Quetzal said:
First I do not trust anyone, when 'money' is involved in a system and when complexity increases the probability that we common folk will never know the entire story increases exponentially. So I do not think there are bad guys and bad guys in this climate change/warming debacle. There are simply some not as dirty as the others. That said not sure of how reliable the evidences is from either side of the table is. I tend to trust those that do not support mans role in global warming and even climate change is that much of the data they use was published before this debate became a debate. So there was no, or very limited incentive to spin the results. Some of that data was for example warmer periods of the Earth’s history prevailed 800 years (+or- a few years) before the significant rise in CO2 levels via the industrial age. There is so much anecdotal evidences like the fact that after WW2 CO2 levels posted a large surge, however global temps fell for forty years after 1940. Or the fact that the average global temp did rise 0.7 degrees, that rise was consistent with long term natural climate trends.
I think we have a hand to play and the responsibility to help maintain the planet the best we can. I base this on the correlation between our industrialization and the sharp rise in temperature/CO2 emissions since.
As I said in an earlier reply, even though I feel climate change and to a lesser extent global warming is caused more, a lot more by natural phenomenon that can be verified by historical record etc man should err on the side of caution and do what is economically prudent to offset global warming triggers. I would support an independent research study that would dwarf our current efforts. In fact if I were president or dictator I would eliminate some pet projects or do what ever it took to find out once and for all what our activities are doing to the biosphere by an totally independent (of anyone or thing that has a vested interest etc in CCGW) The group would be completely transparent. It would not be that difficult to do. Simply 'tag' the fuels and anything that produces greenhouse gasses with an chemical or isotope tag and monitor the air. Without such a study we are in danger of throwing vast sums of money down a speculative hole that may or may not have a return on investment and of being the pasty of second world economies that are looking to the USA to subsidize their economic expansion.
Causes aside, do you support funding renewable initiatives? Wind, solar, etc?
Are you asking me if I think governments should subsidize such things? Maybe the gov should give tax incentives for pilot projects* and do some pure R&D work on things like battery technology. Maybe there could be some far more stringent requirements on passive stuff like super-insulating homes and building them to use thermal masses etc. You might wish you had left that insulting reply after I say this. We need a energy dense** source to meet the electrical demands of the next hundred or so years, or until fusion is brought on line. ** (solar wind and renewable are not energy dense)
Fission fast breeder reactors would fill that need. As the head of government I would order many new fission reactors to be built. Those new reactors would be redesigned to make them fail proof in the event of cooling loss etc. I would began decommissioning the old plants because the new plants would be all standardized and fail safe in the event of everything but a direct hit from a nuke. I would increase R&D in the field of clean coal and fossil fuels which would have to be used until the nukes would come on line....
Thats all.... sorry for the length I got carried away...
; {>