What is the problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Neil M asked:
Having only just discovered this interesting new feature, and having read some of the answers given about climate change I thought I’d ask my own. Why are some people so against reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Surely it makes complete sense to use as little energy as possible and to generate energy by means which are renewable and do not rely on fuel of which there is only a finite amount? I mean, surely that makes perfect economic sense? Whether or not you dispute the science of climate change (and from my experience that vast majority of genuine scientists do not) I can see no logical argument against trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Having only just discovered this interesting new feature, and having read some of the answers given about climate change I thought I’d ask my own. Why are some people so against reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Surely it makes complete sense to use as little energy as possible and to generate energy by means which are renewable and do not rely on fuel of which there is only a finite amount? I mean, surely that makes perfect economic sense? Whether or not you dispute the science of climate change (and from my experience that vast majority of genuine scientists do not) I can see no logical argument against trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Share This Post
Well what we want to do is to move away from fossil fuels to a renewable source. The problem with fossil fuels is that it is carbon fixed millions of years ago and when burnt, it releases CO2 back into the atmosphere.
There needs to be a shift to another form of energy such as ethanol because the current method of ethanol production involves the conversion of sugars to ethanol… the sugars of which are recently fix from plants… when you burn these fuel, yes you release CO2 but the CO2 you release has been recently fixed and does not add additional CO2 as in fossil fuels.
However, when it all comes down to it, its all about money. With current technology, it is way to expensive to use anything other than fossil fuel base energy. Hybrid cars are great but it is no where near what society needs as a clean mode of transportation.
Sure, it makes sense to use fuel in the most efficient manner possible, to a point. The “law of diminishing returns” comes in here, saying that you can spend a little money to make pretty quick improvements in energy efficiency at first. But after a while, the time, money, and other resources you put in to making those improvements outweigh the benefits from saving energy.
The arguments mostly come in when people disagree on where those trade-offs balance out. Most in industry would look at straight financial calculations (If I spend this money, will I make up that expense in energy savings?) whereas a strong environmentalist would say that money is no object and we should make efficiency gains wherever possible.
The other aspect to the debate is that beyond improving efficiency, the only way to use less energy is to do less (fly fewer planes, make fewer widgets, etc.). This would almost certainly harm our economy and quality of life, which many people would oppose.
I agree with you! There are very powerful and wealthy individuals who have a lot at stake by holding onto the status quo. Brazil no longer depends on gasoline for it’s cars. Their gas engines were converted to use sugar cane fuel. In the United States, some people have figured out how to convert corn (an abundant resource) into fuel. If we concentrated all of the billions of dollars we spend on space travel and used it to convert gas stations, it would only take our complete conversion to alternative fuel five years!!! That’s how long it took Brazil. These alternative fuels cause much less polution.
I agree wholeheartedly and I said something similar under another thread earlier. Even if the pollution from fossil fuels is not the leading cause of global warming, there’s no denying that it’s harmful in so many other ways we owe it to ourselves to find less harmful ways to power our vehicles and factories. Here in the Phoenix area we frequently get high pollution advisories and they warn people, especially those with respiratory conditions, to stay inside. How bad does it have to get before people admit that air quality is a problem too? Are we going to wait until healthy people start dropping dead in the streets? The time to do something is now, before it gets out of hand.
Green house gas emissions would be reduced by 50% if EVERYONE who talks about it reduced driving,electricity and in general conserved energy but as the same people get in their SUV on the way to the airport to fly ac cross the country to give lectures on conservation and all their hot tubs are running simultaneously you can see it’s all up hill,but everyone should try !
Economics.
Pure and simple.
It is easier and cheaper to maintain the status quo, regardless of the long-term costs, and especially when those long-term costs can’t be quantified.
I have a friend who was complaining about the cost of gas, and how much more it cost to drive in to work everyday. I suggested selling their place in the country, and moving to an area from which she could walk to work. Not going to happen.
