Shut down CFO's. Turn the miles and miles of corn fields into grasslands and bio-diverse farmland.

Just those two moves would not only improve our nations health, but also reduce emissions substantially and create lands that would uptake much of the carbon emissions we currently make for power and vehicles.

Won't happen though. Instead we'll make more ethanol out of corn and fill our tanks up with more of it, costing more energy to produce than we receive out of it, and while limiting some emissions, gaining others.

Many of our systems are just fundamentally broken. The problem is, they won't be fixed till it's too late as there is more money in the broken systems than there is in fixing them.

Yah...I'm bitter. Sorry for the rant.

You say global warming I say natural variations in the earth’s climate. I think some people got greedy and exaggerated the climes on global warming in other to get more funding. Like NASA GISS: the climate part of Nasa gets 8 billion dollars every year think about that for moment and then consider, the earth has been cooling for the past decade. I you want to read more about the science of climate chance you can visit WUWT it’s a good site for someone who’s sceptical about climate change. Now that being said we have to take care of nature and clean up what we leave behind such a plastic, cans and heavy metals

Just my 2 cents
😀

Quote from aries_girl

I think that climate change/global warming is happening, but that it is natural. Snow falls fluctuate year by year and same with the weather.In the long run, it maintains itself. After all, isn't it a bit egotistical to think, that we who have not been around a long time in earth's history would have such a great effect? I don't know, but I do know that everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and just because a lot of people believe that global warming is happening doesn't mean that it is. (After all, didn't people before Darwin believe that it was impossible for humans to have evolved from apes?

Edit:
Just to prove the weather fluctuations in Canadian winters
In 2006: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/10/winterweather.html
In 2007: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/30/winter-forecast.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Extra Edit:
2008: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/03/10/record-snowfall.html

You are wrong, mankind is pouring unnatural chemical combinations into the atmosphere and pouring unprecedented amounts of natural combinations, we have been going at it for a while, but is only the last half century that we are breaking the records.

You think that doesn't have an effect? FUCK a single volcano eruption can have a somewhat deep effect on the world climate, PEOPLE, CLIMATE CHANGES, THAT IS A FACT... however, we accelerated the changes to a point in with MOST creatures won't have a fair chance to adapt (Polar bears).

We should stop calling this global warming, because the effect isn't that simple, the climate is NOT just going to get warmer... is going to get MUCH more extreme, with sudden changes of rain fall, and temperatures, most crops won't have a chance to adapt, and that is going to HURT us a LOT in the long run...

[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs14/f/2007/026/1/1/Into_Werewolf_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/Tank_soldier222/Into_Werewolf_RETURNS_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

Quote from Chaoswind

You are wrong, mankind is pouring unnatural chemical combinations into the atmosphere and pouring unprecedented amounts of natural combinations, we have been going at it for a while, but is only the last half century that we are breaking the records.

You think that doesn't have an effect? FUCK a single volcano eruption can have a somewhat deep effect on the world climate, PEOPLE, CLIMATE CHANGES, THAT IS A FACT... however, we accelerated the changes to a point in with MOST creatures won't have a fair chance to adapt (Polar bears).

We should stop calling this global warming, because the effect isn't that simple, the climate is NOT just going to get warmer... is going to get MUCH more extreme, with sudden changes of rain fall, and temperatures, most crops won't have a chance to adapt, and that is going to HURT us a LOT in the long run...

Hmm. You do make some fair points but I think you are mixing things together. The AWG (Co2) theory is after My research pure BS and i thing there is enough evidence for it out there. Now the current Co2 levels are around 389 ppm (parts per million) now some research suggest that in the dinosaur age they were at 2000 or more while temperatures where still around nowadays levels.

