# What can be done (climate change debate)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384 "2014-03-10T21:18:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/101 "2014-03-14T19:33:00Z")
Forgot the link for the previous quote: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html) In essence I agree with this sustainability adviser: “Politicians who deny climate change cannot be pro-business.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/102 "2014-03-14T21:52:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Forgot the link for the previous quote: > > [Bloomberg - Are you a robot?](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html) > > In essence I agree with this sustainability adviser: “Politicians who deny climate change cannot be pro-business.” Yawn. One of your brethren wrote a bodacious headline and then proceeded to be unable to prove his assertion. May I suggest you not give lame shit like that a pass. Seriously, dude, aren’t you trying to champion “let’s think critically”? Yeesh! ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/103 "2014-03-14T22:08:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yep, indeed politics are one of them main reasons of the opposition seen here in the previous post. > > Even businesses are moving away from that inaction and are becoming more active on pressuring government to act. This is basically what **Sam Stone** has said, there’s never going to be profit out there sitting uncollected. The difference is that some want government to initiate these changes, some people want business to and others see the individual making changes … and there’s the entire spectrum of everything in between. What can we do as individuals? Driving 55 mph saves money, and reduces carbon emissions. Turning your thermostat down and wearing a wool sweater saves money, and reduces carbon emissions. Grocery shopping once a month instead of twice a week saves money, and reduces carbon emissions. Any other ideas? How generous of Richard Branson, trillions of dollars of profit to be had and he’s sharing this with everybody. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/104 "2014-03-14T22:25:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yawn. One of your brethren wrote a bodacious headline and then proceeded to be unable to prove his assertion. May I suggest you not give lame shit like that a pass. Seriously, dude, aren’t you trying to champion “let’s think critically”? > > Yeesh! > [@](#): > > Here’s what makes the general silence on climate and the mocking from the self-identified pro-business party so absurd: tackling climate change is the smartest thing we can do for both our public health and our private sector. Reducing carbon emissions from our power plants, cars, and factories cleans the air and saves a lot of money. At the macro level, the burning of coal alone costs the U.S. about $350 billion per year in health (asthma, heart attacks, and so on) and pollution costs. At the micro level, from companies down to households, the opportunities to get lean and save money are vast. Well I would read it as I did instead of claiming that it is not teelling us that business will benefit in other ways rather than just monetarily, a healthy workforce is an effective one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/105 "2014-03-14T22:32:24Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > This is basically what **Sam Stone** has said, there’s never going to be profit out there sitting uncollected. The difference is that some want government to initiate these changes, some people want business to and others see the individual making changes … and there’s the entire spectrum of everything in between. > > What can we do as individuals? Driving 55 mph saves money, and reduces carbon emissions. Turning your thermostat down and wearing a wool sweater saves money, and reduces carbon emissions. Grocery shopping once a month instead of twice a week saves money, and reduces carbon emissions. > > Any other ideas? > > How generous of Richard Branson, trillions of dollars of profit to be had and he’s sharing this with everybody. Many good ideas already reported from the Danish site. And there are many rich people that are realizing now that letting the tea party dictate policy has been a horrible mistake. Not as many as the ones supporting inaction for their own gains with bad results for all, but the process is accelerating with many industrialists and executives realizing that the inaction path is not a good one. IMHO I prefer to see entrepreneurs gaining something with good results for all. > **[Financier Plans Big Ad Campaign on Climate Change (Published 2014)](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/politics/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-environment.html?_r=0)** > > Tom Steyer, a retired hedge fund manager, plans to spend as much as $100 million this year on a hard-edge campaign to pressure officials and candidates to support climate change measures. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/106 "2014-03-14T22:55:14Z")
