Is the US President wrong on Global Warming?

[FJBear]

Originally Posted by February_Stormz

I don't think President Bush can deny there is global warming now that there is proof from the space shuttle pics and the astronauts who were able to view it.

I recently read a statement made from one of the astronauts that the earths atmosphere looks like an egg shell on an egg shell. There is definite proof of damage to the earths atmosphere.

We have a freon and appliance removal business so I am well aware of the dangers to the ozone and global warming. It is against the law to vent freon and if caught is punishable by a large fine plus prison time. I still come across appliance lines that have been cut to drain freon because the owner doesn't want to pay added expenses for the proper removal. There are many rules and regulations that need to be strictly enforced to prevent venting.

I recently signed a petition to fight global warming. Maybe if we all take a stand against this issue in large numbers, maybe then, President Bush will become more serious.

Signing a petition is a great way of showing that global warming does matter. The world is currently not willing to accept that GW exist or is real. The sooner that we wake up and start to take individual action the better. I f we don't mother nature will show us just how dependent we are on this planet for survivel, which is something that most of us never think about in our busy schedule. Good luck with your business.

[FJBear]

Originally Posted by Accountable

FJBear, when I saw GW in your post, my mind went to GW Bush.

President Global Warming Bush.

That is so so funny! And rarher ironic, don't you think.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by FJBear

Signing a petition is a great way of showing that global warming does matter. The world is currently not willing to accept that GW exist or is real. The sooner that we wake up and start to take individual action the better. I f we don't mother nature will show us just how dependent we are on this planet for survivel, which is something that most of us never think about in our busy schedule. Good luck with your business.

Sorry, can't do it. Do you have any idea how much ozone is generated by the production of a single piece of paper? Not to mention erosion fields, increasing silt in our rivers, poisoning fish ..... I can't go on.

[Majenta]

What worries me is that with all the denial about global warming - be it well placed or otherwise- there is a real avoidance of attempting to come up with practically manageable ways of producing env. friendly, sustainable sources of energy. Whether our burning of fossil fuels is causing irrepairable damage or not, the point will come - and probably sooner than a lot of people think - when these fuels are going to run out. what then? Even if we ignore the global warming angle, something still has to be done if we want to carry on living the way we do. and this isn't too far in the future...I think it's coal that is predicted to run out within 50years? I'm hoping to still be around then. It's a very real problem that too many people are ignoring.

[FJBear]

Originally Posted by Majenta

What worries me is that with all the denial about global warming - be it well placed or otherwise- there is a real avoidance of attempting to come up with practically manageable ways of producing env. friendly, sustainable sources of energy. Whether our burning of fossil fuels is causing irrepairable damage or not, the point will come - and probably sooner than a lot of people think - when these fuels are going to run out. what then? Even if we ignore the global warming angle, something still has to be done if we want to carry on living the way we do. and this isn't too far in the future...I think it's coal that is predicted to run out within 50years? I'm hoping to still be around then. It's a very real problem that too many people are ignoring.

Hi,

I completely agree, but I am looking at this from a slightly different angle.

I believe that we have to invest in alternative sustainable energy sources now, if we have to avoid global warming completely runing out of control. But here is the catch! Global industry and governments around the world will not invest in research and technology development before we are closer to coal, oil etc running short. Why should they? From a short term point of view, 50 years is a very long time and we dod not have to act just yet from a financial point of view. However, as I started, from a Global Warming perspective, we need to start now. However, new clean energy sources are difficult to come by and it will take a long time for wind, sun etc. energy to cover the worlds energi consumption. Hence, I support the development and usage of nuclear energy as an interim solution, until new technologies can be developed and green energy enters mainstream supply. I know this is controversial, but nuclear energy does not produce CO2 and will be a handy tool to have available to help fight Global Warming. I dod not think that we can be pointing our noses at nuclear energy, I simply do not think there is an alternative in the short term.

[Accountable]

Classic supply and demand. We demand fossil fuel. Oil companies supply it. One will decline and/or go away someday, possibly soon. When that happens, we may be shocked at how quickly the new niche is filled.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay Freedom!!

[Majenta]

You think? I hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. the phrase 'mass panic' springs sadly to mind...

[FJBear]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Classic supply and demand. We demand fossil fuel. Oil companies supply it. One will decline and/or go away someday, possibly soon. When that happens, we may be shocked at how quickly the new niche is filled.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay Freedom!!

You have a point. But whenever the world is in trouble we always seem to get it just wrong tather than getting it right. This is as usual due to financial interests.
Take the example of the ozone layer. Finally a worldwide ban on CFC gases was implemented. But what did we use instead of CFC gases in aerosols? The industry started to utilise HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons) in aerosols instead. Unfortunately these causes global warming. The HFCs have a global warming potential ranging from 120 - 12000, which is why some of these are termed super grenhouses gases.

If we make the same 'smart' choice with regard to the worlds energy production, we could end up in even more trouble. And this is the point. We simply, despite 100 of years of scientific research, still do not understand enough about the earth we live on and how human action quite literally can destroy the planet without any of us being aware of it. Our planet is so finely balanced, and we have just - in the last 10-15 years - found out that we have seriously disturbed this balance, and that it will take serious global action to bring things under control.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by FJBear

You have a point. But whenever the world is in trouble we always seem to get it just wrong tather than getting it right. This is as usual due to financial interests.
Take the example of the ozone layer. Finally a worldwide ban on CFC gases was implemented. But what did we use instead of CFC gases in aerosols? The industry started to utilise HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons) in aerosols instead. Unfortunately these causes global warming. The HFCs have a global warming potential ranging from 120 - 12000, which is why some of these are termed super grenhouses gases.

If we make the same 'smart' choice with regard to the worlds energy production, we could end up in even more trouble. And this is the point. We simply, despite 100 of years of scientific research, still do not understand enough about the earth we live on and how human action quite literally can destroy the planet without any of us being aware of it. Our planet is so finely balanced, and we have just - in the last 10-15 years - found out that we have seriously disturbed this balance, and that it will take serious global action to bring things under control.

I think you overestimate our influence. Earth is not a F-1 racer that has to be rebuilt if the wind changes. Earth is a rambler; she's indestructable. We're not going to hurt her.

[FJBear]

Originally Posted by Accountable

I think you overestimate our influence. Earth is not a F-1 racer that has to be rebuilt if the wind changes. Earth is a rambler; she's indestructable. We're not going to hurt her.

I hope you are right, though I feel the example of CFC and the ozone layer is a classic example of a situation where we for years did not know that we were damaging the planet on a massive scale. We made a huge hole in the ozone layer, which - despite our efforts to limit CFC's - will not be fully repaired before 2050. It must be a pretty big hole and some serious damage we have caused, as it will take that many years for the planet to get well again.