What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
30 Comments
- orelses, on 12/11/2007, -3/+12The next president needs to put the focus on "energy independance" and not so much climate change. This is important when marketing to the other half of America who get turned off by "globel warming" So when talking to your friends and co-workers, please consider talking to them first about changing their habbits as it relates to things they feel and understand. (cost savings, cleaner air, better security). And not get caught up rambling about how the weather is going to change in 20, 40, or 100 years. This way we can get things done for once.
- zacharytelschow, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6The big scare during the 70's was global cooling.
The eruption of Mt. St. Helen's released by a factor of hundreds more CO2 than all burning of fossil fuels combined throughout human history.
The climate of the planet has naturally fluctuated throughout time.
In the chart Al Gore shows in An Inconvenient Truth, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have lagged behind temperature changes, just as they do today.
Global warming is happening, it very likely isn't human induced, and major changes in human behavior will cause microscopic, if any changes in global climate. - inertic, on 12/11/2007, -3/+6Unfortunately, our economic system is setup in such a way that your company must grow and people must consume. We are told that we must have the latest gadget, wear the latest fashions, and have that shiny new car parked in the driveway of our mcmansion. Sustainability doesn't even enter the vocabulary for most people and until the environmental impact hits them directly, they will continue their way of life.
- skews13, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3we will do with less,simply because of cost
- Thadster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2But thats its huh? Many don't believe the planet is at stake. The real motive is control, pure and simple.
- blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4I have said it before and I will say it again. I find it sick and disturbing that people want to use the government to disadvantage people they do not like.
- inactive, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2I suggest a read of this: http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/10/buddhist- ...
- Thadster, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3I will follow Al Gores lead... he really talks the talk and walks the walk, you know the SUV's, private jets, mansions...etc..
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Even Al Gore, widely recognized global warming proponent, knows its a scam..... - rephil513, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1and for the record, I agree to the notion of alternative energy sources. If only there were a great way to harness that big darn yellow ball in the sky that appears to be driving most of the warming globally...that probably puts out more energy in a minute than humanity has used EVER.
- zacharytelschow, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. Reduce pollution for its own merits, not some unlikely change in global climate.
- theantirobot, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone using digg is a demand side activist.
- blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2The only way humanity's desire for more resources will end it is if you don't count people who have augmented themselves with technology to be human and that's a stretch. If anything humanity's desire for resources will help us to gain technology and reach our hand toward the stars.
- clv101, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1In this article, instead of looking at the use of fossil fuels we look at the production of fossil fuels, as to use them first you have to produce them.
Currently the entire debate when it comes to fossil fuels and climate change is focused on demand, the consumption of fossil fuels and the resultant emissions. This is not the only approach. Here is proposed an alternative approach that totally ignores emissions but instead focuses on the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground.
We need to ask, will the current approach leave fossil fuels in the ground that would otherwise be extracted? Ultimately that is the only way to control atmospheric CO2 concentration. - buberfan, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Addressing the supply side of fossil fuels is not the whole answer, but the article makes a convincing case that it is an important part of the solution. Whether we succeed in stopping global warming or not we will still face the challenge of finding ways to share limited resources - or face an outbreak of wars as we fight for control of those resources. Reasons:
Scenario 1 - we reduce supply of oil and coal (to save the environment). Demand for fossil fuels remains high with lots of potential for conflict over who gets it.
Scenario 2 - we don't reduce supply of oil and coal. Global warming results in huge reduction in world food production as vast tracts of land become unworkable. Result - even greater conflict over what land remains productive.
Whichever way you look at it, the old 'dog eat dog' models are obsolete (rich countries - don't kid yourselves that you can keep on hoarding the world's resources while keeping conflict 'over there'). As Martin Luther King once said, ' we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools'. - ryan83189, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1The fact of the matter is that as alternative energies become available, fossil fuels will become cheaper, and deter people from investing in these technologies. It is a catch-22 that will not stop until the last barrel is pumped. This is a problem, for our economy, and our environment, (whether or not you belive global warming). One thing that won't help s@!T is paying a tax for what you pollute. Throwing money on it won't help.
- krnldmp, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2The world has entered an era where efficiency = power.
- Chandon, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1So... if we follow this plan, how much money will it cost? What global warming damage will it delay? For how long? Is that a good deal?