This and many other results from many different people makes me believe that changes in the earths temperatures are within normal levels you have to remember that the earth is 4,3 billion years old, humans have only been around for 100 000 years and out carbon industries 150 or so. Now climate date(the kind where man goes to places and measures whit a thermometer) has only been around for so long as the carbon industries and that means we have an incomplete picture of how the earth acts.
Now the whole story about how warming would be bad for all of us might not be true ether, some scientist suggest that the earth would flourish with more heat and Co2(there have been test made that Co2 increases plant growth with would mean that there's more food for all of us much un like bio diesel with have caused the deaths of 5 mil. people because the food prices have goon up and thus the programs that give food to starving people in 3 world countries. The part about plants eat Co2 is 3 grade science and the part about more food being around have been proven in tests and history such as north and south Korea, the average north Korean is much smaller then his southern cosine because they don't have that much food there)

Now for the part where I agree with you that we have to take care of the earth. There's many things we have to do: first of all the thing I think is most pressing is overfishing and the releases of non bio degradable stuff such as plastics, hormones and heavy metals these things are all things that threatens the future of humans around the world.

And last but now least how in the world would you decreases Co2 levels with a tax?

peace
😀

Quote from Jembei

Quote from Chaoswind

You are wrong, mankind is pouring unnatural chemical combinations into the atmosphere and pouring unprecedented amounts of natural combinations, we have been going at it for a while, but is only the last half century that we are breaking the records.

You think that doesn't have an effect? FUCK a single volcano eruption can have a somewhat deep effect on the world climate, PEOPLE, CLIMATE CHANGES, THAT IS A FACT... however, we accelerated the changes to a point in with MOST creatures won't have a fair chance to adapt (Polar bears).

We should stop calling this global warming, because the effect isn't that simple, the climate is NOT just going to get warmer... is going to get MUCH more extreme, with sudden changes of rain fall, and temperatures, most crops won't have a chance to adapt, and that is going to HURT us a LOT in the long run...

Hmm. You do make some fair points but I think you are mixing things together. The AWG (Co2) theory is after My research pure BS and i thing there is enough evidence for it out there. Now the current Co2 levels are around 389 ppm (parts per million) now some research suggest that in the dinosaur age they were at 2000 or more while temperatures where still around nowadays levels.

This and many other results from many different people makes me believe that changes in the earths temperatures are within normal levels you have to remember that the earth is 4,3 billion years old, humans have only been around for 100 000 years and out carbon industries 150 or so. Now climate date(the kind where man goes to places and measures whit a thermometer) has only been around for so long as the carbon industries and that means we have an incomplete picture of how the earth acts.
Now the whole story about how warming would be bad for all of us might not be true ether, some scientist suggest that the earth would flourish with more heat and Co2(there have been test made that Co2 increases plant growth with would mean that there's more food for all of us much un like bio diesel with have caused the deaths of 5 mil. people because the food prices have goon up and thus the programs that give food to starving people in 3 world countries. The part about plants eat Co2 is 3 grade science and the part about more food being around have been proven in tests and history such as north and south Korea, the average north Korean is much smaller then his southern cosine because they don't have that much food there)

Now for the part where I agree with you that we have to take care of the earth. There's many things we have to do: first of all the thing I think is most pressing is overfishing and the releases of non bio degradable stuff such as plastics, hormones and heavy metals these things are all things that threatens the future of humans around the world.

And last but now least how in the world would you decreases Co2 levels with a tax?

peace
😀

I just wanted to add that I agree that we should look after the earth better. It's a real tragedy when whole sections of forest are cut down for cattle farms and other commercial uses. Not only are the animals who inhabit the area affected, but we loose beauty. (I think that forests are beautiful and fun to hike through, but I'm sure I wouldn't feel the same way if I was a logger)

I am no scientist by any means, but, there are lots of scientists out there who don't believe in Global warming and a lot that do. A lot of geologists also think that this is one of earth's natural cycles. I think that the government is going overboard with the "we must be green" and it's kind of a fad that is wasting a lot of tax dollars, besides that what is the government really doing to address the issue?

Quote from Jembei

Quote from Chaoswind

You are wrong, mankind is pouring unnatural chemical combinations into the atmosphere and pouring unprecedented amounts of natural combinations, we have been going at it for a while, but is only the last half century that we are breaking the records.

