[tophcfa]

I agree that the climate is changing, as it always has and always will. Some of it is caused by man and some by other factors. The climate changed before man existed, and will change after man is gone. I also feel we should all try to do what we can to help reduce the part of the change caused by man. That being said, people need to wake up and not be sucked into so called solutions that actually don't help. Electric cars are a great example. Here are a few things the electric car industry won't tell you. The carbon footprint left behind by the mining, refinement and transportation of the materials used to make the batteries in these vehicles is very significant (even with the newer lithium batteries). Second, to make these vehicles get any range with the weight of the batteries, the rest of the vehicles have to have lots of plastic to keep the vehicle weight down. Plastic is a petroleum product that is not easily recycled, unlike the metal used in traditional vehicles that is melted down and reused. Then the batteries need to be periodically replaced, causing an ongoing cycle of the already mentioned mining, refinement and transportation process. Then the used batteries, which are basically toxic waste, need to be disposed of. And although the electric cars don't put exhaust out of a tail pipe, the batteries still need to be charged. Where do the people driving these cars think the electricity charging their batteries is coming from? It takes energy to run any car, weather it is gas or electric. Just because there is no smoke coming from the tail pipe does not mean the vehicle is not using energy. I have read some logical arguments that show electric cars are actually as bad, if not worse, for the environment. More common sense solutions, such as planning your car trips more efficiently so that you buy everything you need for a week at a time, rather than going out for a few things every other day, would actually help. Common sense things like that would really add up if everyone did it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

All cars use energy. But some are more efficient than others. For instance - there's no "need" for anyone to own a Hummer. There's no "need" for most people to own most of the gas guzzler cars on the roads these days. But the alternative to owning a gas guzzler is not electric. It's "anything less guzzling than that." Whatever that is. If you can get a car that gets 30mpg, and takes you where you need to go without actual discomfort, why would you buy a luxury boat that only gets 19mpg? Sure the efficient car is a crappy little piece of tin, but you're not living in the thing, you're just using it to get from point A to point B.

And if you are able to walk in comfort and the store is only a couple of blocks away, why are you driving to the store at all? Walk. Or take the golf cart, gas or electric, whichever. Or ride your bicycle.

Better yet - become an activist who wants to change transportation in the Villages entirely by promoting the idea of a Square to Square shuttle system. It won't eliminate cars - but it could drastically reduce their use.

Then there's the plastic bags for garbage day - you have to have "this" color bag for this kind of trash and "that" color bag for that kind of trash. So now you're just spending money to buy virgin plastics that are just being thrown away. And twice a week - convenient for the homeowner but not very convenient for the environment.

You could promote more use of solar energy. The entire town square could run entirely on solar, if someone were to develop a plan to do so. My home town's municipal buildings are all powered by solar energy.

There are SO many things that every single person can do to HELP - it's just a matter of whether or not our convenience is more important than our legacy.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

...There are SO many things that every single person can do to HELP - it's just a matter of whether or not our convenience is more important than our legacy.

The difficult part is determining which of those things actually help. Often you hear little other than opinions regarding what should be done. And those opinions rarely discuss downsides or potential unintended consequences...and all the “solutions” have them.

[Two Bills]

[QUOTE=manaboutown;1688599]Isn't China the primary polluter?

Until that country and some others get on board the planet cannot be cleaned up which it certainly needs to be![/QUOTE

Top 5 most polluting countries (Google)

1. China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ...
2. United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ...
3. India (7%) ...
4. Russia (5%) ...
5 Japan (4%)

[JimJohnson]

I do worry that some folks are too bullheaded to even discuss it. The climate is changing and definitely in a negative way to mankind. Why, cyclical, normal, caused by man, natural, etc. etc.. But, flat denial is shortsighted and dangerous.

[rustyp]

Why is it the one item that will have the most positive impact to preserving the planet is not at the forefront of change. Zero population growth. Resource consumption is by far the highest contributor to carbon footprint. The energy required to make all these goods we consume blows all other contributors off the scale. So in our wisdom the answer is we must sacrifice and sacrifice must be painful - you know no pain no gain. Why not stop increasing demand and at least stay at a steady state. I'm not saying not to pursue other initiatives like lessening pollution but there is room for argument what the real impact of some of these initiatives are. Spoiler alert one volcano spruing mega ash over shadows all the polluting gasses from the worldwide car population for a long time. As an aside why do we say preserve the planet ? The planet will adapt and survive just fine short of being hit by an asteroid. It is the human race that won't survive which is inevitable anyways.

