Nothing we do now will AVOID climate change. We're in for some real difficult times. However, as a mother, I will fight with everything I've got, to attempt to assure a decent future for my children. I must get people to wake up and push our leaders to LEAD! If ever we had a chance of expecting bold leadership it is now. However, I don't believe Obama, or Congress or our State legislatures or Governors will act with appropriately bold measures unless they are pushed - HARD by the unrelenting voice of an ever-engaged grassroots MOVEMENT.
We are out of time. We must all act like trapped mothers who are defending their young. Anything less than absolutely EVERYTHING we can do, is, in essence, giving up our children to the foe.
David N - 15 years ago
Since I’m not convinced that “global warming”/climate change is due completely too human activity I’d have to say all of the above PLUS some of the more drastic measures proposed by scientists to protect the earth from sunlight. We’re talking about CONTROLLING the weather, people can’t even PREDICT the weather accurately 2 days in advance! Controlling the weather?! It’s going to take drastic steps plus it’s something that scientists seem pretty much completely in the dark about.
Scientists say that to stop the positive feedback process that will lead to superwarming, we would have to stop all -ALL- carbon production immediately. Not a pound of auto exhaust, not a fart, not a campfire, nothing. So nothing listed here will do more than mitigate the disaster.
What to do? We must remove the CO2/CO by engineering and building air scrubbers on a global scale. Nothing else will stop this. It's a half century or more too late to green our way out.
Franz - 15 years ago
I have to agree with Dave A. I really don't see people denying themselves of "quality of life" sufficiently to reduce our demand on resources worldwide in time. I think we can slow the slide with technology, government intervention, and personal responsibility, but I don't see anywhere near the worldwide determination to address the immediacy of the problem. Let's face it, independent of global warming, humans are causing mass species extinction by loss of wild habitat and hunting. Our population worldwide has clearly exceeded the resources. As Dave said, "We can do it gradually with planning, or the planet can do it for us, rapidly and painfully".
I Newcastle - 15 years ago
Dave said it.
I Newcastle - 15 years ago
Stabilizing our population can be the only long-term resolution of this issue. Withholding the discovery of some superlative tech breakthrough, we as a species need ALL of the above to compensate for global increase in population. I consider myself an environmentalist, I do a lot to reduce my impact; however, as a realist I admit that in the long run our conservation efforts may in fact enable our species to again grow complacent and beyond its britches. No matter how efficiently we get there, we are a disease to the planet. In terms of the constructive/destructive variables involved in the grand equation, our population is, in my opinion, paramount. Bleak-o-Rama
Dave A - 15 years ago
Sad to say, I think it will take about 3 billion people dying above and beyond the replacement birth rate. We can do it gradually with planning, or the planet can do it for us, rapidly and painfully.
Henri K - 15 years ago
Even though having voted for political intervention I strongly lean towards 'individual commitment' as well since it's the consumer himself that has the demand for convenient over environmental-friendly products.
Nothing we do now will AVOID climate change. We're in for some real difficult times. However, as a mother, I will fight with everything I've got, to attempt to assure a decent future for my children. I must get people to wake up and push our leaders to LEAD! If ever we had a chance of expecting bold leadership it is now. However, I don't believe Obama, or Congress or our State legislatures or Governors will act with appropriately bold measures unless they are pushed - HARD by the unrelenting voice of an ever-engaged grassroots MOVEMENT.
We are out of time. We must all act like trapped mothers who are defending their young. Anything less than absolutely EVERYTHING we can do, is, in essence, giving up our children to the foe.
Since I’m not convinced that “global warming”/climate change is due completely too human activity I’d have to say all of the above PLUS some of the more drastic measures proposed by scientists to protect the earth from sunlight. We’re talking about CONTROLLING the weather, people can’t even PREDICT the weather accurately 2 days in advance! Controlling the weather?! It’s going to take drastic steps plus it’s something that scientists seem pretty much completely in the dark about.
Scientists say that to stop the positive feedback process that will lead to superwarming, we would have to stop all -ALL- carbon production immediately. Not a pound of auto exhaust, not a fart, not a campfire, nothing. So nothing listed here will do more than mitigate the disaster.
What to do? We must remove the CO2/CO by engineering and building air scrubbers on a global scale. Nothing else will stop this. It's a half century or more too late to green our way out.
I have to agree with Dave A. I really don't see people denying themselves of "quality of life" sufficiently to reduce our demand on resources worldwide in time. I think we can slow the slide with technology, government intervention, and personal responsibility, but I don't see anywhere near the worldwide determination to address the immediacy of the problem. Let's face it, independent of global warming, humans are causing mass species extinction by loss of wild habitat and hunting. Our population worldwide has clearly exceeded the resources. As Dave said, "We can do it gradually with planning, or the planet can do it for us, rapidly and painfully".
Dave said it.
Stabilizing our population can be the only long-term resolution of this issue. Withholding the discovery of some superlative tech breakthrough, we as a species need ALL of the above to compensate for global increase in population. I consider myself an environmentalist, I do a lot to reduce my impact; however, as a realist I admit that in the long run our conservation efforts may in fact enable our species to again grow complacent and beyond its britches. No matter how efficiently we get there, we are a disease to the planet. In terms of the constructive/destructive variables involved in the grand equation, our population is, in my opinion, paramount. Bleak-o-Rama
Sad to say, I think it will take about 3 billion people dying above and beyond the replacement birth rate. We can do it gradually with planning, or the planet can do it for us, rapidly and painfully.
Even though having voted for political intervention I strongly lean towards 'individual commitment' as well since it's the consumer himself that has the demand for convenient over environmental-friendly products.