When petroleum products, or coal, or gas finally get to the price at which solar or wind become economical, then and only then will you begin to see a change in the way things are. Unfortunately, at least in this country, where no one wants to have anything “in their backyard”, windfarms and solar plants will be undesireable neighbors.
It’s going to be an interesting century….
The only thing standing in the way is Greed and stupidity. Oil Men are against alternative fuel sorces, because it will take away from their profits. They use their position to convince everyone else that is won’t save anyone anything and will actually cost more. People beleive it and so they continue to pour their money into the pockets of the oil men.
I completely agree. In my opinion, people who think that way only care about themselves, and especially don’t care what will happen after they are gone. I will always be a strong advocate of trying to reduce GGA’s, and trying to find ways for to not produce any more. I hope that someone, even myself, can get the show on the road soon with all of the renewable energies. If we could jsut get the funding, I think it would be a matter of months before a viable energy source that has lower emissions than today’s RE’s could be developed, and maybe only a year before it could begin to be implemented.
MONEY, MONEY MONEY. THE GASOLINE
ENGINE IS OBSOLETE BUT THE PETROLEUM PEOPLE DON’T WANT IT
TO BE SO.
Nothing wrong with trying to find methods to reduce emissions, and it would be lovely to find something that’s clean and capable of doing such…we’re moving in that direction. I believe will have many alternatives within the next 15 years, and rising oil prices will help spur R&D in such.
My question is why is yahoo questions always featuring left-geared questions? Atleast that’s what it seems like it’s doing.
As long as those in charge feel that greenhouse emissions is just some kind of eco-terrorism, we’re all doomed.
Water vapor is far and away the principle green house gas. It is responsible for 99.96% of all atmospheric heating. CO2 is only responsible for 0.04%. Cutting our use of carbon fuels will hurt our economy, which is what the international socialists want. We are in a new kind of war where enemies seek to harm our economy with goofy ideas like “global warming.” Al Gore’s “928 peer reviewed articles by scientists” turned out to be 13 that agreed with him and 915 who did not when an independent researcher reviewed all his data. He is a liar, international socialist who wants to have one world with him in charge.
Adrian Vance
America has always enjoyed being able to move about freely. Also, our technology uses energy.
Over 50% of fossil fuels is used in transportation and home use. Like the electricity to run your computer creates greenhouse gasses. This is because many power plants require natural gas or other type of fuel like coal.
Of course, in the 70’s, people were more into conservation after the OPEC Oil Embargo of ‘74. Do you remember that ? Most people have forgotten gas lines. Then, car pooling was popular along with mass transit and other such ideas. Like planning your shopping needs rather than making many special trips because making a list and planning a shopping trip is inconvenient.
And as Colbert would say, the word is inconvenience as in people do not wish to be inconvenienced by making better uses of their time and resources. Being lazy of both mind and body is easier. After all, how many people will ride a bike or walk to the store ? It is endemic to our society.
Now it’s everyman and woman for themselves.
To put it as simply as possible, there is nothing at all wrong with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The only obstacle is that people do not want to adjust their lifestyles. The problem with people is that they are either fanatical about the environment, or they feel that global warming is not a problem right now, and so they can go on with their lives as they were.
Personally, I think people need to remember that we MIGHT be causing global warming. We should totally reduce greenhouse gas emissions, simply because of that “what if.” After all, it doesn’t take much energy, and we won’t have to make too many sacrifices.
The biggest concern around the issue here is that some people will say the reason this way is not widely being used is the cost of producing something like that to help out a vast majority of people and the time it takes into “putting effort” into that resource. I’m with you on using a limitless power source. Unfortunately, people use the most easy and less costly way of producing energy.
Sadly, until we have someone in the government smart enought to listen to suggestions from us….there will never be a solution to anything.
