There are still people who say “see, it’s cold; that means global warming must be a hoax!” Way too many. Plus, it’s not an immediate, visible problem, and there’s “still” ten years to go.
Not enough political will.
#1 above leads almost directly to #2. Those in power just care about their own power and money all over the world. They won’t lift a finger to do anything. A big part of the reason is…
Economy trumps all.
The recession is just going to make things worse, as are the growth of China and India. Who thinks they’re going to care enough about their massive carbon output? Hah!
Ten years isn’t enough time to overcome 1-3.
It seems long, but in political terms, it’s centuries, especially when combined with #2. I just don’t see how inertia is going to be overcome in such a short time.
Oh, well, the coral reefs were nice while they lasted…
I don’t think we will do anthing because there is nothing that can be done that is not worse than global climate change (GCC). Economy does trump all because anything we do to stop GCC before the tipping point will hurt world economies to such a level that the human suffering would be worse than anything GCC will cause. We do not have energy solutions that to do not pump out carbon that can replace the energy sources we currently use that do.
If economy trumped all, we’d have solved the problem five years ago. It might cost a lot to avert catastrophic change, but if we don’t, it’s going to cost a heck of a lot more. And we do have options: Nuclear power, wind, more energy-efficient homes and cars, carbon sequestration, etc. There’s no single solution which would be enough, but if you put all of them together, it just might be.
Lets create incentives for businesses to innovate. The market for “green” goods is already growing. Although, Leaper is right, the recession may hurt this. Tax benefits for environmentally friendly goods will keep the prices low and make the project much more viable. Instead of forcing people into blocks by making things more expensive lets make them cheap.
What’s better then cheap? How about Green and cheap! Consumers will eat that up. I think people underestimate the emphasis people are putting behind being environmentally friendly. People don’t actively seek to be Hoggish Greedly or Sly Sludge.
Of course now that I write this I look at ethanol and what a waste of time that is. Lots of unintended consequences there. Might have to rethink some of this. Anyone have any suggestions?
The majority of the projected increased energy use comes from places that have terribly low standards of living. India and China have had great increases for their populations, but there still billions of people living in abject poverty. Increased energy use in the only way to help lift them up. We are talking about proper heating, reliable electricity, and clean water–not just fancy coffee.
Energy use is about 10 terawatts today. 100 years from now its projected to be 4x times that.
I suspect that if we were serious about it, we could cut that projection down significantly, and still raise that average standard of living for the world. Of course our own standard of living would drop, and that is why I’m also not extremely confident (like the OP) that we’ll have much success.
However, if we are smart enough to follow some of the things that Chronos pointed out, we may make it.
Do you think there a way to reduce carbon output and raise the standard of living the billions of people living in povert today? How do we get the rest of workd up to a Western standard of living (or a reasonable variation) without pumping a lot of carbon is the air. Remember these people are suffering and dying right now. Any sort of global restriction on carbon will fall hard on these people. And if exempt developing countries, we cannot stop GCC.
No only that but as both Presidential Candidates pointed out in trying to change our ways new technology and new economies will be born and we will free ourselves of our addiction to foreign oil.
You’re very correct in pointing out that it would be exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to get the entire third world up to our current Western standard of living. Really, the only solution is to lower our Western standard of living down to something that is actually more reasonable. I mean, the expectations of what is “necessary” in the west is (to my eyes) frequently grotesque. Having lived in the third world for a period of time, I realize how much of what we consume in the west is completely unnecessary fluff. (for example, do we REALLY need phones that can post messages on the internet? (no snark intended!)
Nobody needs a phone that posts on the internet. In fact, it is kind of grotesque. But so are art museums, literary quarterlies, professional sports, and fashionable clothes. Think much money we could save if we all just wore government issued sweatsuits. I wish there was a way to get the wealth without the waste. I don’t how to do it. Or even if I want to. I don’t to live in a world without art.
In some ways, it’s easier to do for them than for us. We already have infrastructure in place, so there’s not as much incentive for us to replace it, but much of the rest of the world doesn’t have that pre-existing infrastructure, so we can do it right from the ground up. If you’re going to have to build a new power plant anyway, why not make it nuclear instead of coal?
There is no chance the world will do anything significant about AGW. The reasons are:
Individuals will not put altruism toward future generations ahead of selfishness Right Now. Right now in the US we are spending their money as fast as we can, if you are looking for a proof case of this.
It is impossible to convince individuals that AGW is a significant problem. Warming? Maybe. Anthropogenic? Not if costs me.
It turns out it’s politically incorrect to argue for population control. This is the stupidest, most dumbass thing I’ve ever heard of, but try to make a case for it and see how far you get. Apparently developing countries (the big problem in population expansion) are off limits for criticism of any kind. So you have this idiotic politically correct message about AGW coupled with a population that’s gonna get to at least 9 B before it levels off. And all them undeveloped people wanna be like us. That means energy. It’s past asinine to argue for conservation while arguing against an increase in the number of consumers.
The leaders who want us to sacrifice are frequently the worst offenders for individual contribution to AGW and are therefore ineffective role models. See my thread last year on Al Gore’s Nobel reminding me of giving an award to a wife-beater because he sets up shelters for abused women. Leaders are wealthy by nature, and wealth is by far the best correlate with consumption and AGW.
The world will cool off before AGW heats it up. But I realize you are taking AGW as a given, so no need to go there. The first four will suffice.
Putting aside the issue of putting nuclear material in countries that do not have the most stable governments, current nuclear power technology is at best a short term fix.
I know what you mean. I frequently feel like a hypocrite, because I want to reduce my carbon footprint, but I really, really like some of my “stuff”. I’m flying to see my family next week for a holiday - I don’t need to go, but I want to. And I"m pumping a ton of carbon into the air to do it. So I’m really in a glass house here, and that’s also why I’m afraid that the OP has a point - it’s gonna be HARD to get people to change.
Probably a middle ground esitmate. It’s quite possible that the tipping point is already past.
Nonsense. Doing nothing will cost much more and cause more suffering.
And that is another reason why nothing will be done, at least in America. The political power of the Rapture-seeking, Apocalypse loving fundies who want to see as big and as many disasters as possible, in hopes of the end of the world and their entrance into heaven. They are pro-global warming for the same reason they’ve been pro-deforestation and pro-nuclear war. If there was an incoming asteroid that we could deflect, they’d fight to let it hit.
I don’t know where they’re getting that 10 year figure… Most of the figures I’ve seen are more like 100 years worth of uranium, even without using breeder reactors (which we can make right now, and for which there’s no good reason not to use them). As for putting nuclear material in the hands of unstable countries, I can see being worried about nuclear power in, say, Iran, but China and India (which make up the majority of the developing world) already have bombs, anyway. It’s not like it’s going to make things any worse if they have more uranium.
And for the political will to address the problem, note that both of the presidential candidates agreed that we have to do something, and agree for the most part on what forms the solution will have to take. When both of the parties agree on something, that sounds like political will to me.