Climate Change Dilemna
surferdude
Posts: 2,057
You've accepted that global climate change is real and that man contributes to it. You have a finite amount of money to spend to address the issue. Youe have three options in spending your money;
1. Spend it all, 100%, on prevention or lowering of man's contribution to global climate change. This may result in millions of deaths if climate change is at the point of being irreversable as some scientists think, or if the change is very slow in being reversed as many scientists think.
2. Spend it all, 100%, on adapting to climate change. This may too result in millions of deaths, and is a poor course of action if man is the primary contributor to climate change.
3. Split your spending between prevention and adapting. Otherwise known as not putting all your eggs in one basket. This lowers your risk and is the course of action anyone with any risk management knowledge would take.
Which is the prudent path to take?
Man has a remarkable record at adapting yet I've yet to see more than a handful of scientists ask for money to be spent on adapting. The scientists behind the IPCC report seemingly want course 1. taken with no money spent on adapting to climate change.
1. Spend it all, 100%, on prevention or lowering of man's contribution to global climate change. This may result in millions of deaths if climate change is at the point of being irreversable as some scientists think, or if the change is very slow in being reversed as many scientists think.
2. Spend it all, 100%, on adapting to climate change. This may too result in millions of deaths, and is a poor course of action if man is the primary contributor to climate change.
3. Split your spending between prevention and adapting. Otherwise known as not putting all your eggs in one basket. This lowers your risk and is the course of action anyone with any risk management knowledge would take.
Which is the prudent path to take?
Man has a remarkable record at adapting yet I've yet to see more than a handful of scientists ask for money to be spent on adapting. The scientists behind the IPCC report seemingly want course 1. taken with no money spent on adapting to climate change.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
from my window to yours
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
The problem is that you can't stop global climate change, it is a natural event. You can restrict the impact that mankind is contributing but you can not arrest the process.
As long as there are two sides of the story the people in power who make their money on some of the supposed things that contribute in a big way to global warming, I can't see anything really happening that is going to be good and or productive.
Option 3 for me if I choose from your list.
May 3, 2003
Camden NJ Sat May 27, 2006
Camden NJ Sun May 28, 2006
Washington DC Tuesday May 30, 2006
E. Rutherford NJ June 01, 2006
E. Rutherford NJ June 03, 2006
Relax, I was joking.
And the number of errors in The Day after Tomorrow are astounding!!!
deep love Jonathan
May 3, 2003
Camden NJ Sat May 27, 2006
Camden NJ Sun May 28, 2006
Washington DC Tuesday May 30, 2006
E. Rutherford NJ June 01, 2006
E. Rutherford NJ June 03, 2006
Then I guess I might need to reassess my take on asteroids that I formed after watching "Armageddon".
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Yep, Deep Impact is where it's at.
the earths ice cover is the earths fail safe system. it reflects heat back into space. this is the importance of our ice; not just rising sea levels.
there is no adapting. once we hit 6 to 7 degrees of temperature increase the frozen methane will be released into the atmosphere. ask any scientist that has studied the permian extinction and the discoveries of 1998 in greenland. scientists; as other professions; have specialties. for example; for almost 30 years my uncle was the top bio/chemical warfare scientist in the us. yet; his knowledge in other fields was limited. my specialty is nutritional research and proper diet to cure disease. my contribution would be that plants will die and thus the animals that eat the plants will die; the animals that eat those animals will then die. the point is; we all look at the problem from our own perspective.
it's been freezing here in the deserts the last month or so. the warming shifted the jetstream pushing the cold air from the ice caps further south. thus; you have a much warmer christmas then normal. it's all relative.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
and part of addressing climate change is debunking this myth that it will cost us money ... people are changing light bulbs and re-insulating their homes all the while saving money!! ... the problem originates where there is no regulation and competitive benefits supercede societal ones ...
ie regulating emissions from high polluters ... if we leave it to the open market - no one is gonna make the effort because they will lose out to the competition however, if there was regulations - everyone would be playing on the same field ... this is the crux of our problem now ... and ignorance
you are so right. i went 100% solar and the government paid for most of the system. adding what i used to pay the power company; my system was paid off in less than a year and i now enjoy free electricity. i'll have to replace batteries in another 5 years but the savings far outweigh the costs. i'm adding a wind generator in 2 months and i'm set.
the big problem is that many only look at the immediate costs ... if we factor in impact to life and health and the true cost of energy use ... combating climate change is a win-win situation ...
exactly. and to those who complain they don't get enough sun to produce electricity:
i lived in northern illinois where the sun never shines. i put in a 10 Kw wind generator and had enough power to sell back to the power company. at my farm in wisconsin i damed up a creek and built a hydroelectric generator from an article in mother earth news. because of the milking machines; it didn't support the entire farm but it did supply the house.
if u don't mind me asking - what were your costs for the wind generator? ... broken up by the main parts ... batteries, turbine and pole ...
at the time; early 1980's; the cost of the generator complete was $18,000 usd. i used deep cycle batteries which ran about $70 usd a piece for a total of $840.
my current system is 12 Kw at the panels and the complete cost was $26,000. i'm now using high tech batteries which cost $1100 each and i use 16 because i refuse to give up my waterbad and i have a big freezer. my neighbour just bought a system for $11,000 but his house is half the size. he's using the cheap deep cycle batteries which he'll probably have to replace every 3 years.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
i heard there is new battery technology in the works that holds the same amount of power but is way quicker to charge while lasting singificantly longer (20 years +) ...
if you get a name or manufacturer please pm me with it. i'd greatly appreciate it.
no but if you have the info i'd like it. i don't think my batteries are lead but i could be wrong. since lead is an element it already exists here so in my mind we're just moving it from one place to another.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/new_nanotechnol.php
i don't know if they are for commerical sale yet
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
c'mon man - this is beyond belief ... if anyone wanted to capture the full embodied energy of his batteries and solar panels and whatever ... they can do that ... its just he hasn't bothered ... but at the end of the day - he is definitely reducing his footprint significantly ... it doesn't take an engineer to see this ...
the model is reduce energy use and your footprint ... there doesn't need to be anything scientific about it ...
dude; i didn't take it that way at all. you brought up a good point and i would like the information. can new batteries be somehow made from old batteries? i really don't know. i'll take all the knowledge you can throw my way.
thank you. i'm checking it out now.