Hi here is the answer….. It is peoples god-given right to use up ALL the natural resources on the planet. God is going to make a new one someday so they don’t care. it says so in the bible. Seriously, people do all sorts of things in the name of god. But mostly, they avoid common sense. From destroying our planet with the misuse of its natural resources, to crashing planes into buildings with innocent people in them. My opinion, Dude, is that people are greedy and a belief in god allows them all of the things they want without guilt. Rob, kill, steal, lie, its all good in the name of god. If humans had more faith in themselves and science, we’d see clearly what we are doing to our planet. As ones education level increases, their belief in god decreased. I’ve graphed a chart, its true…. I am raising my 2 children to respect the earth and each other. not an invisible man in the sky that gives permission for anything, and also FORGIVENESS for anything. I hope more people read your question. The Eggman
fear
the only worse than the status quo is change
that is a normal human fear
and until humans are MORE afraid of the consequences, they rarely change their behavior
i dont know
Certainly there is logic on the surface. The problem is the “devil in the details”. First of all, the approach being taken is highly politically based – not science driven. As a result, there is an over exageration about the impact of greenhouse gasses to begin with. Even so, alternate energy sources/technoligies should be pursued. But even alternate sources like nuclear, are being politcally inhibited. Heck, even wind power off of the coast of Masseschusets is being inhibited for political reasons. To learn more about what’s what, I suggest that you consider the information available at the referenced web site JunkScience.com.
Here’s the problem, George W. Bush, who took office after stealing the 2000 Presidential eelction, decided not to take part in the Kyoto Treaty that significantly cut downon greenhouse gas emissions. He instead wanted to do an alternative. What was he talking about? I have no idea what he has on his mind. That’s the person who should take the blame for not leading the world in this critical task. Look at the Europeans, for example, they are the leaders in the reduction of greenhouse gases. I bet they will give Bush an earful at the upcoming G8 summit to be held in Russia in just a few weeks like they did so in the past. We Americans are no longer going to tke this sitting down. The only thindg we have to do is just to plead with Bush to do something about this potentially devastating environmental crisis. We know time is running out, but would Bush do it? No because he was an oilman and his oil exec buddies will stiop at nothing to keep the black gold flowing for our growning energy consumption. I can’t comprehjend what has transpired with Bush at the helm. Yes, alternative energy is the best way to go, but more federal funding is needed to make it more widespread. And tghe only thing I like about alternative energy sources are that they’re renewable. I’m taling about biodiesel fuel made out of corn, cooking oil used as fuel for motor vehicles, wind energy, solar power, and hydroelectricity. Speaking of disputing the science of climate change, _there_ is no sense in debating it other than dealing with this problem. Since Bush has been constitutionally barred from running for a third term in ‘08, we need a presidential candidate to stand firm on this serious matter. We need him (or in the case, her) to enforce the Kyoto Treaty that Bill Clinton has signed prior to his dpearture from the White House. That’s all we ask of the candidate. For now, we have to keep the pressure on Bush to not to dispute the global warming facts. All of that is _the absolute truth_ !
It’s the age-old problem: greed. There are people who would be financially affected (ie, lose profits) if meaningful conservation measures were put into place. Considering how powerful the oil company lobby is, and the fact that our President came from the oil industry (and still has many relationships there, plus earns millions of dollars in speaking fees to the same industry), you can see where the problem lies.
The real problem is that people greatly exaggerate the extent of the problem.
all this problem caused by the irresponsible people, u must educate this people first before u want to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.
There is too much reliance on fossil fuels. The two big culprits are gasoline for automobiles and coal for power plants. Unfortunately, there is no immediate replacement for the former and too much political clout with the latter.
I think this is impossible for some. The world needs to realize that we need not to be dependent on fossil fuels and do the 3 R’s, recycle, re due and reuse. Don’t buy a bottle of water each day use the same bottle for a week and fill up the bottle at home. One can save money and the earth at the same time.
