Americans least interested in making climate change a priority

[Pete Harcoff]

Publics Want More Government Action on Climate Change: Global Poll - World Public Opinion

A somewhat scary poll about the opinions of people and how important climate change should be to their respective governments.

What's really shocking is the United States ranked dead last below the Palestinian terroritories in Israel, as well as Iraq.

Asked how high a priority their government should place on addressing climate change, most want a high priority--on average 7.33 on a 0-10 scale. The highest mean levels are found in Mexico (9.09), China (8.86), Turkey (8.34), and France (8.03).

Only three nations had means below 6. The lowest was the United States (4.71) followed by the Palestinian territories (4.91) and Iraq (5.14).

 

[Chesterton]

I think that's because it would cost the U.S. the most, and would achieve next to nothing if China and India don't go along, which their governments have said said they won't.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I think that's because it would cost the U.S. the most, and would achieve next to nothing if China and India don't go along, which their governments have said said they won't.

Yeah, but this about what the people want their governments to do, not what the governments want to do. The fact that so many people in China and India want their governments to do something, but not nearly as much in America is mind boggling.

 

[Hespera]

There are a lot of smart well informed people who dont think it is real. *

a while back the vapor trails of jets were going to cause an ice age.

Politicians dont run factories that "pollute the planet" they seem to be rich even in the poorest countries.


*let us know when someone figures out what causes and ends an ice age.

 

[milkyway]

There are a lot of smart well informed people who dont think it is real.

Who? Name some climate scientists who don't accept the science of global warming.

a while back the vapor trails of jets were going to cause an ice age.

Said who? Reference the papers and journals they were published in, thanks.

 

[Chesterton]

There are a lot of smart well informed people who dont think it is real.

Who? Name some climate scientists who don't accept the science of global warming.

Accepting the science that says it's happening, and accepting the effectiveness of any given proposed government policy to deal with it, are two separate things. The OP was about "government action".

Here's the website of Alan Carlin, the EPA guy who the administration tried to bury after he published his report which according to the EPA was "not helpful to the legal or policy case for this decision [the decision which had already been made]".

If you've already determined what you're going to do regardless of the science, why bother to do the science?

 

[Hespera]

drayland sez.......All scientists know it's happening. QUOTE///////////


Hespera sez

That is such a complete total and obvious whopper, what is to be gained from reading the rest of your paragraph?

 

[corvus_corax]

All scientists know it's happening.

Wrong
That should read "Most climatologists accept that it's happening".

Don't worry, I accept global climate change as well, but your statement above is just not correct at all.

 

[uke2se]

I can reccomend this youtube-channel for the people that are having doubts about global warming.

Also, this is an interesting tidbit about Carlin from that same channel:

YouTube - Creepy at the EPA

I urge you to seriously consider this, and try to realize that global warming isn't a question of "if" any longer, nor "when", but rather "how much".

 

[Hespera]

Dryland sez....Wow...this is exactly how I feel about the Bible after reading the first line.

If you are one of those "anti global warming people" then does it matter what I said? I'm not here to change you or prove anything to you. QUOTE////////


H sez. what difference does it make if you liked the bible or not?
What difference does it make what i do or dont think or doubt?

What YOU said is not true, and its got nothing to do with religion, politics or sports. it just is not true. And you just did not address THAT little factoid.

 

[peadar1987]

There are a lot of smart well informed people who dont think it is real. *

a while back the vapor trails of jets were going to cause an ice age.

Politicians dont run factories that "pollute the planet" they seem to be rich even in the poorest countries.


*let us know when someone figures out what causes and ends an ice age.

Be that as it may, it's pretty obvious that pumping such huge quantities of anything into the atmosphere is probably going to have some adverse consequences somewhere down the line, wouldn't you agree?

My view is that the world is getting warmer, that humans could be the cause, and the consequences would be devastating if it was indeed our CO2 emissions that were causing it, so it's not worth taking the risk on, especially as there are so many alternatives out there.

 

[Hespera]

Peadar sez...e that as it may, it's pretty obvious that pumping such huge quantities of anything into the atmosphere is probably going to have some adverse consequences somewhere down the line, wouldn't you agree?

My view is that the world is getting warmer, that humans could be the cause, and the consequences would be devastating if it was indeed our CO2 emissions that were causing it, so it's not worth taking the risk on, especially as there are so many alternatives out there. QUOTE////////////////////


H sez... Being as i am, from Hong Kong i have sort of seen the future, with too many people doing too much. Im not a fan of pollution! Tho acutally HK is quite clean.

I see coal trains go thru town, it does make me wonder.

