Who is responsible for reversing the effects of global warming?

scot88

Should it be the public (government) or private (individuals, corporations) sector?


I'm writing a paper saying its up to citizens and corporations to combat global warming. I'd love to hear ideas about the subject...

onelongsong

scot88 wrote:

Should it be the public (government) or private (individuals, corporations) sector?


I'm writing a paper saying its up to citizens and corporations to combat global warming. I'd love to hear ideas about the subject...

we are past the point of no return. there is no reversing. it is now up to the earth to heal itself as it's done in the past when global warming destroyed the planet. check your history to see what will happen next.

JaneNY

scot88 wrote:

Should it be the public (government) or private (individuals, corporations) sector?


I'm writing a paper saying its up to citizens and corporations to combat global warming. I'd love to hear ideas about the subject...

I think its up to everyone to own this problem. I think almost every person could be doing a little more, including me.

chopitdown

whether or not we can reverse the effects of global warming isn't the question. The question is who is responsible for making changes in pollution, utilizing natural resources and CO2 emittance. If you want people to work together leave the politically polarizing wording out of it "reversing the effects of global warming". The real goal is to be better stewards and to respect the resources we have. If we do that some sort of change should follow. If you have the goal listed as reversing global warming and if it isn't possible that it can be reversed it'll be listed as failure even though you've been able to accomplish 3 other great things (conserve natural resources, reduce pollutions, reduce CO2 emittance). The individual should take responsibility for being a good steward and the corporations should be held to a higher standard. The government can play a role in it; but let's not think the govt can actually solve this issue.

Uncle Leo

I will say government. The tragedy of the commons is that individuals and corporations don't consider the overall effects. Why? Because, for example, I Could ride my bike 4 miles to work or carpool with my neighbor who blasts country music in his car. A business could, to the detriment of its bottom line, stop or reduce polluting. But those things never happen. Because a few extra miles on a car a a few thousand pounds of pollution from one firm are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Collectively, though, it is catastrophic.

Government intervenes when the market fails. The market fails because it cannot provide a military or provide education to poor children. So governmenet does. The question is, will the market make the necessary changes or is intervention needed? I believe it is the latter--hell, corporations already whine about pollution regulations. I see nothing from history in this area that suggests that the market (i.e. people and corporations) will work simultaneously to reduce pollution anytime soon (or ever).

Uncle Leo

JaneNY wrote:

I think its up to everyone to own this problem. I think almost every person could be doing a little more, including me.

I agree. But the reason you (and I and most everyone) don't do a little more is the same reason some people give for not voting--"I'm just one person. One person makes no difference." My co-workers three plastic bottles of diet coke per day don't matter much so he does not change. But all the millions of people that drink several plastic bottles per day (and there are tons of people like that) certainly add up.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

manbearpig

even flow?

onelongsong wrote:

we are past the point of no return. there is no reversing. it is now up to the earth to heal itself as it's done in the past when global warming destroyed the planet. check your history to see what will happen next.

If I predict a flood will you all follow my new religion? Just like in the good old daze. ha ha ha

Anyway, the people who create the mess make enough money to just not care what happens to the planet as long as the planet keeps making them money. Ain't nobody going to do anything about global warming.

Ahnimus

Blame Bugs Bunny.

Well, the world is gonna have to decide how and when to pump sulfur into the atmosphere. That's not something I can do.

know1

So now it's being reversed????

Well, even though America gets all of the blame for it happening, they sure as heck won't get the credit for reversing it. Those crazy Canadians (who should be happy it's getting warmer), will probably take the credit.


(just some humor based on what I perceived was the topic of the thread by reading its title)

dunkman

its all gonna be ok... i'm furiously pumping methane as we speak safe in the knowledge that Superman will just do that flying around the Earth thing and reverse it all.

CaterinaA

scot88 wrote:

Should it be the public (government) or private (individuals, corporations) sector?


I'm writing a paper saying its up to citizens and corporations to combat global warming. I'd love to hear ideas about the subject...

To begin with, as Uncle Leo said, this is a typical case of The Tragedy of the Commons, because the environment is a mixed good in the sense that there no owners, hence incentives to be efficient are low. Furthermore, The Coase Theorem of Property Rights is very difficult to apply, 'cause how you decide who owns the air, the water or CO2 emmisions (there are some cases of tradable pollution rights. It's been long since I've stopped following those, but I believe they have not been especially successful).

So, in my opinion this is an issue that really should be tackled by everybody: corporations, individuals, governments and, last but not least, international cooperation and international organization (actually UN's upcoming Human Development Report is about Global Warming). Environmentalism these days is one of the leading international causes (as let's say, workers and reproductive rights in the 60's), since it knows no barriers. Pollution travels and has a very long lag. For instance, CO2 emmited during the Cold War is still on the atmosphere.