Gaz emissions dont cause climate change, the scientists ignoring the reason for climate change send stupid stories to the masses to believe it , the poor prehistoric man of Siberia didnt cause the ice age nor had gaz emissions that turned Siberia from a tropical place to iceland
I don’t se any problem,except the world refusing to go back to the stone age.We’ve become so dependant on gizmo’s and gadets that 90 percent of the world would not now how to servive.Maybe not 90 percent, but close.The question is how much are you willing to give up for the cause?How bout your commputer?Car?Ice?TV?Clothes?Now there’s one.I can see the activists now.Killing animals to servive.How dare us.
the biggest problem about the greenhouse effect is that not everyone is on the same page about saving our environment. You have the older generation who didn’t have to worry about it back when they were younger. You have the middle age group that worries about it and tries to conserve what we have left and then you have the younger ones who aren’t able to comprehend the problem at hand (if they dont see it, it doesn’t exist) if we were all on the same page we wouldn’t have to stress enough about getting the info out there and doing something about it.
The oil companies lobby the President and Congress to prevent any action that would even minutely lower their absurd profits.
My suspicion is that lobbyists with deep pockets pay off the government officials and politicians to prevent them from instilling restrictions and/or penalties for not converting to alternate fuel sources, i.e. solar and wind energy (like so many other countries already have done). That is why it is important for every human being to take an active role in notifying their local politicians and telling them you advocate alternate fuel. There is so much big money and industry dependent on fossil fuels for either a source of income or it may be just a matter of keeping their business running, i.e. teamsters. However, we can all do our part individually by recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, buying hybrid cars, limiting our driving time, adjusting our thermostats and carpooling (no body seems to consider this one). Check out and see how much you can save by making a few adjustments in your life. Spread the word.
Well the sad thing is, some people are just ignorant and selfish. This country is dependent on oil because some of the big people in offices are oil people. They don’t care about the environment; they only care about money. It doesn’t matter to them what the economy is paying for a gallon of gas. Again, it’s selfish. It’s easy for those people in office to say that we need to find a solution to the oil problem, but they are not trying to find a solution to our dependence. As long as they make money they don’t care about the well-being of this country or the world. I fully support your opinion. But there are just people out there that need a serious reality check. But the question is what will have to happen for them to realize that? That’s the scary thing.
It’s all about money.
To address the question as you phrase it: “What’s the problem?” is difficult. What’s your problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gasses? The answer is as much an individual one as it is a political or scientific one. It is too easy to escape the issue personally with conspiracy theories.
How many people reading these answers or writing their soliloquies in response to a simple question have addressed it personally? “What is MY problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gasses?” The resources on the Internet can teach you to make your own biodiesel fuel, find a used diesel vehicle, etc. What is stopping you?
Some of you believe the world will end sooner than later. Many believe that we will bring this end upon ourselves. Whether you believe that the world will become uninhabitable because of human production of greenhouse gasses or that we will freeze in our nuclear winter, each of us has a moral obligation to look within first. Provide the example. Please write about what you have done to be that example. It means a lot to the rest of us. -b
Q #. Govenments regulations put on Industry brought about by doom and gloom enviromental groups in years past before a scientific approach to the mounting problems of population explosion demanding more cars, houses, schools, shopping centers etc. could evolve in a planned pattern. To many short time fixes by government in the past to pacify Enviro Groups and Industry. The wind blows from west to east as the world turns, so moving Industry east to China and shipping goods back for our consumption won’t solve the problem of Greenhouse emissions. Shop the internet, park the car, get a bike, No answer
If you haven’t seen “An Inconvenient Truth,” featuring Al Gore, please do. His depiction of scales, with a pile of gold on one side and the planet on the other, is the answer to your question. The petrochemical industry and oil companies do not want to switch to alternate fuel sources until they have milked every last cent out of fossil fuels. They feel the pressure from the public, but they want the profits still available from fossil fuels. As a 63-year-old retiree, I remember when I was 14 years old (ca. 1957), asking the science teacher what will happen when all the oil is ****** out of the earth. “Oh, that won’t happen in our lifetime.” (What a limited perspective!) Rest assured, at the present rate, it WILL happen within decades. More than 25 years ago I tried to get my Texas Congressman to initiate the move to solar energy (What a dreamer I was!) — a source that is renewable and infinite. (What happens when the sun burns out? We won’t need ANY fuel then, because life will cease to exist.) The excuse at that time was that it is too expensive to develop! (Note: In 1946 color TV’s were “too expensive” at $600 per unit. Today they are available for less than $100.00. Bear in mind the change in value of the dollar due to inflation!) Had the research on solar energy begun 25 years ago, we would all be fossil-fuel-independent today. It’s a late start, but it is an alternative we need to force our government to pursue, a government which currently is more concerned with profits for political cohorts than with the future health and welfare of the world. They haven’t stopped to think that the present course of (in)action will destroy their progeny, and that the money piled up in the banks will be useless.
