I for one, am a passionate supporter of actions to decrease global carbon/unnecessary green house gas emissions, and support actions against global warming.

Over here in Australia, some people still feel unsure whether to act - whether they are misinformed, lazy, or skeptical.

I was wondering what the views are here, as people from all over the world have different views...

Why are we still not doing enough, despite significant evidence? Do you believe it is a hoax?

In short, why are we, as a whole, not acting when there is a clear possibility of global disaster?

Cheers,
Adrian

I dont care eitherway, and to be honest, this whole "go green" trend is annoying as hell and in most cases, just a way to add a couple bucks to a price by using a new fad. I mean do you think your local convienence store wants you to start buying fabric bags because its better for the environment, or because that helps them with less cost for disposable plastic bags and gives them another thing for most customers to buy.

The reason I dont care is because to be honest I could care less what happens to anyone or anything after I die.

@lostclimate: This is the typical american view ^^

That's way most of the people in america are overweight, that's way the car industry crashes that easy, that's way the rainforest get's destroyed, that's way a lot of animals die out, ... The list is endless! Ignorance is a typical american thing.



You are right, you won't live anymore when the results of global warning will be a real problem but your children, and their children.


I for myself am thinking that the real problem of global warning is in china and all those countries where a catalysator for example aren't officialy required and of course the way we make our current. I live in austria, so we don't have problems with producing clean current (because of the rivers) but caloric power plants are one of the biggest polluters.

The fossile deposits (gas,oil,coal) will be used up anyhow.
There will always be a country who treats them as valuable goods.

So their carbon deposits will be emitted into the athmosphere
either way. (no matter if in 50 or 200 years)

Using low energy car and such will simply delay that
emission over time. With the same end-result.

Not with the same end-result. If it goes slower, the nature has more time to react. And using low energy cars should be only a temporary solution until we find better drives than burning something. Additionally, using low energy cars produces less costs for fuel. I don't see any disadvantage for the end user.

Thats a good question:
is there a difference in the long run, if we emit
the same amount of carbon dioxyde over 50 or over 200 years.

Its the same additional amount in the sum. So does the
nature really "adapt" to that?

Even if Europe really tries hard to reduce the emissions,
there are many thirs world countries that will use up
the less costly fossile fuels then, as long as they are still
available.

Its also still not clear how much of the global warming
can be attributed to the emissions, and how much
is a normal climatical cycle.
Because that affects how much the reduction in emissions can really
change.

Another topic, which is overlooked:
Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
Cows and rice-fields emit huge amounts of that.
should they be also "forbidden"?

...or can see a way of making a profit out if it, either by acting on it now, OR delaying it.

I myself, as a fellow aussie, am dead set against the entire concept of "climate change".
I base my 'opinion' on what I have seen, heard, and read both in the public media "circus',
and in actual internet researching.
There is 'so-called' evidence pointing both ways, there are celebrities advocating both ways,
and there are scientists advocating both ways, so how to choose?
I decided to to look at how many scientists were advocating their chosen view FOR NO PROFIT.
Not for fame, not for money, not for their employers satisfaction.

The anti-"climate-change" scientists won hands down. There were even many that
have chosen to ostracise themselves from the scientific society BECAUSE they dont believe,
and dont want to be linked with supporters of climate-change.

So overall, I see no reason NOT to try make the planet a cleaner place,
just beware the smooth-talker who is trying to clean out your wallet using the same
arguments as Al Gore.


PS Sorry to any Al Gore supporters out there, but SHUT HIM UP PLEASE.
Anybody with even a high-school understanding of science can listen to just ONE
of his lectures and be converted to anti-climate-change, when he's tryin to support it!
The information he is using conflicts with itself. HE doesnt even understand it,
and so makes a fool of himself trying to explain it.
And that was my opinion of his "seminars" long before I had made up my mind.
I could be wrong in my opinion, and he may be right in his, so I dont have a problem
with him doing his pundit circuit, but PLEASE, get a script writer who knows his science.