[JimJohnson]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Why is it the one item that will have the most positive impact to preserving the planet is not at the forefront of change. Zero population growth. Resource consumption is by far the highest contributor to carbon footprint. The energy required to make all these goods we consume blows all other contributors off the scale. So in our wisdom the answer is we must sacrifice and sacrifice must be painful - you know no pain no gain. Why not stop increasing demand and at least stay at a steady state. I'm not saying not to pursue other initiatives like lessening pollution but there is room for argument what the real impact of some of these initiatives are. Spoiler alert one volcano spruing mega ash over shadows all the polluting gasses from the worldwide car population for a long time. As an aside why do we say preserve the planet ? The planet will adapt and survive just fine short of being hit by an asteroid. It is the human race that won't survive which is inevitable anyways.

Well said, but the average person can look at an open field and surmise plenty of room for more people. The same people see snow and cannot fathom global warming.
It is very sad the comprehension of the average human dolt.

[Love2Swim]

There is no question that the climate is changing - scientific data supports it. But the uniformed don't seem to grasp that the the huge problem is the rate of change. I read statistics that said the rate of climate change is something like 20 times greater than at any time in the past, and that is huge. NASA says that the change is 95% probability the result of human activity and is proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented. One example is rising sea levels. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches since 1880 with about three inches gained in the last 25 years. Clearly this has devastating impacts on coastal areas and extreme weather conditions. Scientists agree that any reduction to this rate of change can only be a positive thing, and that can be impacted by the measures we take as far as reducing pollutants, etc. We may not be able to stop the change, but we can reduce the rate of change by being politically active - contacting legislators with our concerns and voting for the candidates that will work on climate change solutions. Smart consumers recycle, drive hybrid or electric cars, use public transit, have energy efficient appliances, have solar panels on their roofs, etc. As David Suzuki said - We are all little drops in the bucket, but together the drops can fill the bucket.

[Bay Kid]

Burning. We worry about auto pollution. How about the "controlled burning"? One controlled fire will pollute TVs for most of the day and do more damage than...well lots of other things.... A big burn looks like" the sky is falling".

[valuemkt]

It might keep me a bit warmer in my box 6 feet under.

[billethkid]

A lot of discussion always about what WE can do to save the planet.
WE represent what percent of the population that contributes to the problem?

There have been some few posts regarding other countries that are worse than the USA....collectively they overwhelm the USA population.

What ever we can do is all well and good. However those who are doing the preaching here at home need to turn their amplifiers external to the non USA contributors.......that is if they are really...REALLY... serious about making a difference.
It must be obvious the USA is merely a part of the issue.
And it must also be obvious that the USA will not/can not compensate for the other countries.

The strategy of continuously beating the drum here at home just isn't going to make it happen.

[Velvet]

If we take China for example, in my opinion, they need help rather than judgement. Someone mentioned number of people relate to amount of pollution. China tried the one child policy, but because of misogyny etc most people had boy children. Then they found there is gender imbalance, not enough girls for wives and families. China needs to feed their people, their manufacturing industry is developing well, but with lots of pollution. The West could offer help with how to have cleaner and cheaper production methods. Educational exchange has already started that. I believe there is hope.

[seoulbrooks]

Oh yes.....let's consult and pay Al Gore for the only correct answer to this question......as he hops around the world on his private jet.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

Excuse me. Just because you hold differing opinions does not give you the right to insult. My facts come from my learning and some great professors like Professor Emeritus Holman of archaeological distinction
and geology Professor Emeritus Sam Upchurch who was a "young turk" in the debate about plate tectonics. Also distinguished Astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmidt. Science, not media pablum.

I am not offering an opinion. I am offering to link you to evidence. Archeology is not climate science nor even earth science. Plate tectonics is a very interesting field of geology, but not climate science. Read the links I provided, use google to search for any evidence from any scientific source to support your statement that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than humans each year and report back.
I did not insult you. I called out a lie which you repeated. And I presented contemporary sources including the US government disproving your claim. You returned with the names of people none of whom have any expertise in climate science and in fact are geologists and archeologists. Again, find me a study supporting your "fact" None of these should be a paper showing that one eruption X years ago cause a temporary change in the weather. Yes that happens, but ongoing discharge from volcanoes is not a significant factor in the continuing rise of CO2 and the continuing rise in mean global temperature. Human activity is responsible for this, not volcanoes, not sunspots. And there are many many proposals as to what can be done to slow or hopefully reverse this trend. But until everyone is on board that this is real and it is humans, things will get worse.

For those who argue it is just cycles, no. Cycles are very slow over thousands of years. NASA has reported on this in a clear concise way. This change is rapid and not due to natural slow cycles. And for those who say, so what it is only 2 degrees centigrade. That is 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In a living system that is huge. If your temperature goes up 4 degrees something is very wrong. And 4 degrees from a base of 99 is a much smaller disruption than 4 degrees from a base of 57.

[Velvet]

Is there a way of making the avatar a bit bigger? I can’t do much on my iPad. The graph can’t be read.

I understand the concern about the rate of change. There are so many values that are involved with climate change. Even if the facts are clear, there are people who hold different values.