.

 

[Digger]

Anyone that knows what to look for can see the effects to global warming, even if it is a small, almost insignificant change.

I found this statement on the web:

"Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers ...........

True..there is lots of stuff on the web..

"the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports Antarctic sea ice in 2007 reached its largest extent in recorded history..."

Who knows

 

[skiesnpies]

Guardian Story About The Term "Climate Cranks"

This is an interesting and controversial piece about the term "climate crank" which has been coined to label those who might have previously been labeled as "deniers" or "sceptics". In an act of frustration at those who refuse to engage with climate change on a scientific basis, the term "crank" is being used to try and remove credibility from those who are denying climate change exists with little evidence or scientific process yet are being given credible media exposure.

Controversial indeed! Discuss?

 

[AdamJ]

Anyone that knows what to look for can see the effects to global warming, even if it is a small, almost insignificant change.

I found this statement on the web:

"Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Ice extent in January 2011 remained unusually low in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait (between southern Baffin Island and Labrador), and Davis Strait (between Baffin Island and Greenland). Normally, these areas freeze over by late November, but this year Hudson Bay did not completely freeze over until mid-January. The Labrador Sea remains largely ice-free."

Many people may deny global warming is a threat but the warning signs are there, England itself has begun seeing tornados which is due to the fact o rising temperatures, in the past reports of tornados in England were practically none existant.

I still remember when a tornado was spotted by a tornado pilot up in Scotland somewhere I think. That is when I realised global warming was begining to get a foothold on the planet and I have a bad feeling we may have left it too late to act.

If you want to believe in it then fine (not saying I don't, just by my earlier posts that it's not at the top of my list of concerns other than it being mildly interesting), but the reasons for it need to be sound.

Tornados are common in Britain, always have been. They are not 'a fact due to rising temperatures'.

As for focusing on ice retreating. Its a bit before my time, but I'm fairly sure that where I'm sat now in Birmingham was once under permanent ice as well so retreating ice is hardly new. Is it retreating faster now, maybe, but the fact it is retreating is not a sign of change.

I'm not denying climate change is taking place, but it has to be on the basis of sound evidence.

 

[skiesnpies]

Adam, this is the totally frustrating issue for me - there is OVERWHELMING evidence, I would really love to know (seriously, I would) where have you looked for it?

It will become more than "mildly interesting" in the coming years I suspect, especially if you live in a marginal part of the world.

 

[AdamJ]

Adam, this is the totally frustrating issue for me - there is OVERWHELMING evidence, I would really love to know (seriously, I would) where have you looked for it?

Does a degree in Conservation, Ecology and Pollution Control count? I've done the whole Silent Spring thing, spent three years studying it and it was all very interesting but you misunderstand me, I'm not saying I deny it is happening, but that a) statements 'proving' it have to be accurate in a public debate if the debate is to be credible (not the guff about tornadoes, or 4x4s above) and that b) its not something I can get hugely excited about as a big issue any more anyway. I did when I was younger, hence the degree, but that was 15 or more years ago.

 

[skiesnpies]

Well 15 years ago, it was still a very early science I think (still is to a great extent I suppose) but many research projects were only just getting going. There is still stacks we don't know I think, and plenty that we will have got wrong, but I think it unlikely we have got it "all wrong". There is a chance there is some "other" explanation, but I think the likelihood is getting smaller each year as more research data comes in.

I agree on the tornado fact being as much proof of climate change as the attempts to disprove it by saying "it was warm yesterday" - the 4x4 debate was to do with solutions though, not the existence of climate change.

I will take you off my list of "climate cranks" ha ha

 

[AdamJ]

Besides, I bought a house on the side of a hill in Gloucestershire about 30 miles inland. I'm waiting for the promised global warming to transform it into a pretty seaside fishing village!

 

[skiesnpies]

lol, you might have a long wait, you should have got one in Lincolnshire, gonna be the biggest boating lake in Europe (maybe)

 

[Digger]

Besides, I bought a house on the side of a hill in Gloucestershire about 30 miles inland. I'm waiting for the promised global warming to transform it into a pretty seaside fishing village!

might have to wait for the isostatic rebound to settle - you may end up further away from the sea than ever !

 

[PhotonSmith]

Yes I think the threat of global warming is real. Each of us as individual can start to make little changes to make a difference. As an inspiration, remember this quote by Anita Roddick "If you think that you are too small to make a difference, you haven't been in bed with a mosquito".

3 major areas that we can start to make a difference in:
- What we eat (Green food vs conventionally-farmed foods)]
- How we transport (Public transport vs Green cars vs Conventional cars)
- How we maintain our homes (ie. watering of gardens, heating/cooling needs)

 

[Drachsi]

If for a moment you forget global consumption, there are approx. 6,000 million people on this small island in space, and no mainland in sight. A figure often quoted is that every human produces 100 watts of heat, which I think means 600 Gigawatts of power, maybe this is what the problem is?

