Often people reject the good while waiting for the perfect. Why continue polluting just because some other nation won't stop? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

I agree with chisue.

There is so much we could & should be doing here at home. The USA should be developing new technologies creating good paying homeland jobs in the process. It should be a #1 priority in the country. Unfortunately, big oil pads many campaign coffers.

/tricia

Can we tell the Chinese, the Indians and many others that they can't have more than one car per 50 ... 100 ... households ... while we have three cars per driveway?

Even if we had the gall to make such a claim ... they wouldn't listen. And neither would we, in their shoes.

If the rest of the world were to live like we are... it'd take the resources of something like 4 planets like ours to sustain things.

Which we ain't got.

Too bad we in the western world can't see beyond our own doorstep, so much of the time.

ole joyfuelled ... who also uses gasoline ... and heating oil (though not yet, though it was 55 in here the other day).

Jim, there's plenty of evidence that the Earth's temperatures have gone through rising and cooling cycles over millions of years. I think it's also pretty clear that human activity has had a warming influence too, but there's no control case. What would have happened over this same period without human activity? There's no way to know.

In the meantime, the bad stuff that's been done and is still done can be curtailed. Nothing to lose from that. So-called renewable energy has great potential and will serve future generations without much concern. If we don't kill one another or die from an asteroid collision first!

Tricia, many businesses make political contributions, and usually to both parties. Labor unions make contributions to Democrats. So what? It's the citizenry that votes in the jerks we have as do-nothing elected officials.

People act for their own self interest and businesses act in the interest of their shareholders. Nothing evil about that. If it were possible to decide what goals should be encouraged, it's theoretically easy to put incentives in place to direct activity. If we had a functioning government

I'm not convinced humans are causing climate change. It's been going on practically forever and seems much bigger than all of us. Read below link for a non-human induced perspective.

Here is a link that might be useful: Global climate change

I don't really CARE if we are to blame for global warming, and I can't control what other nations do. Let's just stop polluting HERE when and where we can. Let's demand regulation, and let's do whatever we, personally, can do to limit our consumption of products derived from sources that pollute our land, air and water.

(You probably guessed that I'm also anti-nuclear power unless it can be produced without a hugely toxic byproduct.)

Those of us in the New World have been despoiling and moving on for centuries. Must we wait until ALL the land is ruined?

Quite a number of scientists claim that the risk is great enough to put the future of human life at risk, in the not-too-distant future, i.e. within a century or so.

Even if a great part of it is the earth doing its thing, which we can do little or nothing to alter, it is apparent that our recent activities, including increased consumption of coal (we've moved from 1 - 2 billion to 7 billion inhabitants in about 300 years [or less]), has added to the problem.

And added to the problem rather massively is the gases produced by the combustion of petroleum, almost all of which has occurred within the last 100 years.

Suppose half of the problem is the ordinary operation of the earth's systems ... and the other half is caused by the depradations/consumption on the part of humankind.

That means that our reduction of production of the ill winds that blow no one good is even more crucial, if we can influence only half of the problem

I've told the story before that the plants and animals had a conference recently, at which they deplored the long list of species that had been destroyed by the operations of man, and when someone said that they'd heard that humankind was becoming an endangered species, the assembly was impressed.

It was the almost unanimous conclusion that the sooner that man disappeared from the face of the earth ... the better it would be for many of the animals and plants.

Hope you've been having a good week, so far.

ole joyfuelled ... with some help from gasoline ... furnace oil ... electricity ... and plastic stuff ... that frequently comes wrapped in plastic packages

"Quite a number of scientists claim that the risk is great enough to put the future of human life at risk, in the not-too-distant future, i.e. within a century or so. "

This comment sounds like made-up nonsense to me.

It contradicts everything I've ever heard. What's the source for such an extreme statement?

Hmmmm....I noticed my link didn't actually go directly to the article. Trying it again.

Here is a link that might be useful: global climate change

Mother nature has a habit of making environmental corrections all of its own. Sometimes, these are rather nasty (to animal type creatures), but nature is about reaction and balance, not human comfort.

For example, it is possible to over populate the planet and how would nature deal with that? Simple - do nothing and a number of folks would starve to death until its numbers were reduced to that supportable by earth. Cruel, yes, but it would have been brought on by those who over populated. The other way is to thin ranks is by fighting. Neither scenario is pleasant, but effective.

Given enough human activity, we could befoul the atmosphere and water resouces to unhabitable levels. Guess what - the ranks would thin.

One problem with some projection models is those do not account for natural occuring events such as forest fires and volcanic eruptions.

hoping that china follows thru with the rest of the people at the recent conference..
omg after seeing to conditions they live in with the smog as heavy as fog (during the Olympics) who wouldn't realize they need to clean up their act? even the government must feel the effects of current conditions...

after living here in mi since 1988, I don't think i'd ever go back to san diego...

I think that the current Chinese Officials have recognized that polution and smog are bad for their country, especially one that is changing from small family farms and tradesmen, to manufacturing complexes. Change is taking place rapidly in China compared to other countries that have already moved through the same stages. This creates a cultural shock to the system. It will be interesting to see how that country reacts to its self-driven changes.

The Chinese are very much aware of the problems that are related to pollution and not only realize the need to deal with it, but are getting active at doing so. Which may also relate to the increased problems in future as many more of their people can afford automobiles.

Imagine what it would be like to have about 4 times the population of the U.S. ... crammed into a country more or less the size of yours and mine. With part of it being more or less like desert ... and most of the population, until recently, living on subsistence farms.

ole joyful

The Chinese government doesn't give a rat's backside about pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. A Washington Post article from this past Wednesday says that in China, there's a new coal burning power plant completed every 10 days.

Their interest is in the tariff reduction. Their motivation as for most countries is to act exclusively in their own self interest. In the case of the Chinese government, that includes continuing widespread technical and industrial espionage, internet hacking and break-ins, and a wide variety of other nefarious things.

The US is naive and stupid in its dealing with the rest of the world and has been for the last 100 years. Well intentioned, oftentimes yes, but we're the country bumpkins of the world stage. Other countries take advantage of us and eat our lunch whenever they want to. Whether the administration is from one party or the other, it doesn't matter.

Factory farming is a major cause of global warming/pollution.....right up there with coal....because of the methane gas emitted by the animals as well as the output of manure.

Cows, with their four stomachs and the regurgitation for extra chomping, produce a lot of methane, that's a lot worse than carbon dioxide as far as pollution goes.

ole joyful