Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin8r
Why risk it? Why NOT just take a few simple measures to reduce emissions? Because it's too hard? Remember when all aerosol cans contained CFC's for propelant? It's not like living a little cleaner will have a massive impact on our day to day lives. 50 feet of water over my house will though, and I'm not prepared to take that risk.
|
Do you really think that repacing a few incandescent light bulbs with long life ones, or using public transport, will seriously move the 380ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere down to a pre-industrial 280ppm?
All power stations would have to go. Do you realise what this would do?
And then you will have to deal with the CO2 the remaining humans (those left after starvation and lack of modern public health and medical facilities) will be exhaling.
Even leaving the current level of emissions (which will involve significantly more efficient technology to deal with increases in population and rising living standards in India and China and elsewhere) you will still be increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
How are you going to get the CO2 back down?
As Lomberg points out, the cost of Kyoto could pay for uncontaminated drinking water for the entire world.
*If* climate change is happening (and history tells us that the climate does change over time) then there not not much humans can do about it.
However, what I suspect we are seeing is the operation of natural cycles, and a lot of hysterical people.