Drachsi
My name is my website

 

[Paul Norman]

Statistically, accurate scientific measurements have not occurred for a big enough percentage of history for them to be, as yet conclusive. But let's assume that the globe is warming (contrary to BBC reporting, scientists are far from agreed on that), rather than just changing.

To believe we can influence that is supreme arrogance. All the forces at work influencing climate, and geological events, and we actually believe that we can reverse this? And we understand how to do this? And we know for certain that our egotistical tampering, posturing and taxing will work? And not make things worse.

I think there are far more powerful arguments for wise use of resources, and the avoidance of pollution, than climate change. It is sad that we must leverage the threat of a flood in East Anglia, because the encouragement to good housekeeping is not heeded.

 

[AdamJ]

3 major areas that we can start to make a difference in:
- What we eat (Green food vs conventionally-farmed foods)]
- How we transport (Public transport vs Green cars vs Conventional cars)
- How we maintain our homes (ie. watering of gardens, heating/cooling needs)

This encapsulates the whole confusion on the issue. What is 'green food'??

Public transport is good between 7.30am and 9am, and between 5pm and 6pm, but otherwise there are a lot of trains and busses transporting a lot of air around, pensioners stocking up on Werther's Originals and not a lot else. When these low-use journeys are taken into accounts public transport isn't as great as it can first seem. Also busses smell of wee.

 

[davek17]

Interesting debate. I'll throw this in!

Have you watched Al Gore's award winning video, this talks about the patterns of nature and how Humans are speeding up the process of global warming. There are also many videos on TED that prove this.

Another fact is that all major cities have contunally posted record breaking top temperatures in the past 2 decades, and that the ice is thinning and receding faster than expected. Where is the water and CO2/Sulphur that was trapped by this ice going?

I also think it's clear that flooding is more prevalent around the world and it s worse than we think.

Add to this another fact that if the newspaper habits of the western world were taken up by the Chinese alone (IE their middle class read papers/magazines like we do) then the world would run out of trees in 2 weeks, IE not sustainable.

Apply this same line of thinking to the billions of emerging middle classes in India and China alone and you see how if everyone wants 2 cars, 3 TV's and Sky TV then we're in deep trouble and in fact being aware of the CO2 we create as humans could be siginifcant in helping slow this warming up down.

Billions of people are going to be displaced by global warming, it's a fact now.

 

[movietub]

Mans contribution to global warming is fractional, it's next to nothing. Particulalry at the current rate.

The only absolute truths are:

1)we produce some CO2, but only the tiniest fraction of what is causing the problem.

2)The Earth is currently warming up, but it does that.

The craziest thing is that not content with blaming ourselves, people blame the most ludicrous things. Such as cars, and airplanes - which are amongst the least likely to reduce greenhouse gases even if we scrapped them all.

Cows alone contribute at least 14% of all greenhouse gases, and their output (methane) is 23 times more damaging than the CO2 kicked out by cars and planes.

The average household dog does more damage than the average household car in total terms (including the production of the car). Yet how many green warriors are exactly the sort who have dogs/cats and admire a 'clean' countryside full of cattle?

I say shoot your pet dog, then we talk about my car

 

[davek17]

With so much at stake though I think we should at least do all we can?

 

[davek17]

MovieTub

Are you being serious about saying a car blurbs out less CO2 in its manufacture and usage than a dog does? Have you sat in a room with an exhaust pipe from a car too long?

The issue with cattel is that the big supermarkets force farmers to chop down forests and then graze cattle on them. We lose the trees and we also have cows farting CO2 out. We then get cheap meat that has to fly halfway round the globe to us. It's mad.

Termites also kick out more CO2 than anything else, volcanoes too and the odd shuttle launch apparently registers as a small blip!! However all of these things have been here for years (not the shuttle of course!!) so we need to focuss on what we can change or change back.

If we sit back and take any kind of comfort in blaming nature for global warming, thnking we can;t do a thing about it then the human race deserves everything coming!!

 

[movietub]

Interesting debate. I'll throw this in!

Have you watched Al Gore's award winning video, this talks about the patterns of nature and how Humans are speeding up the process of global warming. There are also many videos on TED that prove this.

Another fact is that all major cities have contunally posted record breaking top temperatures in the past 2 decades, and that the ice is thinning and receding faster than expected. Where is the water and CO2/Sulphur that was trapped by this ice going?

I also think it's clear that flooding is more prevalent around the world and it s worse than we think.

Add to this another fact that if the newspaper habits of the western world were taken up by the Chinese alone (IE their middle class read papers/magazines like we do) then the world would run out of trees in 2 weeks, IE not sustainable.