So, it really should be a global effort, however -as the UN states- differentiating by contribution to the problem. For example, Latin America and Africa's input to pollution is still marginal. Hence the larger effort should be made by developed countries. For example, the US is still the largest pollutor per capita (according to UN data); however, China is quickly catching up. Nevertheless, developing regions should also begin to invest in low-emision technologies. Actually, Brazil is leading the production of bio-fuel.

To put it simply, we have just this planet, so in a way we're all responsible for taking care of it. In particular, governments can do a lot, just by investing in awareness campaigns that explain how to recycle, how to use water, electricty gas, etc. in a responsible manner. They could also foster eco-friendly technologies via tax incentives (for example). Us as individuals, also have a part to play, consider it as a citizen's duty. We as citizens are entitled to certaing rights and reponsibilites, well taking care of our environment, by being responsible in our energy consumption could be considered as a 21th century responsability.

Global warming could also be a great opportunity tu put multilateralism back as a key player, and could also mean the beginning of a new social pact between all human kind, as the Human Rights declaration was in the aftermath of WWII. This does not mean to reverse the progress achieved by humans at all, it just means to use it wisely and efficiently.

This is also an intergenerational issue, it is very likely that our generation won't feel the big impact of global warming, but what do we really want to leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren?

Ohh, here's the link to the abstract of the upcoming UN's HDR, which could be useful for your paper http://hdr.undp.org/en/

These are my 2cts.

Cheers from Argentina,
Caterina

LikeAnOcean

I believe the sun is responsible for global warming..

trappedinmyradio

scot88 wrote:

Should it be the public (government) or private (individuals, corporations) sector?


I'm writing a paper saying its up to citizens and corporations to combat global warming. I'd love to hear ideas about the subject...

The government needs to pass laws and acts to force conservation in order to have better access to alternative fuels, more affordable alternative energy source materials, and a new frame of mind...you could argue that the citizens have the right, the duty, whatever to demand change with their voice and their vote...but, that change has to occur at the government level...laws, education, examples...

MahoganySouls

Everyone is responsible. No one person or organization can do fix it alone.

Royals32

Only one thing will "reverse" global warming. Time. Regardless of how people feel about the cause of it, it's still happening. It's happened before (yes it has) and it'll happen again.

catefrances

and where is captain planet when you need him?

noodles_jefferson

chopitdown wrote:

whether or not we can reverse the effects of global warming isn't the question. The question is who is responsible for making changes in pollution, utilizing natural resources and CO2 emittance. If you want people to work together leave the politically polarizing wording out of it "reversing the effects of global warming". The real goal is to be better stewards and to respect the resources we have. If we do that some sort of change should follow. If you have the goal listed as reversing global warming and if it isn't possible that it can be reversed it'll be listed as failure even though you've been able to accomplish 3 other great things (conserve natural resources, reduce pollutions, reduce CO2 emittance). The individual should take responsibility for being a good steward and the corporations should be held to a higher standard. The government can play a role in it; but let's not think the govt can actually solve this issue.

(cough cough) solartopia.org (cough cough)

polaris

CaterinaA wrote:

To begin with, as Uncle Leo said, this is a typical case of The Tragedy of the Commons, because the environment is a mixed good in the sense that there no owners, hence incentives to be efficient are low. Furthermore, The Coase Theorem of Property Rights is very difficult to apply, 'cause how you decide who owns the air, the water or CO2 emmisions (there are some cases of tradable pollution rights. It's been long since I've stopped following those, but I believe they have not been especially successful).

So, in my opinion this is an issue that really should be tackled by everybody: corporations, individuals, governments and, last but not least, international cooperation and international organization (actually UN's upcoming Human Development Report is about Global Warming). Environmentalism these days is one of the leading international causes (as let's say, workers and reproductive rights in the 60's), since it knows no barriers. Pollution travels and has a very long lag. For instance, CO2 emmited during the Cold War is still on the atmosphere.

So, it really should be a global effort, however -as the UN states- differentiating by contribution to the problem. For example, Latin America and Africa's input to pollution is still marginal. Hence the larger effort should be made by developed countries. For example, the US is still the largest pollutor per capita (according to UN data); however, China is quickly catching up. Nevertheless, developing regions should also begin to invest in low-emision technologies. Actually, Brazil is leading the production of bio-fuel.

