An Argument for Climate Change
By Myrrdin
@Myrrdin (3599)
Canada
March 20, 2008 1:20pm CST
Ok many conservatives doubt that Climate Change, AKA Global Warming, is a man made phenomenon. They claim there is just not enough evidence to support the theory that man has had significant impact on the climate. They point to the cost of making things "green". But lets do the conservative thing and examine the issue. There are three possibilities:
1) Climate Change is a natural phenomenon
2) Climate Change is a natural phenomenon that has been influenced by man
3) Climate Change is a myth entirely
Ok so lets look at what if scenarios for option 1:
We attempt to fix things:
Since it is purely natural nothing we do has any effect and we suffer economic hard times due to spending on trying to fix things and the world still suffers a severe ice age. We have significant advances in technology that makes us less tied to oil
We do nothing:
We suffer a severe ice age and suffer economic hard times do to no suitable crops and failure of much of the infrastructure of the world.
Ok so lets look at best and worst case scenario for option 2:
We attempt to fix things:
We suffer economic hard times but manage to avert the oncoming ice age, or at least decrease its devastating effects. We have improved technology that makes us less tied to oil
We do Nothing
We suffer a severe ice age and suffer economic hard times do to no suitable crops and failure of much of the infrastructure of the world.
Ok so lets look at best and worst case scenario for option 3:
We attempt to fix things:
We suffer economic hard times but we have improved technology that makes us less tied to oil
We do Nothing
Nothing happens and our ties to oil continue unabated without advancements to get us less addicted to oil.
So what is the best thing for humanity then? Do nothing, or act?
2 people like this
3 responses
@choudhary03 (943)
• Hyderabad, India
20 Mar 08
One thing i understand is we should decrease our dependence on oil. Another thing is there are lot more factors affecting us more than oil which are devastating.
I think we should try our best thats what we are right not to be lazy.
Buddy the way you expressed your discussion is excellent.
2 people like this
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
20 Mar 08
Thanks, but I can't take all the credit, I saw a YouTube video that explained this, stating outright that it doesn't matter if Climate change is real or imagined, man made or natural, in the end action on this issue is still preferable to inaction.
2 people like this
@BlackTongue (21)
•
20 Mar 08
We will naturally reduce our use of oil whether we want to or not.
Oil runs out in 40 years and that is providing that they continue to find some new sources.
My guess is that it will be unaffordable to most people in less than 20 years, so cars will be off the road unless you are one of the super rich.
No oil or limited oil impacts on heating/lighting all sorts of other things.
The world will be very different in 20 years times. I'm guessing that the military powers will stand guard around remaining oil wells and terminals.
How every day life will change I can barely imagine. Whether I will be working is in great doubt. Most people in the UK need a car to get to work. If this isn't possible then what happens? How many companies will simply close because of their dependancy on oil for production of their products? If you can produce without oil, how do you ship your goods to shops ?
Better get on with developing my mini nuclear solo power pack so I can survive in the future world.
What a horrible thought.
2 people like this
@passionfalcon (84)
• Canada
24 Mar 08
I'd like to add to this. Most governments seem to believe nuclear is the way to go. I have to wonder if these governments have any rational thinking at all. They obviuosly don't do the research and some psycho has convinced them this is the future. Countries are lining up for reactors. The damage is irreversable as most concerned individuals have learned. There is no point in looking at costs for changing the energy of the future. There is no option but to do so. If we plan on having one here. Solar, wind, geothermal are all great possibilities. And we had put a fraction of the investment we put into nuclear into alternatives many other options would come to the table. As far as cost goes. There could never bigger investment loss then nuclear. Costs are high and profits are low if any at all. Canada sells nuclear energy at a loss to the US. Just because it has to be used up. Not to mention the ever lasting storage involved for the waste product. It starts from the get go...open pit or drilled mines. They are a disaster for the enviroment around them...for ever. That's a long time. Politicians alike will say anything for a sale. They're no different then the used car salesman trying to sell you that old piece of junk. But they're telling you it's like brand new.
1 person likes this
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
24 Mar 08
Well nuclear should also be researched, after all in theory it should be possible to get energy from any element and leave no harmful waste products. True nuclear fission would be a saving grace, but so far we have not managed it. And nuclear power has real potential. There are alot of environmental issues, true, that's why more research needs to be done. Wind turbines are extremely costly right now, but show much more potential then nuclear I agree, if they can create turbines that don't cost so much to maintain then in theory its free energy. Same goes for solar, if the technology ever gets to the point where it is worthwhile then great. Right now Nuclear is the cheapest and most efficient generator of electricity that relies on no fossil fuels. there is also Tidal Generators in a variety of forms that should certainly be considered.
