|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
anomalocaris 14-Oct-12, 05:57 |
 So gas is going to 100 dollars a gallon?By Wynne Parry, LiveScience Contributor | LiveScience.com – Thu, Oct 11, 2012NEW YORK — Prominent climate scientist James Hansen has been warning that humans have brought the planet to a tipping point, after which changes, such as melting ice, can pick up momentum with potentially devastating effects. At a discussion today (Oct. 11), Hansen suggested society has reached its own tipping point. "We are at a fork in the road. We can either continue with business as usual and addiction to fossil fuels, or we can put an honest price on carbon that makes fossil fuels pay their cost to society," Hansen told an audience at the State of the Planet Conference held here at Columbia University. The cost of fossil fuels is artificially low because it does not include the price they incur on society, through air and water pollution and the effects of global warming, such as more extreme weather, Hansen said. His solution: a gradually rising fee attached to all fossil fuels at their mine or port of entry. The fee would then be redistributed to the public. A rising cost on greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels would spur investment in clean alternatives, he said. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Lisa Goddard, director of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, offered a climate science perspective during the conference, which focused on global sustainable development. Goddard focused on drought, and the need to anticipate climate extremes and manage their effects. She focused on a severe drought in southern Sudan, which, after two failed rainy seasons, has brought famine. It's difficult to attribute this drought directly to global climate change, since there has been no long-term trend in the precipitation in the region. However, decade-scale fluctuations in rainfall seem to have contributed, as did the long-ranging effects of cooler ocean temperatures over the equatorial Pacific (known as a La Niña event), she said. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World] A lack of ability to anticipate extremes, such as droughts, can impair development because people make cautious decisions, such as refraining from taking out a loan to buy seeds for fear of drought. As a result, people may miss important opportunities, she said. Both Hansen and Goddard weighed in on the presidential election. Goddard faulted President Barack Obama's administration for not supplying adequate funding for climate research and making little explicit mention of climate. "Meanwhile, the U.S. has been experiencing not only climate change but climate variability of quite a severe nature," Goddard said, referring to the recent unusual weather, including unprecedented warmth across the lower 48 states. Hansen, too, expressed frustration. Obama should have had a Franklin Roosevelt-style fireside chat with the nation shortly after his election, when his popularity was high, and explained the need to put a price on carbon, the primary ingredient in greenhouse gases, Hansen said. Obama did back a failed cap-and-trade proposal, which would have allowed clean companies to sell their leftover pollution credits to not-so-clean ones. Hansen opposed this system. When asked the implications of a victory for Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Hansen noted that he found the sway held by climate-change deniers over Republican candidates discouraging. "Nevertheless, the realities can be made clear to educated, intelligent people," he said. |
||
|
|
||
|
illinawek 14-Oct-12, 09:26 |
|
||
|
chaz What does that mean and can you give a good example? |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
anomalocaris 14-Oct-12, 10:01 |
I could be |
||
|
Stinky ... |
||
|
Chaz Does it mean that you agree with me that more drilling permits should be approved for drilling off-shore around the U.S. and the Alaskan area expanded? |
||
|
For drilling, we could have selective drilling in lots of less environmentally sensitive areas. I've always tried to seek compromises in these areas, but it's become a black/white issue for the left and right. |
||
|
The left want NO drilling, No oil, No coal. The right wants to use it responsibly while developing other energy forms. |
||
|
dmaestro 14-Oct-12, 11:32 |
|
||
|
dm What I oppose is the BO plan to reject it altogether. I oppose his rejecting it AFTER the Hillary Clinton State Department spent 3 years studying it and APPROVING it. I oppose his idea to toss thousands of good jobs to China because we won't build the pipeline here. I oppose his idea that makes us more dependent on Middle East oil. I oppose his idea that damages our economy with higher priced oil. |
||
|
cody16 14-Oct-12, 12:21 |
|
||
|
dmaestro 14-Oct-12, 14:06 |
|
||
|
dm We still lack renewable, alternative energies and it might be because of government incompetence and malfeasance. No better example than this administration investments into "green energy" companies founded by, owned by, or significantly owned by Big-Bundler Contributors to the BO campaign, such as Solyndra & Tessler. But the rest of your statement is ludicrous: "... while you righties want to destroy the environment getting every last drop of oil out of the ground." Nobody wants to destroy the environment. Nobody wants to push grandma off the cliff. Nobody wants little kids to starve. You should really stop saying such stupid stuff. It makes you look weak and pathetic. |
||
|
|
||
|
cody16 14-Oct-12, 16:26 |
You like eating candy bars and don't think there is anything harmful in doing so. You enjoy it and it doesn't seem to be affecting you in any major way noticeably, so you continue eating them. Your doctor, however, says they are dangerous and you should stop. Who are you to question what he says? Your doctor spent ten years in medical years and has devoted his entire life to the field. Just as your doctor has no place giving you financial advice because you are a stoke broker and he is not, you have no place arguing with his advice because he is the expert. If the scientific community concludes that the earth is reaching a crisis state, these claims should be treated as fact until the scientific community retracts or further develops this theory. What is completely unacceptable is when politicians (admittedly, mostly Republicans) propagates that global warming is a hoax and holds no basis in reality, so don't worry about it just keep drilling. It is not the politicians' place to make such claims; the politician should take whatever steps necessary to work with the scientific community to fix the problem. The politician's expertise is legislation, not rebutting the validity of science's claims. Just as the man in denial about the dangers of the unhealthy candy bar, oil corporations (the right) deny the effects of their business for the same reasons. It doesn't seem to be hurting us immediately and we like it (we also like the trillions we're pocketing yearly and going on extended vacations to Disney World). The truth of the matter however is that it IS a serious concern, with very real and very serious repercussions, and needs immediate and extensive funding to attempt to remedy it. The fact is that what we [really] cannot afford is to spend the remainder of our natural resources and environment and to continue pretending like global warming is a far off fantasy. |
||
|
Cody It is very much true that politicians should not be making decisions when they don't have a clue about what they're doing, or talking about. Neither should anybody else. That's why we rely on the groups with the knowledge to publish the information... so we can make informed decisions, when we have a pretty good chance of being right in our decisions. In the case of "global warming", it is still unclear to many in that group (scientists) that it is actually man-make causing the change or if it is one of the cyclic changes due to any of a number of natural causes. In fact, it is not even clear if this is a long term event or might even be reversing direction now or soon. But, what makes this more troublesome is the fact that scientists were caught doctoring their data and falsifying reports for their own personal reasons. And, it has been shown that major promoters of the notion, like Al Gore, were promoting it in order to benefit his global carbon-credits scheme, which would make him a billionaire. Lastly... if it were shown conclusively that mankind is causing the change, and that the change will absolutely be detrimental, then most people would be willing to contribute (sacrifice) to changing methods, ways, standards of living etc to make a positive change for improvement. BUT, they would want everyone (all nations) to participate or a it wouldn't be effective. And, they would want the percentage of sacrifice to be shared equally and fairly among all the nations. In other words, some nations can't be excluded from participating in the sacrifice or the other sacrifices will be in vain. |