So imagine right now, some major event affected you, and you know it was due to people (now passed away) who had the chance to stop it, for very little sacrifice. Personally, I would be angry. We need to think more holistic (?) and think about future generations. Just as you would happily invest in real estate, knowing in 20-30 years your children will benefit when it's value increases, why not invest in a clean, sustainable, and ultimately, fair chance of a life equal or better than we are experiencing.



Not necessarily. Lowering dependencies on fossil fuel sources (carbon emission sources) will hopefully give rise to alternate, sustainable technologies. These may supersede fossil fuel usage, and ultimately render them as a worse alternative of the two. It gives us more time to do what we do best: Solve problems.



Thats why we must work together for it to work successfully. Even so, countries who are highly developed IMO should be attempting to lead the world to do the correct thing - not push the problem onto developing nations. We should be searching for a solution...



I am no expert on this stuff, but there are many chemicals that act as greenhouse gasses (methane, CO2, HFCs). The aim is not to forbid them, but to make it knowledge that they are harming the environment, and that an alternative need to be found. In the sense of agriculture or animals, we cannot 'change' them from emitting it, but we can attempt to recycle or use it.

@EvilSOB:

Are any of the following false (paraphrasing 'Heat'):

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? ^^
2) We are releasing more CO2 (combustion of fossil fuels a major one)
3) More CO2 (Q2) means more heat retention (Q1), right?

How can that, albeit minimal and far too general, be incorrect?



So because you do not know how a computer works on a binary/electronic level you cannot educate people about how effective they are at number crunching? I'm sure even if he had a degree in a relevant field, he would still be questioned.

At least he is trying to persuade, driven by passion and a deep belief in what he speaks. Going by what you said, does that not mean one cannot argue against it if one didn't know the molecular chemistry of the gases, etc?

Cheers,
Adrian

Yeah, you're right. We should think about these things in a much more holistic way. It's crazy how a lot of people do not care.

It's stupid too, as many people already complain about smog in big cities and so on, but don't really do anything for it to change.

On a global scale, we can do without cars running on fossil fuel for sure, which would already have a great positive effect.



The third world countries don't even come close to our fossil fuel consumption though, so this is something of a non-argument. In fact, we pay third world countries so that we may use up their 'right' to pollute the earth.

There are of course industrialized parts in the world where the technological level isn't very high and because of that pollution is much worse than over here, but basically we're worse. After all, we do have the money and technology to change, which can't be said of many 3rd world countries.

1) In a (relativly) small, closed and controlled environment. YES....On a global scale - never PROVEN.
2) YES - CO2 "production" has risen to almost THREE times the amount it was in 1980.
3) WRONG - In my opinion. See my answer to two, BUT temperatures have not increased AT ALL since 1980.
For more info on 3), look-up our Aussie Pollie Senator Steve Fielding with a piece of paper he is trying
to show to Al Gore. I have seen this same (basic) information from several different sources,
for several years.

Not QUITE, but on the right track.
Im glad he is trying, no argument. He's making people sit up and think for a change.
But to use your analogy, if someone was trying to explain to me about a computers ability to number-crunch,
(and we will assume I dont even know how to turn one on, but I know of the existance of memory chips)
I then ask hime how it storess the numbers before the crunching.
If the "teacher" then waffles on about storing the data as X's and O's on a magnetic tape,
and I know thats not just wrong, but its seriously retarded, do you think I am going to
seriously consider anything else he says, like whether a computer really IS a good number cruncher?

Thats the impression I got from two different seminars of his. I went to the second
because I thought the first one may have been due to jet-lag or hang-over.

I credit the guy, he believes, and he's passionate about it. Any good cause needs that.
[EDIT] And it is a good cause. He is trying to explain things he "only-just" understands
to people who have been working in those science profession for decades.
He JUST needs more "script" or "Q & A" support from othr professionals in order to convince
professionals. Same in any other "sales" situation. He is selling an IDEA.

I just believe the idea he is selling is incorrect.