Apply this same line of thinking to the billions of emerging middle classes in India and China alone and you see how if everyone wants 2 cars, 3 TV's and Sky TV then we're in deep trouble and in fact being aware of the CO2 we create as humans could be siginifcant in helping slow this warming up down.

Billions of people are going to be displaced by global warming, it's a fact now.

It's always been a fact! We just don't know when. We don't even know exactly what the triggers are. No one has so much as proved what caused even the most recent ice ages, there are so many theories.

Regards the ice melting, it shouldn't be there anyway. That ice is confirmation that the planet is still in an ice age, and history suggests that recessive ice ages can swing back very quickly to full ice ages. Quickly in planetary terms that is - so maybe tomorrow, maybe 10m years. Whatever you hear, we simply do not know enough. But Earth has had those ice caps for less than a 0.1% of it's history bearing life. The whole planet is supposed to be naturally warmer than our history has ever known it.

You are right that we have accelerated the process, but only in the same way that blowing out of the back of a 200mph train will make it slightly faster. Any effect we have had in the microscopically short ime we have been in existence is too small to change any serious prediction of when the next catastrophic global even could be.

We also don't need trees to have sufficient breathable air - cut down all the trees and we end up with excess co2, algae feeds on the co2 and expands giving more oxygen. So long as small scale life exists that feeds on co2 you can be sure that we don't have the power to reduce oxygen levels.

 

[movietub]

MovieTub

Are you being serious about saying a car blurbs out less CO2 in its manufacture and usage than a dog does? Have you sat in a room with an exhaust pipe from a car too long?

Nope, but sitting in a room with what a dog outputs in total (including the production of its food) would kill you faster - assuming you squashed down all that was emitted into the proprtionate amount of time a car actually spends switched on and polluting. It's actually double. Total environmental footprint of a dog is 0.8 hecters, total of a car is 0.4 hecters. Killing the worlds dogs, would do more than uninventing the engine. It is fact, if you doubt it, do a google.

The issue with cattel is that the big supermarkets force farmers to chop down forests and then graze cattle on them. We lose the trees and we also have cows farting CO2 out. We then get cheap meat that has to fly halfway round the globe to us. It's mad.

Flying is very economical - and we simply can't support the cows in a country as densely populated as this. We could fit in all the cows we need of course, but then we couldn't grow the food they need! It's less polluting to put the cows where the food is, as the meat you ship over here weighs less than the food that went into it. As mentioned earlier, we don't need any trees to survive. Cutting down trees will not affect the oxygen/co2 balance one jot.

Termites also kick out more CO2 than anything else, volcanoes too and the odd shuttle launch apparently registers as a small blip!! However all of these things have been here for years (not the shuttle of course!!) so we need to focuss on what we can change or change back.

Changing back is against our development as a species. We should improve what we do where we can though. Will you join my mission to start killing these dogs then? We need to kill all of them, sadly. But by your logic, if we can do it we should!

If we sit back and take any kind of comfort in blaming nature for global warming, thnking we can;t do a thing about it then the human race deserves everything coming!!

As said lets do all we can - and we are doing. Nothing will speed up development of almost totally green cars and power stations faster than continuing to support the industries, and trusting that technology does, as always, continue to improve and fix it's own temporary problems. The anti nuclear lot need to stand to one side and let people get to grips with nuclear fision, for example. Also avoid at all costs by hybrid cars, we need manufacturers and infrastructure to adopt fuel cell tech. They won't if we give them the alternative of flogging us very unclean hybrids.

 

[AdamJ]

I'm all for debate and am not anti, but it has to be on factual grounds.

Another fact is that all major cities have contunally posted record breaking top temperatures in the past 2 decades

I doubt it. Since when? Since records began? And 'ALL' major cities, everywhere? Or since say Roman times before the human population was big enough to have much of an effect? Given the Romans grew grapes in Lancashire it must have been pretty toasty then as well.

The 'new record since records begain' is very flawed as a proof system in general.

I also think it's clear that flooding is more prevalent around the world and it s worse than we think.

Is it??

Add to this another fact that if the newspaper habits of the western world were taken up by the Chinese alone (IE their middle class read papers/magazines like we do) then the world would run out of trees in 2 weeks, IE not sustainable.

That sounds too much like one of those 'urban facts' to be remotely true. Where did you get that from?

Apply this same line of thinking to the billions of emerging middle classes in India and China alone and you see how if everyone wants 2 cars.

So? I have two cars but good though I am I can only drive one at once so aside from build-output that's no increase. Besides, somewhere else on here was a debate about electric cars and someone said we should have an electric car for short journeys and have a second combustion-engined one for long journeys, so that's two cars to enable a reduction in CO2 output.

Billions of people are going to be displaced by global warming, it's a fact now.

Its a 'fact now'? Billions of people?? I don't believe it. Right now???