At some point, unfortunately, this thread _must_ at least touch on politics, because, unfortunately, the politicos have taken 'sides' on the issues and are using them to define constituencies and voting blocks. My thoughts below are somewhat rambling, sorry for that.
There are real issues here to be understood, and as a science and technology savvy group, we can probably teach each other quite a bit about the topic, and come up with small answers that will be passed on. Hint: weather you are an Imperialist Pollution Baron or an Environazi Tree Hugger, the dogma that you've been fed is _not_ the whole truth.
For the record: I lean more toward the Tree Hugger side of things, but I really do try to understand the bigger picture. However, IMHO, the bigger picture is complex enough that we will _never_ understand it fully. We'll understand better and better, but never fully.
I agree that the media feeds us a biased picture. However rather than being biased in the Tree Hugger direction or the Pollution Baron direction, I believe that the media is biased toward oversimplification and sensationalism. Different media outlets are biased to the Right and the Left, for example Fox vs. CNN, but on the whole these forces balance out. But both 'sides' simplify to the extreme.
Both 'sides' simplify to the extreme in order to further both their public _and_ their _hidden_ agenda.
Yes, there are environmental problems. But many of 'Envionmental' groups are as much about gaining _power_ as they are about 'protection the Earth'. It is certain that CFL lamps will result in less energy consumption, but it is also certain that CFL manufacturers are part of the push for mandatory rules on lighting.
Some of the solutions to environmental problems will require restricting 'freedom'; and quite rightfully there are groups that are against these rules, specifically to maintain freedom. But you can be certain that some of the funding, and some of the 'desire to protect freedom' is really entrenched power trying to maintain itself.
Added to this is the fact that these _groups_ are composed of many different individuals. You no longer have 'deceitful politicians with hidden agendas'; instead you have different people with different agendas, some of which happen to overlap, some of whom are hiding their true goals. The 'Left' is not some vast well oiled conspiracy machine; if we were that coordinated then the 'Right' wouldn't stand a chance. But both the 'Left' and the 'Right' are groups of people, each person with their own priorities and goals.
I firmly believe that humans are capable of changing the global environment. This is the natural history of life: organisms fill an available ecological niche, and in doing so they _change_ that ecological niche and create a new environment in which new organisms will grow. Humans will _not_ destroy 'all life on Earth', nor will they 'destroy the environment'. However we will change the environment, and we may create a new environment that we don't like or cannot tolerate.
I firmly believe that human produced CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature of the planet. How much is not clear. The historic record shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and while it is quite clear that correlation is not causation (and humans were not burning tons of fossil fuels over the past 400Kyr), it is pretty clear to me that _natural_ changes from other sources (eg. insolation) are _amplified_ by the CO2 response, and that now humans are kicking the amplifier directly.
Having said that, it is not at all clear to me what the correct _political_ or _societal_ solution to global CO2 production is. We could posit a 'global government' to control the 'problem', but that would clearly become a nightmare power grab, with groups that care nothing about CO2 or sea-level rise looking to establish a foothold in such a global tyranny.
I firmly believe that 'cap and trade' is a very _bad_ idea. 'Cap and trade' is the idea that you restrict everyone to producing less CO2 than they used to, but permit people to trade their 'CO2 savings' with others. This has the tremendous accounting requirement of figuring out what everyone used to do (to provide the baseline) while at the same time restricting groups who were not yet wasteful from ever benefiting from being wasteful. Imagine if (for reasons of fuel economy) there was a law that said 'If you own an SUV you can keep using it, but if you only have a bicycle then you can't even buy a car.'
Presuming that CO2 in the atmosphere is a real problem, 'cap and trade' will never solve the problem. At best it will help slow down how quickly the problem gets worse, while at the same time making lots of people unhappy.
I have the following rough idea: Rather than restricting CO2 production, or passing 'carbon taxes', or otherwise moving more power into the government, we should pass a law which basically says 'for each kg of CO2 that an industry puts into the atmosphere, that industry must remove 0.15kg of CO2 from the atmosphere', and then let industry come up with the technology to do this. No one in government knows the best way to get rid of CO2. But let industry compete to do this, and I bet we have 100 different techniques, at least a couple of which would actually be economically viable.
A quick aside about CFCs, stratospheric Chlorine, and volcanoes: Volcanoes put far more Chlorine into the atmosphere than humans with CFCs. But volcanoes also put more _water_ into the atmosphere, at the same time. The ocean does even more than the volcanoes. But the chlorine compounds are pretty well water soluble; in essence these natural Chlorine compounds get 'washed' out of the atmosphere. CFCs, because of their great stability (the reason that we like to use them in the first place) don't get 'washed' out of the atmosphere.
-Jon
We all could make this the longest replied to post in history over this subject and it's baggage that goes with it. The bottom line is ( in my own opinion) we all like saving money,we know that as a country and a world things must change for the better for my children and grandchildren and yours. The thing that gets me is these small groups come out and say "the only way to save the earth is to change your light bulbs" pass more laws, hire light bulb police while they ride down the road alone is a large suv. It's not much different than all the cfc uproar ,air conditioners were killing the planet. But what they would not tell you is that one volcanic eruption produces more depleting gas than all the cfc's ever made. And lastly George you or any of the other moderators can scold me if you want but here goes. The main problem with the majority of all serious issues is the news media and their spin based on their political beliefs. I honestly think if the four major news networks got together and made up the story that eating dog do do was the best thing in the world for you, it would cure all ills, 60% of america would be asking for a McCrap sandwich. The news man said it would so it must be true. Now lets all get back to pulling wire,fixing that pesky afci breaker or figuring out a way for me to get rid of that plant up light and not wind up in the dog house.
