Our reason is as fickle as our circumstances

Nov 25, 2009 09:41

Despite there being no new evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not happening, the number of people who say that they do no believe it is happening has risen. I don't think it is a coincidence that this happens during an economic downturn. If something costs money now, people are more likely to ignore it ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 12

teahisme November 25 2009, 10:17:54 UTC
What is needed is a massive life style change if we want to slow/stop this green house gas problem. I'm not convinced nuclear energy is the way forward. I think there are enough people that remember rationing in Britian to know that is the state says something like that is necessary they'll (the British people) do it. Americans will whinge about it a LOT more. I was always boggled by the fact that people kept driving bigger and bigger cars while gas prices kept soaring.

Reply

gigolohitman November 25 2009, 11:02:11 UTC
The sad thing is I don't think massive life style changes ARE needed. Something like 5% of GDP would do it, and that doesn't mandate crazy living in caves.

Reply

teahisme November 25 2009, 11:14:23 UTC
Really is that all? Still a huge wadge of cash to toss at something. I wonder if the money would get spent responsibly. I keep toying with the notion of investing in solar roof dohickies. The return on the investment though still takes about 10+ years. I don't know that it increases the resale value of the house either. :-/

Reply

gigolohitman November 25 2009, 11:38:28 UTC
Look at Solar hot water, rather than PV. You might be able to get a grant. If you have a suitable roof should be able to get a better return than 10 years.

Reply


ajntornj November 25 2009, 12:14:04 UTC
Not really answering your question here, but more going off on a bit of a monologue on some recent thoughts - sorry. But this is a topic close to my heart ( ... )

Reply

teahisme November 25 2009, 12:23:23 UTC
Certainly in the US during the 70's and 80's fuel crisis the speed limit was set at 55 to maximize fuel efficiency. It also supposedly reduced car emissions as it was deemed the most efficient speed for gas/emissions ratio.

Likely if you look at some of the older studies from the US you could find information along those lines.

Good luck.

Reply

ajntornj November 25 2009, 12:30:07 UTC
Yes, thinking back on it I think Lord Oxburgh's assertion *was* mostly based on those exact same studies.

Reply

gigolohitman November 25 2009, 14:00:18 UTC
Wow. A lot of stuff. Here goes ( ... )

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

trailingvortex November 25 2009, 17:57:27 UTC
...I have little hope. Too much of the world is developing that any such schemes in the developing world will likely do more than slow the onset of utter catastrophe. Still, even a slowed onset will allow humanity to cope with it better, so such things are very much worth doing for that reason.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up