You think that doesn't have an effect? FUCK a single volcano eruption can have a somewhat deep effect on the world climate, PEOPLE, CLIMATE CHANGES, THAT IS A FACT... however, we accelerated the changes to a point in with MOST creatures won't have a fair chance to adapt (Polar bears).

We should stop calling this global warming, because the effect isn't that simple, the climate is NOT just going to get warmer... is going to get MUCH more extreme, with sudden changes of rain fall, and temperatures, most crops won't have a chance to adapt, and that is going to HURT us a LOT in the long run...

Hmm. You do make some fair points but I think you are mixing things together. The AWG (Co2) theory is after My research pure BS and i thing there is enough evidence for it out there. Now the current Co2 levels are around 389 ppm (parts per million) now some research suggest that in the dinosaur age they were at 2000 or more while temperatures where still around nowadays levels.

This and many other results from many different people makes me believe that changes in the earths temperatures are within normal levels you have to remember that the earth is 4,3 billion years old, humans have only been around for 100 000 years and out carbon industries 150 or so. Now climate date(the kind where man goes to places and measures whit a thermometer) has only been around for so long as the carbon industries and that means we have an incomplete picture of how the earth acts.
Now the whole story about how warming would be bad for all of us might not be true ether, some scientist suggest that the earth would flourish with more heat and Co2(there have been test made that Co2 increases plant growth with would mean that there's more food for all of us much un like bio diesel with have caused the deaths of 5 mil. people because the food prices have goon up and thus the programs that give food to starving people in 3 world countries. The part about plants eat Co2 is 3 grade science and the part about more food being around have been proven in tests and history such as north and south Korea, the average north Korean is much smaller then his southern cosine because they don't have that much food there)

Now for the part where I agree with you that we have to take care of the earth. There's many things we have to do: first of all the thing I think is most pressing is overfishing and the releases of non bio degradable stuff such as plastics, hormones and heavy metals these things are all things that threatens the future of humans around the world.

And last but now least how in the world would you decreases Co2 levels with a tax?

peace
😀

A few points to pick at. First, the time of the dinosaurs would also have different atmospheric conditions, possibly a different ozone layer all together, and I never heard of the time of the dinosaurs having temperature as "around nowadays level". The tropical type of plants that grow, the constant volcanic activities and the lack of a "winter" season would indicate that the temperature was consistently higher.

Second, the earth has been constantly changing for these billions of years, but the climate changes are often gradual (except for set milestones known as the great extinctions which resulted in sudden climate changes, which is what makes some people believe we're approaching such an e event). Think of the earth as a reversible chemical reaction. Ultimately, it will attempt to achieve equilibrium, put as you begin to stack one side too heavily, the equilibrium pushes and tries to rebalance. Ultimately, the issue isn't how the earth works and what is considered a normal temperature, the issue is the rapid climate change and what is a habitable climate for us.

Third, CO2 can be used to promote plant growth, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis, but water and light is also required. Increasing CO2 at the risk of increasing the temperature, increasing the likelihood of droughts would actually wipe-out the plants and make various places in the world poverty-stricken and uninhabitable. You must also consider soil mineral content.

Promoting the growth of plants is great and all, but ultimately one of the largest limits of agriculture is sustainable soil. Plants draw out many minerals and nutrients from the soil and place it into the food that is made. What limits the amount of plants grown isn't the CO2 content in the air, in fact there is plenty, what limits the plant growth is the soil quality. If they do not rotate crops, add a lot of fertilizer, and constantly maintain the soil, then no matter how much CO2 you have, plants are still going to die, and in fact more CO2 will only promote plants in draining the nutrients in the soil even more.

I won't argue either way on this climate change incident, because honestly the argument is pointless to begin with. Is climate changing? Yes. Are we responsible? Why does it matter? This climate change could be caused by volcanoes, forest fires, or aliens for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that we aren't helping, by a large margin. Alternatives to fuel source, renewable materials, and biodegradeable materials is essential for sustainability, not only because it may or may not change the climate, but because there is a limit to resources on earth. The earth was formed with only so many elements, and if we can't find ways to recycle these elements we will start running out of useable chemicals.