There is no logical argument against it, there is only selfish emotional greed that drives such stuberness of not to change.
There is no problem in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there’s only the unwillingness of (some) humans to do so…
Well, your first half sentence is your answer. “Having only just discovered this interesting new feature . . .” suggests very clearly that you haven’t learned, and how could you I guess, about the debate and delusions of global warming that continues to pervade our country since the 1970’s or a bit earlier as I remember, first hand. You have a LOT to learn, and as much needs to be learned about the economics and politics so thoroughly intrenched in this discussion as any pure interest in greenhouse gas emissions. I’m sure you must be in your twenties, young twenties at that, for you not to have some inkling of the lies being told all around this issue, so, trust me on this one, you need to learn the political history on this debate as well as the supposed environmental issues before you even ask your question. I hope you’ll follow through with this challenge to become educated in that aspect of the question since you seem young and I’d **** to see a good young mind go to waste. God Bless you.
There shouldn’t be a problem and it is reassuring that All from the Goverment , to Industry all the way to the average citizen are in agareement that it is occurring and at a much faster rate than was originally thought but it all comes down to not wanting to change-we want the convenience of driving our car everywhere and even though the price of gas has rocketed the number of Suvs and other gas guzzling cars is not declining on our highways. We don’t care enough to stop developers from destroying the green spaces in our neighborhoods for its never us that needs to actually do something for always relying on the other guy who musta always be busy lately for it keeps happening. We don’t want any interruptions that could mess up our day . We lack motivation for too busy and preoccupo[ied with our comfortable lives for sorry to say that a lot of us havae become so lackadaisacal that until someone shoves a oxygen mask at us for the air has been too fouled to breathe will w fully realize how veary real it all is. Then Greed-even though the required changes will stop further poisoning our air and even clean a lot of it up the almighty dollar is still god above all for a lot of these changes esp. in industry are a bit on the costly side for those preoccupied with profit and loss are very shortsighted.Think back on the tobacco industry-how everyone’s health could go to H… as long as the Money was there. That’s why that each and every one of us that is aware and willing to do =Do all we can do and encourage neighbors,family and fiends to do the same. We can also now save for hybrid cars and use products that are available now and responsible to use and agian share a product to create more awareness of whats’s available to do now.
Maybe you have misunderstood some of the peoples responses. There is nothing negative about reducing the “gasses”. I guess what some people are trying to say is that the proof is in the pudding. There are already steps being taken to reduce the emissions. It will be interesting to see the findings in due course.
Money Money Money….. Mooooonnneeeeyyy.
The fear is that trying to cut them down will cost more money. It’s a BS excuse, but when you’re a greedy pig in charge of greedy companies, any place you can save a buck besides your own salary is where you’re going to go.
profadrian is absolutely correct. The oceans produce at least 90% of the world’s greenhouse gases. So, our efforts to reduce them are for naught.
why do you call them scientists….a true scientist can’t be bought…..we examine the data….unbiasly……we don’t stack the deck…..as politions do…..even if we v understand political science….economics is effiency……greenhouse gases that are a part of industrial mismanagement have to be curbed….automotives and shipping systems improved…..airlines have to stopp dumping fuel….dust and radioactivities from the iraq and afagan war are giving the hospitals big buisness……suit yrself?….the only adaptible survivors might be smokers……the ire– open the books on english bulldogs….bull++++
I think the biggest problem is the fact that a lot of powerful people make more money without reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. For example, some governments will try to lower the use of these gasses (as agreed on in Kyoto), while others, like the USA will not. Since it concerns especially some large companies in the USA, who finance political campaigns of both parties, some people are more reluctant to work on this important issue. Since the American economy as well as the political “sphere” does involve for large parts the oil business, it will be devastating for many of these high placed people to loose these incomes. Besides, most people see it as something that does not concern them so much, it will not affect their lives immediately and if it does they probably will see it in a negative way, i.e. they might have to pay more for some products or do some extra work to prevent the deterioration of the planet.