> [@Who Is Still On The Couch? (White Elephant Related)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-still-on-the-couch-white-elephant-related/87712/10): > > We’ve recognized and met challenges to our future survival and well-being before, only never at the scale that is now required. The items you mention that reflect our magnanimity to future generations are not very good examples, in my view. They (recycling; acid rain; nuclear proliferation) are efforts to control current problems with proximately negative results. What’s different about AGW catastrophism, aside from the fact that our inability to predict makes what’s going to really happen very tenuous, is that no proximate benefit occurs. So, for example, it’s terrible that Miami might drown in 2100, but don’t tax me for that problem right now. I can’t even pay my current overspend. Not to mention that it might prosper instead when sea levels drop and more beach real estate becomes available b/c it turns out AGW causes so much precipitation in still-cold polar areas that land ice mass has a net increase which more than outweighs thermal expansion and seaside glacier loss. (I’m not interested in arguing the point; just creating an example.) AGW’s gonna need catastrophes real soon now that are predicted in advance, and the nature of those predictions is going to have to be more precise than suddenly realizing after the fact that AGW can trigger a nasty polar vortex meander. If AGW is going to increase hurricane intensity by warming the ocean, we need to not have a baseline “weather” variation where the Atlantic hurricane season is almost non-existent. Without a bunch of bad, predicted stuff now, we will not be moved to protect future generations against AGW anymore than we are moved to protect our children against paying for my hip replacement and retirement largesse. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/107 "2014-03-14T23:06:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Many good ideas already reported from the Danish site. Seems like last time you were touting Germany until you realized they are still burning firewood for energy supplements years into their solar transition. Look; any niche entity can take up going green, even at a country level. And any country–like Denmark–can have a Plan with a long-enough horizon. Meantime the developing world is coming online, and development will be put way ahead of any niche AGW hobbies. Every time I buy something from China, that’s my carbon footprint, even though it’s costed out to them so we can boast the US carbon output is diminishing. Population expansion numbers are astonishing ( have seen 11 Billion by 2100), and we all (including Mr Gore but perhaps excepting Mr Bagley, Jr) want to have Paul Allen’s new house. We’ll consume all energy from all sources; not replace fossils with alternate sources. There is not a shred of evidence that we will sacrifice now for future generations. And not a shred of evidence that any plan executable at a global scale will significantly change how much CO2 is going to get pumped into the atmosphere over the next two or three decades. The current enthusiasm for the Cause will diminish commensurate with the non-arrival of catastrophes which are obviously AGW-related, and accurately predicted. We need some–lots of 'em–and we need 'em soon. And even then, I’m not sure we’ll agree on a global-enough plan. One other comment about Mr Gore’s 1% spending. There is a substantial difference between 1% when it’s all discretionary and 1% if you dig ditches. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/108 "2014-03-14T23:35:25Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Seems like last time you were touting Germany until you realized they are still burning firewood for energy supplements years into their solar transition. You should read it again, I did not dump them at all, I still include them and you never explained away the fact they they indeed are willing to do some sacrifices for a better future. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is not a shred of evidence that we will sacrifice now for future generations. And not a shred of evidence that any plan executable at a global scale will significantly change how much CO2 is going to get pumped into the atmosphere over the next two or three decades. Like if whats happening in Europe and others countries is just a figment of the imagination. No, in reality this affirmation that there is “not a shed of evidence” was already demonstrated to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/109 "2014-03-14T23:47:10Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > What’s different about AGW catastrophism, aside from the fact that our inability to predict makes what’s going to really happen very tenuous, is that no proximate benefit occurs. Already debunked and with examples. There are many immediate benefits to controlling our greenhouse gas emissions, mostly health related. And there were predictions made about the drying of the west when the also predicted ice loss in the arctic was taken into account. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/30/2236751/scientists-predicted-a-decade-ago-arctic-ice-loss-would-worsen-western-droughts-is-that-happening-already/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/30/2236751/scientists-predicted-a-decade-ago-arctic-ice-loss-would-worsen-western-droughts-is-that-happening-already/) > [@](#): > > Scientists predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse western droughts. Arctic ice loss has been much faster than the researchers — and indeed all climate modelers — expected (see “CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed“). > > It just so happens that the western U.S. is in the grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought. Is this just an amazing coincidence — or were the scientists right and what would that mean for the future? I ask the authors. > [@](#): > > In the 2005 study, I then moved to look at fully coupled models where the decline in Arctic sea ice cover was the result of warming temperatures, which were, in turn, the result of elevated CO2. This is presumably the same response we are now seeing. > > Those coupled simulations showed the same response in storm tracks and western precipitation that we had found earlier in the 2004 study. > > Kevin is correct that if I had only looked at the coupled simulations, it would be very difficult to determine if the changes in rainfall were due to the CO2 or to the Arctic ice reduction. > > However, because the 2004 study was a clean sensitivity study, I can confidently attribute the exact same changes seen in the simulations I viewed in 2005 as being a direct result of the declining Arctic sea ice (and,thus, an indirect result of elevated CO2). > > Kevin is also correct that variations from year to year are large and