Now as to warming, cooling.... I believe it is accurate to say that the earth has warmed and cooled quite a bit, in cycles, since the last glacial retreat. i suspect it is always going either up, or down. if its going up now, for how long and how far? Who knows. or why.

As to to not taking a chance, what it is or isnt worth, and all these alternatives...

what alternatives?

seriously? other than more govt boondoggle pie in the sky ... sheesh. I read a summary of the jimmy Carter energy war, and all the money it cost and how it accomlished not a darn thing.

maybe maybe maybe... but i sure dont know myself what to do other than burn fossil fuels. You tell me! Not just future maybes if we can just figure...

 

[peadar1987]

H sez... Being as i am, from Hong Kong i have sort of seen the future, with too many people doing too much. Im not a fan of pollution! Tho acutally HK is quite clean.

I see coal trains go thru town, it does make me wonder.

Now as to warming, cooling.... I believe it is accurate to say that the earth has warmed and cooled quite a bit, in cycles, since the last glacial retreat. i suspect it is always going either up, or down. if its going up now, for how long and how far? Who knows. or why.

As to to not taking a chance, what it is or isnt worth, and all these alternatives...

what alternatives?

seriously? other than more govt boondoggle pie in the sky ... sheesh. I read a summary of the jimmy Carter energy war, and all the money it cost and how it accomlished not a darn thing.

maybe maybe maybe... but i sure dont know myself what to do other than burn fossil fuels. You tell me! Not just future maybes if we can just figure...

The proposed solution is a so-called "hydrogen economy". Fuel cell technology is already highly developed, and before too long will be competitive with traditional fossil fuels. They are light, compact, efficient, and the only by-product is H2O, which although it is a greenhouse gas, can be condensed easily and emptied into the environment with little consequence.

The idea is that there will be huge renewable energy sites (wind, wave, tidal, solar, geothermal, biomass and nuclear) producing electricity for domestic and industrial use, as we have now, but also able to produce hydrogen from the electrolysis of water. This hydrogen could then be shipped in tankers and used just as petroleum products are used today. Renewable energy is already competitive economically with fossil fuels.

Obviously there's nothing you or I could do to implement this. The impetus would have to come from a national level, so all we can do is to put pressure on our governments.

I say this as someone who is doing a masters degree in sustainable energy systems, so it's one of the few areas in which I am actually reasonably well-informed!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hespera sez

That is such a complete total and obvious whopper, what is to be gained from reading the rest of your paragraph?

Actually, Hespera, the vast majority of climate scientists (certainly in the U.S.) do believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

Here's a quote from Science magazine from 2005:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.(SOURCE)

(I've highlighted the important bit)

I can think of no large scale dissent on this topic that I am aware of. Certainly there are folks in the fields who disagree, that is normal.

But the real problem here is that if we ignore the large portion of the distribution to coddle the "tails" of the distribution we might run out of time to avoid disastrous effects.

Certainly the disseneters should continue to research their topics, but let's not keep ourselves from enacting some important behavioral changes.

 

[Hespera]

The proposed solution is a so-called "hydrogen economy". Fuel cell technology is already highly developed, and before too long will be competitive with traditional fossil fuels. They are light, compact, efficient, and the only by-product is H2O, which although it is a greenhouse gas, can be condensed easily and emptied into the environment with little consequence.

The idea is that there will be huge renewable energy sites (wind, wave, tidal, solar, geothermal, biomass and nuclear) producing electricity for domestic and industrial use, as we have now, but also able to produce hydrogen from the electrolysis of water. This hydrogen could then be shipped in tankers and used just as petroleum products are used today. Renewable energy is already competitive economically with fossil fuels.

Obviously there's nothing you or I could do to implement this. The impetus would have to come from a national level, so all we can do is to put pressure on our governments.

I say this as someone who is doing a masters degree in sustainable energy systems, so it's one of the few areas in which I am actually reasonably well-informed!

Ok, and I have a minor in organic chemistry, so we can skip over some things.

I hope you are right that there is something in those sources you listed beyond vast investment for little return.

 

[Hespera]

Actually, Hespera, the vast majority of climate scientists (certainly in the U.S.) do believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

Here's a quote from Science magazine from 2005:

(I've highlighted the important bit)

I can think of no large scale dissent on this topic that I am aware of. Certainly there are folks in the fields who disagree, that is normal.

But the real problem here is that if we ignore the large portion of the distribution to coddle the "tails" of the distribution we might run out of time to avoid disastrous effects.

Certainly the disseneters should continue to research their topics, but let's not keep ourselves from enacting some important behavioral changes.