To put it simply, we have just this planet, so in a way we're all responsible for taking care of it. In particular, governments can do a lot, just by investing in awareness campaigns that explain how to recycle, how to use water, electricty gas, etc. in a responsible manner. They could also foster eco-friendly technologies via tax incentives (for example). Us as individuals, also have a part to play, consider it as a citizen's duty. We as citizens are entitled to certaing rights and reponsibilites, well taking care of our environment, by being responsible in our energy consumption could be considered as a 21th century responsability.

Global warming could also be a great opportunity tu put multilateralism back as a key player, and could also mean the beginning of a new social pact between all human kind, as the Human Rights declaration was in the aftermath of WWII. This does not mean to reverse the progress achieved by humans at all, it just means to use it wisely and efficiently.

This is also an intergenerational issue, it is very likely that our generation won't feel the big impact of global warming, but what do we really want to leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren?

Ohh, here's the link to the abstract of the upcoming UN's HDR, which could be useful for your paper http://hdr.undp.org/en/

These are my 2cts.

Cheers from Argentina,
Caterina

yeah ... can't reverse global warming ... but this pretty much sums it up for me!!

Jeanwah

It should be everyone, especially individuals. Gov't's got the guns, but we've got the numbers, so we as individuals really need to step it up and do our part, no matter how small that may be. It all adds up. Once you get gov't into it, they make stipulations here and there, so there's always something sneaky going on. Just dishonest in general, so it shouldn't be completely in the governments' hands. But they should be all on board. How else will the rest of the world join hands in this somehow?

chopitdown

noodles_jefferson wrote:

(cough cough) solartopia.org (cough cough)

i'm not close to touchy feely enough for that organization.

Purple Hawk

as i've pointed out in a previous thread, global warming specifically, but environmentalism generally, is a religion for the Godless. there is no science to it at all...if there was, they could concisely state what is the independent effect that humans have had on global temp (if you can even imagine an accurate measure) and compare that with other effects. instead of presenting us with facts, they tell us there's a consensus....great...

an interesting read...

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

onelongsong

Purple Hawk wrote:

as i've pointed out in a previous thread, global warming specifically, but environmentalism generally, is a religion for the Godless. there is no science to it at all...if there was, they could concisely state what is the independent effect that humans have had on global temp (if you can even imagine an accurate measure) and compare that with other effects. instead of presenting us with facts, they tell us there's a consensus....great...

an interesting read...

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

for every link you post; i can post another to refute it. the problem here is lack of intelligence. you can't deny the ice is melting. you can't deny the temperature measured in corals. and you can't deny the way the earth reacted last time we didn't have ice cover.
if you'd like to continue; you can't deny those being evacuated due to rising waters. you can't deny that the worlds largest lake in africa is now a mud puddle. you can't deny the other lakes that have dried up and you can't deny that these lakes are releasing CO2 in large quanties and that the CO2 is hovering the ground and killing thousands of people. if you exhale you're adding to the problem. how can you deny that?

onelongsong

even flow? wrote:

If I predict a flood will you all follow my new religion? Just like in the good old daze. ha ha ha

Anyway, the people who create the mess make enough money to just not care what happens to the planet as long as the planet keeps making them money. Ain't nobody going to do anything about global warming.

people are going to do something about global warming.....they're going to die. 2/3 of the earths population will die because of global warming.

onelongsong

trappedinmyradio wrote:

The government needs to pass laws and acts to force conservation in order to have better access to alternative fuels, more affordable alternative energy source materials, and a new frame of mind...you could argue that the citizens have the right, the duty, whatever to demand change with their voice and their vote...but, that change has to occur at the government level...laws, education, examples...

the government is passing laws like banning incandesent light bulbs and plastic bags; but it's not enough too late. gas should have been raised to $20.00/gallon and $15.00/gallon been donated to cleaning up the earth. if you want the government to get involved; that's the types of laws you're going to see.

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

for every link you post; i can post another to refute it. the problem here is lack of intelligence. you can't deny the ice is melting. you can't deny the temperature measured in corals. and you can't deny the way the earth reacted last time we didn't have ice cover.
if you'd like to continue; you can't deny those being evacuated due to rising waters. you can't deny that the worlds largest lake in africa is now a mud puddle. you can't deny the other lakes that have dried up and you can't deny that these lakes are releasing CO2 in large quanties and that the CO2 is hovering the ground and killing thousands of people. if you exhale you're adding to the problem. how can you deny that?

well my theory is that what we are experiencing is cyclic. mankind has not been on this earth nearly long enough to have observed climate change and come up with any definitive conclusions. do i think that we are contributing to this change? probably. it would be difficult not to refute any claim that mankind has not had an impact on his environment. am i freaking out about it? no im not. when snow disappears from the australian alps maybe then i'll have cause for concern.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Front page of the huffing post is ooo scary... and thought provoking at the same time.

take a peek.

onelongsong

catefrances wrote:

well my theory is that what we are experiencing is cyclic. mankind has not been on this earth nearly long enough to have observed climate change and come up with any definitive conclusions. do i think that we are contributing to this change? probably. it would be difficult not to refute any claim that mankind has not had an impact on his environment. am i freaking out about it? no im not. when snow disappears from the australian alps maybe then i'll have cause for concern.

you still can't deny how the earth reacted last time cate. i believe it was 55 million years ago but i'll check.