As you say, there is no logical argument against reducing greenhouse gas emissions, only some people do not work with logic…
well because greenhouse gases are bad for the ozone layer. it results to greenhouse effect where in heat is trapped on earth, yes it causes climate changes,the worst effect of it is that ice caps melt increasing sea level which can actually submerge an entire city under water
Well there is a big solution to this that can work, if everyone cooperates, ban gasoline cars, and anything else that runs on gas and switch to Hydrogen powered everything. I guarantee that if everyone uses Hydrogen cars, then the atmosphere’s CO2 levels will go down within a day from which they start, and hopefully it would take less than a decade to return it to a normal level. The only problem with this is that it would be unenforceable and there would be problems with countries who are big in production of oil. That’s where the people against it come in, they are the ones who control the oil or at least make a lot of money off of it. And there are others who simply don’t understand the scientific evidence and/or the logic behind the whole global warming theory. Up until recently, I was one of them (however I am only 17 and still learning). I believe that someone could find a way to split water molecules into H2 and O2 molecules then it’s a double win, it puts more Oxygen into the atmosphere, and gives us Hydrogen fuel which, when burned, produces water. This I believe is the cleanest way to go. If only there were more Hydrogen powered cars available to people…at least they can make the choice to try to help.
I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE OIL COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENT MAKE TO MUCH MONEY OFF THE SOURCES WE HAVE. INSTEAD OF LOOKING INTO MORE ECOLOGICAL SOURCES.
because of stupidity, ignorance, selfishness…
As you have already mentioned that you have read about the climatic changes , you must be familiar with the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are extremely harmful to our ecosystem and the ozone layer. we should try to reduce their emissions as far as possible.this is because the green house gases which mainly include carbon dioxide and its other forms like carbon mono oxide (CO) emitted by the vehicles due to incomplete combustion of fuel .These gases add to the quantity of carbon dioxide in the ecosystem and causes a diturbance to the natural cycle due to which the amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen in nature is maintained.
the problem now arises on account of the support of the public. the government has already implemented many measures to improve the present scenario and prevent it’s worsening . For e.g. the government has asked the bus drivers and the men running the auto rickshaws to run them on C.N.G. but it is clearly visible that they do not do so. this is the problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Economics; It is a matter of long term benefit versus short term profit. The least expensive ways to generate energy often involve large emissions of greenhouse gasses. When looking at the short term benefit vs cost, it makes economic sense to use the least expensive means to generate energy. Thing of it is, when one looks at the long term consequences of this rationale, this benefit evaporates and rapidly turns into a deficit. The problem is that we, as humans, live in the short term. This is our reality. The long term is understood intellectually, but when decision making time rolls around, the immediate takes precedence over the long term.
Then, there is also the political considerations. The American nation built it’s strength on the abundance of cheap dirty fuel during a time when the implications were unknown. The emerging economies of today consider it patently unfair and discriminatory that they are being asked to forego this opportunity to take advantage of an easy path to prosperity. And the American nation takes the position that if India and China are going to produce excessive emissions of greenhouse gasses in pursuit of prosperity, than unless we, too are allowed to do so, it puts us at a disadvantage.
As long as the only considerations are the bottom line, and the welfare of our individual nations, nothing will change. What is especially difficult about all of this is that this rationale is the correct answer most of the time, in most cases. To solve this dilemma, we must either act in ways detrimental to our immediate well being, or change the inherant nature of the world economy. Neither is likely to take place.