How to act on global warming

Sam.

Thanks for consolidating this information in one place. This looks like a good "table of contents" for a book, which I hope you are writing.

I will only add that change is more likely with a democratic congress, especially in the senate. Senate republicans filibustered the latest tax bill until tax incentives for renewables were dropped from the bill - because these incentives would have been paid for by repealing entrenched incentives for the oil and coal companies. Of course, a change of administrations is coming, but almost more importantly, large democratic gains in (especially) the senate are absolutely necessary. That's the "lynchpin" in my opinion.

Sam, you are the man. This is definitely an authority resource information on both the problem and practical steps for solutions.

Commitment is the key for the change to happen.

I think if the world's population could be cut in half (or more), somehow, global warming will stop. I mean, we breathe out CO2, and human population has exploded over the last century and a half. Industry and technology have only provided the means for this population growth.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but that is a conclusion that some people have come to. You present some good ideas, however, and I look forward to reading some of these posts, Sam. Great presentation!

I agree with you Christopher. We are producing about as much food as we can. We have to many cars on the highways now. We have more waste . We are producing houses like crazy to house all these people in.
I think we need to limit how many people are on this planet too.

I only had a a few minutes to review the list and the first one that "jumped out" at me was the article on Venus. It has some dangerously false assumptions. The information assumes that the magnetic shield does not protect the Earth from solar radiation.

While Terra and Venus are similar in mass and size, Venus does not have a magnetic core like Terra and Mars.

There's evidence of "global warming" on Mars, I've heard. Chalk it up to solar activity, and someone will dispute that, I'm sure. We don't know enough about this to make any conclusions, much less take action. Still, a good many steps still must be taken to prevent pollution of the environment, and I am a full supporter of these. I just worry more about actual toxins, and non-biodegradeable refuse, than CO2 emissions. Global warming is a possible threat, while CFL bulbs present a definite threat of mercury poisoning in every place they're broken. Plastics are not recycled enough, which is of more consequence than most people think.

If the worst of our fears come true, there will be another mass extinction, caused by man. Man will suffer, as well. Will we go extinct? We don't know, but I lean towards not. If I were a strict Darwinist, I would say "the strong will survive." How we get to that point is irrelevant. It's all speculation, at this point.

Christopher. There is no (scientific) debate on this issue. That's a fact, regardless of your beliefs - or mine. The significant debate now is what to do about it.

Sam has pointed to the "nuclear delusion" above, and Amory Lovins has again published significant reasons why nuclear energy is not a response to global climate change.

Forget Nuclear

Christopher: "I just worry more about actual toxins, and non-biodegradeable refuse, than CO2 emissions. Global warming is a possible threat, while CFL bulbs present a definite threat of mercury poisoning in every place they're broken."

I agree with Steve. On mercury, note that the article When will we see the light? favors LEDs. Also, as described in the article Power plant emissions unlawful, U.S. coal-burning power plants -- which supply about half the nation's electricity -- are the single largest domestic source of mercury emissions. The EPA estimates they emit 48 tons of mercury into the air each year, with 11 tons deposited onto soil and surface waters. The solution is to produce electricity from clean and safe sources, such as wind and solar power.

Christopher: "I think if the world's population could be cut in half (or more), somehow, global warming will stop. I mean, we breathe out CO2, and human population has exploded over the last century and a half. Industry and technology have only provided the means for this population growth."

The amount of CO2 produced by human breathing is insignificant. India, with its huge population, emits less CO2 than Russia does, according to 2004 CDIAC data. China, with its one-child policy, emits more. Countries with the large population growth, such as in Africa and South America, emit less than developed countries where population is stable or decreasing, such as Europe and Japan. In short, this presumed relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and population growth or size doesn't add up. It seems to me like another diversion, cooked up by those who are reluctant to cooperate with what has to be done, i.e. a change of technology. Indeed, we can make an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by switching from burning fossil fuel to using electricity alone.