Answer for: Global Warming: What can be done?
#4 End our dependence on fossil fuels.
(No description was provided.)
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2009 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by grūpthink
Revision: 2388
Comments |
Leave a comment
Agreed. But I hope without killing people in the process.
I don't think I quite follow you. How would people get killed in the process?
The fundamental ingredients for improved life expectancy and reduced mortality are energy intensive: Sanitation, refrigeration, medical infrastructure and services, production and transportation of food, heating & cooling of homes, and industries to provide jobs.
The world consists of nations that have energy for the above infrastructure and services, nations that are in process of developing, and nations that are largely undeveloped. Probably the most important need in undeveloped and developing nations is affordable electricity. Rapidly curtailing access to energy (through aggressive methods of imposing reductions on C02 emmissions without affordable alternatives) would deny the undeveloped nations, severely curtail the developing nations, and increase poverty in the developed nations. This would equate to killing people. In the case of developing and undeveloped nations -- lots of people.
My argument is not to say that we shouldn't be aggressive. But that we should ensure we are using a measured approach to replace one form of energy production with others less harmful. A foremost consideration of mitigation strategies should be the risk / benefit evaluation measured as mortality vs longevity.
Now I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.
Typically, I would probably be inclined to agree, that regular and consistent changes would be preferred. But it is actually in some of these developing countries, where a lot of the meaningful strides in renewable energy have been made. Little guys proving that firstly, it can be done....and secondly, that these solutions are scalable.
It seems to me that most of the reluctance or opposition comes from those that stand to lose something...and typically the loss would be money.
While I can not debate or disagree with the idea that changes in the way we provide energy will ultimately affect people/jobs etc...it is pretty much a blanket statement to indicate that people would die. Firstly, any new methods would require knowledgable individuals, and workers to scale the solution, and to maintain. So there would be new jobs....and as far as creating poverty...there are plenty of alternatives available as we speak...these alternatives have been classified as outlandish, or ridiculous...by the competitor's Lobbyists, influencing politician policy, and so on and so forth. The sad thing is that these alternatives could be affordable to the masses. Quality of life could actually improve for many people of this world.
Can you be more specific? Which alternatives, how affordable? Which meaningful strides in what countries?
I'm just trying to understand which solutions you have in mind, and at what scale.
And let's forget the cornohol as a substitute for gasoline- it also uses up resources disproportionately.