that the impact of Arctic ice on storm tracks varies significantly with ENSO state. > > (1) In unpublished work that a student of mine did, we found that under strong El Nino conditions, Arctic ice concentration had less impact on storm tracks and precipitation in the west. Under more neutral (weak El Nino or weak La Nina) conditions, Arctic sea ice had a larger impact on storm tracks and precipitation in the west. > > (2) Both the 2004 paper and the 2005 paper present results as 50 year averages. This, to some extent, takes care of the annual variability issue and suggests that sum total changes on climatic time scales will, indeed, result in dryer conditions in the west. > > (3) While neither study employed ensembles, the 2005 study looks at seven different models (all with slightly different parameterizations, resolutions etc. so the effect is similar to that of a seven member ensemble) and the response, in spite of differences between the models, shows declining sea ice and declining precipitation in the American west with increases in precipitation from Oregon on northward. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/110 "2014-03-15T00:34:22Z")
"declining precipitation in the American west with increases in precipitation from Oregon on northward. " NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo… Oregon’s supposed to get LESS RAIN dammit. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/111 "2014-03-15T08:26:28Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The OP didn’t specify realism … and since everyone else is posting their fantasies, I thought I should too. The Middle Class is begging to pay carbon taxes, they elected Hussian el’Obama with the campaign plank of installing massive taxes on energy. > > You have to admit, this would be a pretty cool way to control AGW. Read the first sentence of the second paragraph of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/112 "2014-03-15T08:51:37Z")
The only thing that can be done is inventing methods of consumption and energy production that are less likely to do the things to the climate we do not want. Advocating some kind of negative growth model based on reduced consumption, asceticism or austerity will never work. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/113 "2014-03-15T10:13:32Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Let’s take it as a given that climate change is happening, and that a large or at least non-zero part of it is caused by human actions. . > **[The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/)** > > No Justification for the Economic Costs of EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Regulation > > > No Justification for the Economic Costs of EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Regulation ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/114 "2014-03-15T11:11:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You should read it again, I did not dump them at all, I still include them and you never explained away the fact they they indeed are willing to do some sacrifices for a better future. > > Like if whats happening in Europe and others countries is just a figment of the imagination. No, in reality this affirmation that there is “not a shed of evidence” was already demonstrated to be wrong. It’s not clear to me what Germans are actually sacrificing…when push comes to shove, like the rest of us they’ll burn firewood before they turn off lights. Anyway, back to my “not a shred of evidence” comment. The AGW Alarmists, when they want to show how solvable this problem is, pick and choose success stories and Plans much the way a business does for its Annual report. May I suggest there are two good indicators of how we are doing so far, given the fact that fossil fuels are such a problem? \*\*Indicator 1: \*\* What’s going on with total CO2 in the atmosphere? \*\*\*\*Indicator 2: \*\*\*\* What’s going on with reduction in fossil fuel use? All the rest is shinola, if you are looking at the main problem (too much CO2) and how we are doing so far. Let me help you read some of the data here so you don’t get too excited with the fake stuff like self-reported CO2 targets and emissions, or Denmark’s 2050 Plan. \*\*Indicator 1: \*\* [Atmospheric CO2](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf) at Mona Kea. An unimpressive place to find encouragement of how we are doing. **Indicator 2:** [Fig 3.1 Page 33](http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf) Now that second indicator link will be especially helpful for you, Gb, because until you get to the bottom of page 33 you think we are doing great. Great! But then it turns out something is rotten in Denmark. Notice that not only is the use of renewables a tiny fraction of total energy, what is really happening is that total energy needed to run the world is soaring. As we get out of recession, it will soar even more; as the developing world comes on line it will soar; as we reproduce our species it will soar. The thing you should focus on is not whether or not renewables are neat, but whether or not they will reduce fossil fuels. There’s not a shred of evidence they will, because we need lots and lots and lots of energy. All the renewables PLUS all the fossil fuels. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. (Or not, if you want to contribute your bit to the cause. 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/115 "2014-03-15T11:32:55Z")