He said "all", not "most". "All" is the whopper. Its as bad as some of the ones that we get from theocreologists, and Im not gonna take sides and say oh joe an tell 'em but bill cant.

Keep in the back of your mind that science is subject to fads

 

[thaumaturgy]

I read a summary of the jimmy Carter energy war, and all the money it cost and how it accomlished not a darn thing.

Actually, had the contemporary governmental groups not fought the Carter administration (or Carter been a bit more politically "savvy") and the following administrations not essentially gutted any of the advances Carter started we might not be in such a precarious position in regards to foreign petroleum. But that aside, the idea that we need to make some significant changes is apparent, both economically and ecologically.

There are alternatives, but those alternatives will be disparate and likely not be able to keep up with our fossil-fuel based energy economy. CERTAINLY not if we fail to start to change our behavior now.

I live in SoCal, my wife and I just installed solar on our house. We have, for the past 3 months, generated more electricity to the grid than we've used. The thing that boggles my mind is why isn't all new construction in the Sun Belt required by law to have solar?

Granted solar won't displace all coal, but we've got to do something, even if it's just out of common sense. Petroleum will soon start depleting at rapid rates. Coal will last a bit longer. But sooner or later we will be with limited access to these things.

As for global climate change, well the calculations and models all indicate a significant role of human behavior. The isotopic signature of the recent massive increase in CO2 points a big accusatory finger right at us. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.

There is little doubt as to the reality of anthropogenic global climate change. The question comes in, as the OP states, about what we are willing to do about it.

Americans are too addicted to an easy lifestyle. We are probably unwilling to do much because we know, unlike our recent wars of adventurism, that each and every one of us will have to sacrifice and sacrifice a lot.

My wife and I went into some significant debt to do our bit, but it likely will be only a drop in the bucket compared to what we should do.

The results posted in the OP are scary. And as an american I'm offended at my country. We are the richest nation on earth and we've had a great ride. If we can't lead the way in doing the "right" thing we can be guaranteed that no one will feel the need to follow. Especially those countries that are just now getting on board the "development train".

maybe maybe maybe... but i sure dont know myself what to do other than burn fossil fuels. You tell me! Not just future maybes if we can just figure...

We can:

1. Burn less fossil fuel
2. Invest in nuclear (-shudder- even I'm not fond of saying that)
3. Utilize more alternative fuels as we can
4. Stop bickering and doing nothing while we can still make some choices

No one necessarily thinks the world will end with global warming. The earth has had cycles as you say in which it was warmer and cooler. But there is a strong chance we won't survive global warming. We as a species, or at least we as a society are in danger.

I suppose it's a matter of what we want to give up; a little bit now or a LOT later on?

 

[thaumaturgy]

He said "all", not "most". "All" is the whopper.

Agreed. But "most" is quite sobering indeed.

Keep in the back of your mind that science is subject to fads

After 27 years in the sciences I assure you I am aware of that.

However, the massive level of research and findings on this topic would indicate it is far more than a mere "fad".

Even if it is; so what? If we learn to live within our means, utilize limited energy resources more like adults with moderation, generate a cleaner environment...how is that a bad thing?

Even if one doesn't believe in fossil fuels being the culprit of global climate change, we will run out of them one day. In the case of petroleum far sooner than we are ready for at the current rate. We will suffer greatly because of this. Coal we've got longer with, but not an infinite amount of time.

So, ultimately, we will have to deal with these topics. Regardless of the climate or not. I just fear that since the climate is a very real player here, we may not act quickly enough to allow ourselves a chance to survive, let alone "deal with future energy topics".

 

[peadar1987]

Ok, and I have a minor in organic chemistry, so we can skip over some things.

I hope you are right that there is something in those sources you listed beyond vast investment for little return.

So do I, otherwise I'm going to be very unemployed!

 

[thaumaturgy]

So do I, otherwise I'm going to be very unemployed!

Peadar,
Years ago, I briefly worked on hydrogen storage in nanostructured materials for the "hydrogen fuel economy". My general impression now is that H2 might have some difficulty unless and until someone comes up with an effective catalyst for dehydrogenation, even then if a usual hydrocarbon is used one still winds up with much of the carbon-based problems.

But electrolysis of water is, right now, somewhat inefficient in terms of how much energy is recovered from use of the H2 in a fuel cell.

Even if you push the input energy off onto renewable sources it is a net energy sink.

What is your general take on the utility of H2? Is it going to be lower EROI (energy return on investment)? Do you have some good references I could look over to learn more about the net energy balance?

Personally I'd like to see the hydrogen economy move forward since it seems to be somewhat developed. However I fear it will turn out to be, as the old saw says "H2: The energy solution of the future...and always will be."