Lastly, if you understand the point of CO2 taxing, there are two reasons to fight CO2 levels rising, to make companies produce less, or to produce more O2 to balance it out. CO2 taxing will cost companies money, forcing them to put research efforts into methods of reducing CO2 emissions, and for some smaller companies, they can put efforts into gaining CO2 credit to sell to other companies. Originally, the CO2 tax was supposed to grant credit for companies that plant trees, recycle, and make an effort to lower CO2 emissions. These CO2 credits can then be sold to larger companies that do not wish to make an effort to change. Either way, money is being directed towards lowering CO2 emissions.

The only issue about CO2 taxing is that it is an easily corruptable concept that is also difficult to control. Ultimately, it is very similar to fining large companies for polluting, except the money goes back towards lowering pollution.

Quote from Vudoodude

A few points to pick at. First, the time of the dinosaurs would also have different atmospheric conditions, possibly a different ozone layer all together, and I never heard of the time of the dinosaurs having temperature as "around nowadays level". The tropical type of plants that grow, the constant volcanic activities and the lack of a "winter" season would indicate that the temperature was consistently higher.

Second, the earth has been constantly changing for these billions of years, but the climate changes are often gradual (except for set milestones known as the great extinctions which resulted in sudden climate changes, which is what makes some people believe we're approaching such an e event). Think of the earth as a reversible chemical reaction. Ultimately, it will attempt to achieve equilibrium, put as you begin to stack one side too heavily, the equilibrium pushes and tries to rebalance. Ultimately, the issue isn't how the earth works and what is considered a normal temperature, the issue is the rapid climate change and what is a habitable climate for us.

Third, CO2 can be used to promote plant growth, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis, but water and light is also required. Increasing CO2 at the risk of increasing the temperature, increasing the likelihood of droughts would actually wipe-out the plants and make various places in the world poverty-stricken and uninhabitable. You must also consider soil mineral content.

Promoting the growth of plants is great and all, but ultimately one of the largest limits of agriculture is sustainable soil. Plants draw out many minerals and nutrients from the soil and place it into the food that is made. What limits the amount of plants grown isn't the CO2 content in the air, in fact there is plenty, what limits the plant growth is the soil quality. If they do not rotate crops, add a lot of fertilizer, and constantly maintain the soil, then no matter how much CO2 you have, plants are still going to die, and in fact more CO2 will only promote plants in draining the nutrients in the soil even more.

I won't argue either way on this climate change incident, because honestly the argument is pointless to begin with. Is climate changing? Yes. Are we responsible? Why does it matter? This climate change could be caused by volcanoes, forest fires, or aliens for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that we aren't helping, by a large margin. Alternatives to fuel source, renewable materials, and biodegradeable materials is essential for sustainability, not only because it may or may not change the climate, but because there is a limit to resources on earth. The earth was formed with only so many elements, and if we can't find ways to recycle these elements we will start running out of useable chemicals.

Lastly, if you understand the point of CO2 taxing, there are two reasons to fight CO2 levels rising, to make companies produce less, or to produce more O2 to balance it out. CO2 taxing will cost companies money, forcing them to put research efforts into methods of reducing CO2 emissions, and for some smaller companies, they can put efforts into gaining CO2 credit to sell to other companies. Originally, the CO2 tax was supposed to grant credit for companies that plant trees, recycle, and make an effort to lower CO2 emissions. These CO2 credits can then be sold to larger companies that do not wish to make an effort to change. Either way, money is being directed towards lowering CO2 emissions.

The only issue about CO2 taxing is that it is an easily corruptable concept that is also difficult to control. Ultimately, it is very similar to fining large companies for polluting, except the money goes back towards lowering pollution.