What to do about global warming? Well, for one thing, don’t buy beach property. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/116 "2014-03-15T12:33:57Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It’s not clear to me what Germans are actually sacrificing…when push comes to shove, like the rest of us they’ll burn firewood before they turn off lights. Missing the point, what I have been talking about is that your idea that this will be so onerous and cause the end of civilization as we know it continues to be mistaken. As it is your next straw man, you have to go global to miss the point that Hans Rosling has made many times, if the developed nations can not control their emissions they have no right to demand the developing ones to change, it is essential that developed nations show the way and then the developing ones will follow. As we will have very good examples of what is possible to do with less reliance on fossil fuels. Is then more righteous and possible to pressure the developing nations to make the change or skip their very polluting stages of developing. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > May I suggest there are two good indicators of how we are doing so far, given the fact that fossil fuels are such a problem? > > \*\*Indicator 1: \*\* What’s going on with total CO2 in the atmosphere? > \*\*\*\*Indicator 2: \*\*\*\* What’s going on with reduction in fossil fuel use? > > All the rest is shinola, if you are looking at the main problem (too much CO2) and how we are doing so far. > > Let me help you read some of the data here so you don’t get too excited with the fake stuff like self-reported CO2 targets and emissions, or Denmark’s 2050 Plan. > > \*\*Indicator 1: \*\* [Atmospheric CO2](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf) at Mona Kea. An unimpressive place to find encouragement of how we are doing. > > **Indicator 2:** [Fig 3.1 Page 33](http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf) > > Now that second indicator link will be especially helpful for you, Gb, because until you get to the bottom of page 33 you think we are doing great. Great! But then it turns out something is rotten in Denmark. > > Notice that not only is the use of renewables a tiny fraction of total energy, what is really happening is that total energy needed to run the world is soaring. As we get out of recession, it will soar even more; as the developing world comes on line it will soar; as we reproduce our species it will soar. > > The thing you should focus on is not whether or not renewables are neat, but whether or not they will reduce fossil fuels. There’s not a shred of evidence they will, because we need lots and lots and lots of energy. All the renewables PLUS all the fossil fuels. > > Put that in your pipe and smoke it. (Or not, if you want to contribute your bit to the cause. 🙂 ) May I suggest to stop using so much straw in yours? Or the red herring? The evidence is there for the efforts that you denied, what you are talking about is \*\*precisely \*\*why we need those efforts everywhere. You do sound like a lot like the Republicans that deny that there is a problem and then dump the funding of the solutions. One of the main reasons why I think this issue is important is that regarding the world **we are not doing great**. As the IPCC and virtually all organizations that investigate the issue are telling us, there is a lot of what we need to do all over the world. And we in the USA should had dumped all the deniers in congress yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/117 "2014-03-15T12:58:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > One of the main reasons why I think this issue is important is that regarding the world **we are not doing great**. In reality the world is doing better than it ever has. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/118 "2014-03-15T13:11:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > In reality the world is doing better than it ever has. Missing the point too, the efforts need to be done to make it better and **to keep it** that way. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/119 "2014-03-15T13:39:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Missing the point, what I have been talking about is that your idea that this will be so onerous and cause the end of civilization as we know it continues to be mistaken. > > One of the main reasons why I think this issue is important is that regarding the world **we are not doing great**. As the IPCC and virtually all organizations that investigate the issue are telling us, there is a lot of what we need to do all over the world. And we in the USA should had dumped all the deniers in congress yesterday. Wait, which idea do I think will cause “the end of civilization as we know it”? What I think is that we won’t be able to reduce global CO2 emissions. This is because all energy from all sources is going to be consumed. Creating more renewables increases the total supply but does not diminish fossil fuel use. The burgeoning population and the need for the poor to live richer ensure that. There’s not a shred of evidence otherwise. Nor is there evidence that we’ll stop living well or consuming until the energy grid is renewable-ized so as to protect future generations from the effect of our fossil fuel use now. Pollyannas and Ed Begley, Jr, to the contrary, we all wanna be Mr Al (“Strawman”) Gore, life-style wise. If we are rich enough to pay renewable indulgences we will; if we aren’t rich enough we won’t. But we will put our immediate comfort well above that of “future generations” just the way we approach funding our government dole-outs. That’s why AGW is a Great Cause but a bit quixotic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/120 "2014-03-15T13:45:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Wait, which idea do I think will cause “the end of civilization as we know it”? > > What I think is that we won’t be able to reduce global CO2 emissions. > > This is because all energy from all sources is going to be consumed. Creating more renewables increases the total supply but does not diminish fossil fuel use. > > The burgeoning population and the need for the poor to live richer ensure that. > > There’s not a shred of evidence otherwise. And that was not my point so thank you for letting stand the one I made that reports that developing countries can reduce emissions and not having their civilization end. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384.md?page=7)