1 person likes this
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
24 Mar 08
Yes, certainly the alternatives are better, but as I stated they are not as efficient as nuclear right now, and nuclear does have more potential down the road if they can ever get it right. I am not saying the Uranium waste is wonderful, it would be better if we could produce a zero waste reactor, which in theory is possible, just a matter of if it takes more energy to create it then it generates. For now certainly wind solar and water generated electricity is the way to go.
1 person likes this
@passionfalcon (84)
• Canada
24 Mar 08
I have done a lot of research into nuclear reactors and the effects on the enviroment. It is not safe...it is not efficient and it is not cheap. Unless 3-5 Billion is considered cheap. That's just for the structure. There are some things on this planet that may be better off left alone. This is definitely one of them. Do the research...but not through a government agency or any agency trying to sell it. There is a lot of independent research going on out there. There is a shocking truth out there. Once you learn the seriousness of nuslear its impossible to see it any other way. Not at any time is uranium ore safe. Not even in the ground. Ther are natural radon levels occuring in areas where uranium is found. Homes are being remediated from natural occuring levels alone. The spent nuclear fuel removed from a reactor is ten times as radioactive than the refined yellow cake before it enters the reactor. Uranium has a long breakdown list. They call them daughters. Each stage of breakdown they becomes more chemically toxic. The tailings left behind at a mine sight are put incontainers and stored in water...as in ponds,rivers. The more we use nuclear the more storage facilities we will need. Unforunately the UK has a bad habit of dumping their waste's in the ocean. It's just a matter of time when these containers decay. I guess they could go out and get a bigger container to put the smaller one in. How long could that idea last? Once you start crushing uranium ore it'll continue to break down for 10's of thousands of years. I'm just giving you a fraction of the imformation. There is lots to learn. Why anyone would consider nuclear is only because the truth of it is not revealed to them. Or they just don't believe it. It sounds to me like going green alternatively would be the most sensible way for the future...hands down.
1 person likes this
@spanktastic2120 (172)
• United States
20 Mar 08
id have to agree with you, but i dont think we need to even consider the possibilities of any of these choices. the fact of the matter is, this will change, whether its now or in a hundred million years, and the most important thing to remember is, people dont want to have to change. i personally think that if we have the understanding and capabilities to develop and impliment climate controlling devices or habits, that we should do it for the sole purpose of making the worlds climate more enjoyable. all technology has ever hoped to accomplish was to better the life of the creator. i say we invest in research and technology in this, and in the worst case scenario, we learn how to control our global climate, and make every place a paradise. as for dependency on oil in our cars, which you seem to be pretty adamant about, i saw a car on the science channel i think it was, maybe discovery, that runs on compressed air. it has two large tanks that span the length of the car and are filled with air. the air is released at precise times by on board computers that make the piston driven engine run. the tanks have faults along the length of them so that if an accident occurs they rupture and release all the air over a large surface area under a significantly lower pressure. i think it can go like 70mph and only costs $4 they said to fill up your tanks, which can take you a few hundred miles. all you need is an air compressor. however the air compressor would run off whatever the power company is using to produce power, but at least youre doing your part to help the environment. oh yeah, the car was made by a frenchman, and it costs like 25k for the family sized one, i think 5 seats.
1 person likes this
@spanktastic2120 (172)
• United States
21 Mar 08
no apology necessary, but if we run out of food, or have too many people, we will just spread like we always have. we will start growing things in or on the ocean, at the poles, and eventually on the moon and other planets. the human race will refuse to die as a whole, although man people will be lost.
1 person likes this
@BlackTongue (21)
•
21 Mar 08
The compressed air car sounds fantastic and maybe one solution for one problem. Hope there is enough air in the atmosphere to satisfy all the cars in this country. At least using the car will put the air back I guess and this government will probably import the air from some 3rd world country in any case, lol.
So how will the tyres be made? How will the engine be lubicated ? I guess they have used bio-fuels for that.
Overall though, people are becoming so selfish that I can imagine there will be lots of trouble when things they take for granted now will gradually become harder to acquire. I think greed will take over and crime will increase as people demand to have things by one means or another.
If I'm sounding a little pessimistic its simply because people don't want to face the facts and they are exploiting the worlds resources beyond its limits. They will take as much as they can for as long as they can. No government it going to really take serious steps to change the pace of growth as it would bankrupt its economies.
When you look at world population growth in the last 200 years its obvious there is going to be a lot of starvation pretty soon too. At the rate of population growth we currently have there's no way we can feed everyone. Okay, its already happening in some parts of the world but those areas will grow rapidly.
I must stop. Sorry for the rant.
2 people like this