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

you still can't deny how the earth reacted last time cate. i believe it was 55 million years ago but i'll check.

sure i can deny anything given the chance.


but you know OLS last time i doubt mankind had anything to do with it. twas just a cycle earth was going through. we are freaking this time cause we fuck with the earth and dont know how to live with her. nature does her thing and mankind just cant deal witrh it.

Purple Hawk

onelongsong wrote:

for every link you post; i can post another to refute it. the problem here is lack of intelligence. you can't deny the ice is melting. you can't deny the temperature measured in corals. and you can't deny the way the earth reacted last time we didn't have ice cover.
if you'd like to continue; you can't deny those being evacuated due to rising waters. you can't deny that the worlds largest lake in africa is now a mud puddle. you can't deny the other lakes that have dried up and you can't deny that these lakes are releasing CO2 in large quanties and that the CO2 is hovering the ground and killing thousands of people. if you exhale you're adding to the problem. how can you deny that?

obviously you didn't get the point of my post, or read the link....

i'll state it again, more bluntly. the environmentalist movement is a religion. we all want to matter, we all want to have meaning. the environmentalist movement has it all...again read the link. recycle, change a light bulb...save the world...yeah, go get 'em.

but if you REALLY cared about the planet...you'd be a vegan. b/c animal farts contribute WAY more c02 than evil capitalists do. the best way to stop global warming is to go vegan, not to stay away from bathing ourselves in oil....so while the means of the global warming argument may be righteous, the ends have no interest in solving the problem.

when you think about it in these terms...you really realize how ridiculous all this b/s is...seriously...and it's US (hate mongering conservatives) who are fear mongers?

onelongsong

Purple Hawk wrote:

obviously you didn't get the point of my post, or read the link....

i'll state it again, more bluntly. the environmentalist movement is a religion. we all want to matter, we all want to have meaning. the environmentalist movement has it all...again read the link. recycle, change a light bulb...save the world...yeah, go get 'em.

but if you REALLY cared about the planet...you'd be a vegan. b/c animal farts contribute WAY more c02 than evil capitalists do. the best way to stop global warming is to go vegan, not to stay away from bathing ourselves in oil....so while the means of the global warming argument may be righteous, the ends have no interest in solving the problem.

when you think about it in these terms...you really realize how ridiculous all this b/s is...seriously...and it's US (hate mongering conservatives) who are fear mongers?

what a crock of shite. first; the human body cannot survive on a veggie diet. that's why veggies look like walking death. and wouldn't that also mean more animals to fart?
second; i'm 100% solar which is more than i've heard anyone else here say they've done. my truck runs on used cooking oil so i've no need for crude oil products. i've donated close to $1 million to research and expeditions.
you can label the movement to inform you what's happening any way you want. by your deffinition; CNN and fox news must be a religion too.
as far as global warming is concerned; we need to tie these thick headed idiots to one of the sinking islands to prove to them that global warming is real. once the waters reach their mouths it may sink in. a child can look at a satellite photo from 2000 and another from 2006 and see the bloody ice is melting. a simple look back in history will show them how the earth reacted without ice cover.
you say the scientists are wrong? well bloody well right. the ice they said would be melted by 2050 is already melted. nasa watched 1250 sq miles of ice dissapear into the ocean within 3 weeks.
did man cut down trees that breathe in CO2 and expell O2? then that's one of mans contributions. did man make the internal combustion engine that filled the skies with Sulfer dioxide which caused the acid rain which kills the plants that filter the air? another one of mans contributions. the list goes on and on from landfills which produce methane to coal fired powerplants. can you show me where these things occur naturally in life?
to sum up who's responsable; it's the people that say global warming doesn't exist. those of us that have dedicated time to educate ourselves and look beyond the politics have done what we could do. why not wrap your mouth around your cars exhaust pipe for an hour; then come back and tell me man had nothing to do with our deteriorating planet. luckily the nay-sayers will die and we can start again. that's the up side of it.