Any plan that doesn't include answers to those questions is pointless. Think of it this way - would you be willing to give up your car right now to delay New Orleans being destroyed by flood from the year 2115 to the year 2118? Would it be worth it for the USA for half the population to give up their cars today for that gain? If we don't have the answers to my initial questions, that might well be the deal that's being suggested. - Chandon, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2Do you realize how bad things would have to get for the species itself to actually die? Short of a truly global nuclear holocaust or a massive meteor impact, it's not going to happen.
- rephil513, on 12/11/2007, -4/+4I suppose I'll be forced to do with less how? Why? Is anybody having second guesses as the to the nature of climate change i.e.-Is it really man made? Remember oil companies would benefit from a carbon tax...it would put a cap on supply and drive prices up increasing their profits only more...(that is to all of my hyper leftist friends who insist that any scientific thought skeptical to the "man made"ness of global warming are simply funded by oil companies...)
http://infowars.com/articles/science/global_warmin ...
I find the most compelling link to be the one at the bottom: control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of life----seems to fit in here - ryan83189, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0Man, and i thought Australians were so independent, this ***** is Orwellian.
- greenmammal, on 12/12/2007, -1/+0Regulation of fossil fuel extraction seems, on the face of it, to be the ideal answer to Climate Change - who enforces such treaties though? What happens when it's powerful countries owning the assets (and breaking the rules) rather than international companies? Six countries (USA, China, India, Russia, South Africa, Australia) hold 84% of world hard coal reserves. Seems like a hard bunch to convince. I don't think these governments realise/understand/believe the consequences of not acting, radically, against climate change. That's what it comes down to.
- blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1*environmentalists
- cdubd, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1I couldn't agree more. There is just no hard proof that human-caused C02 emissions are responsible for climate change. Humans have only been in existence for what amounts to a blip on the geological time scale, and I imagine we will see much BIGGER climate changes in the future. Species go extinct if they cannot adapt, and that doesn't make us any different. At the same time, I do believe we should stop polluting the way we do, just on principal alone. I don't like breathing the ***** air anymore than anyone else does.
- empirefalling, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1The US will eventually be forced to drastically reduce it’s polluting of the planet. Severe restrictions on it’s financial structure by the World Body will ultimately destroy it’s current wasteful Society and change it’s political configuration for the good of mankind.
The Ruling Elite of the US will be brought “down to Earth” to actually live like the other 99% of Humanity. Strict Regulation of US consumerism by an International Consortium of Free Nations must be implemented to oversee it’s acquiescence to the will of the World Body and prevent any deceitful US capitalist trickery to resume it’s polluting industries and wastefulness. The US political composition will also have to be reorganized and Strictly Regulated by an International Consortium of Free Nations in order to ensure the US remains restrained. The US could be divided into Districts and those Districts would be governed by Committees composed of groups of Free Nations. Each District would have it’s own Administrator and that Administrator would dispense laws initiated by the ICFN.
There would be no Single “president” of the US. The populace would be reeducated according to it’s needs. The US military would be disbanded or absorbed into a greater World Military. Any wealth the US has accumulated through it’s wars of aggression would be redistributed to those countries and peoples that the US has subjugated.
Although these are measures may seem drastic, most of the World Body agrees that the US must be dealt with sooner or later to prevent it’s destruction of not only the Planet, but it’s destruction of the Human Race as well.
When the entire Planet is at stake, drastic measures must be taken with the criminals responsible. - blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1You enviromentalist always like jumping to force to achieve your goals don't you? That's what government regulation really is, the government using coersive force on people to achieve their goals. Sadly everyone (except us libertarians) seem to like using force on one another and I find it sick.
- jgtg32a, on 12/11/2007, -3/+2Agreed but I was under the impression that energy independence was another word for Alaska.
I don't think Alaska is going to fly with the global warming crowd. - greenmammal, on 12/11/2007, -1/+0edit
- Brassbud, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1Dear Rich Saudis,
Please stop oil production now to save the polar bears and so I don't lose my beach front property in 50 years.
Thx
Aging Hippie/Politican/Celebrity desperate for attention
Seriously people, you can't build an economy on charity. Besides, I'd imagine its going to be difficult to convince a people that live in a 130+ degree desert to be affraid of a few degrees of warming. - inactive, on 12/11/2007, -7/+4No one will ever be able to change humanities need for more and more.
We will die because of it. - inactive, on 12/11/2007, -8/+3As long as I can keep my iPhone I'd be willing to make some sacrifices. Hopefully those NASCAR idiots in flyover country will be forced to do most of the sacrifices.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is