Ok I can see that I should have made myself more clear in my post.
First the dinosaur thing. I know that the world was very different in that age but from the paper I read the Co2 levels have gone up and down for many years while temperatures always seem to rise first. The point I was trying to make is that Co2 is not the primary temperature regulating gas and that Co2 levels and temperatures don't go hand in hand as suggested by some people such as the IPCC.

Second point. When the earth gets warmer life tends to thrive. The climate will change for the worse at some point and then all we can do is adapt, but I don't see that day coming anytime soon so its point lees to worry about now.
Third. Here you make the assumption that Co2 will increase the temperatures so I am going to make a counter assumption that it doesn't. The point about plants need light and water is of course valid but I don't think you have to worry about nature since it will self regulate but the point I was trying to make is that farmers will have the opportunity to grow more food and that is a wonderful thought when you think about the amount of people who starve every day.

Fourth. You ask the question if we are responsible for climate change and why should it matter. Of course it matters if we are responsible or not it's kind of the whole debate. First if we assume the IPCC is right and climate change is mans doing and we can expect things to go downhill from now on we should take the measures necessary to limit climate change/Co2 emissions . Now if what I assume is proven to be right we should let technology and the marked dictate the pace of going green not laws and taxes. Just so you know the human living standards we have in the west is only possible because we have oil . None of the technologies we have today could replace oil not even if we combined all of them together they just aren't ready yet.

Last point. You say that taxes will reduce Co2 that might be right but the level of Co2 they would be reduced not come anywhere near the goal the IPCC has made so what's the point? You also fail to mentioning the bad effects it produces such as higher energy prices reduced compete ability in the global markets so all in all it costs the average guy money maybe even a lot of money.

Now the whole issue about the Co2 tax being easily corrupted, you can say that again in my country the Co2 marked consists of around 90% fraud.

Final remark I think the earth's temperatures and climate is dictated by the sun(how intense the magnet field is) and by earth's place in the milky way galaxy.

Plants Thrive in Co2... that is true... However, a lone plant in a heavy Co2 atmosphere will die just as any human.

The problem isn't just that we are polluting, is that we don't let nature fix itself...

Normally the increase in CO2 would lead to plant life explosion and sooner or later things would stabilize, sadly we are destroying the forest and jungles of the world, so that is not an option.

What else can the world do except turning to the sea? Seas around the world are becoming acidic... little by little the Ph grows... and yeah Oceans can hold for MUCH longer, but some/alot of creatures won't get at fair chance to adapt... and again that is the issue.

Corals die > Coral reef disappear > Fishes are lost > The whole food chain gets messed up > Some Sea Creatures truly adapt, and others disappear.

The same can be said about land life.

[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs14/f/2007/026/1/1/Into_Werewolf_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/Tank_soldier222/Into_Werewolf_RETURNS_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

Quote from Chaoswind

Plants Thrive in Co2... that is true... However, a lone plant in a heavy Co2 atmosphere will die just as any human.

The problem isn't just that we are polluting, is that we don't let nature fix itself...

Normally the increase in CO2 would lead to plant life explosion and sooner or later things would stabilize, sadly we are destroying the forest and jungles of the world, so that is not an option.

What else can the world do except turning to the sea? Seas around the world are becoming acidic... little by little the Ph grows... and yeah Oceans can hold for MUCH longer, but some/alot of creatures won't get at fair chance to adapt... and again that is the issue.

Corals die > Coral reef disappear > Fishes are lost > The whole food chain gets messed up > Some Sea Creatures truly adapt, and others disappear.

The same can be said about land life.

Well I guess it all comes down to scale. Of course Co2 can be dangers in high concentrations but there is nothing scientific that suggest we could reach those levels. You have to remember we are talking about parts per million and not full %. At the moment the atmosphere consists of around 389 ppm Co2. Test in labs and is core drilling show that plant can live with as much as 7000 ppm although todays plants have only been tested with 1200 ppm. Now ever since man started burning stuff and thus releasing Co2 more than 150 years we have only caused 100 ppm. So all in all I don't think there's a need for all the hype around Co2.