First we must go to war and conquer half the world, so we can force them to reduce fossil fuel consumption, because apart from that action there is no way they will stop until they achieve at least the same standard of living that we in the west have.
Well there will likely always be air pollution as that is what we do. In regards to AGW. all we can do is reduce our global CO2 footprint along with reducing our excess methane and Nitrous oxide (NO) These aree the primary human emitted gases fueling GW. Governments can establish quotas for industry via activities such as carbon taxes. This gives industry monetary incentives to reclaim carbon and other gases, which will have an impact on future GW.
The accumulated excess gases produced by humans from the beginning or the industrial age (particularly from the point of coal use for residential and industrial firing. We can impact the current and future severity of GW by recycling, not wasting food and reducing our collective carbon footprint and quickly moving to solar, wind and geothermal power.
Doing nothing is a major factor. Nature will take care of itself. Every time some do gooder libtard quacks decide to micromanage the environment they end up screwing it up worse. They never think about all the unintended consequences. Like massive wildfires as a result of all those endless lawsuits to shut out any kind of proper forest management.
Besides, considering that AWG is a fraud designed to force social changes and grow huge unaccountable governments and redistribute wealth the climate just fine.
Take away the people's money.
Take away the people's liberties.
Reorient them.
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
And those who don't 're-orientate', kill them off.
That is the master plan for us and our grandchildren.
"Top Answerer" in Yahoo Answers, Global Warming, "Sagebrush," neglected to mention, in his "answer" here, the UN black helicopters firing carbon tax rays at anyone who is not a socialist, the Rothschild Elders Conspiracy that engineered the near UNANIMOUS approval of the UN charter by U.S. Senate in 1945, and the moon matrix Reptilians who used holographic mind constructs to re-incarnate Svante Arrhenius as Al Gore. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... He also "forgot" to mention that he understands pulp science fiction http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc... much better than he understands science:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
If, on the other hand, you are interested in a reality-based answer to your question, recognize first of all that (in REALITY), there is almost no "global management of greenhouse gases," and it is not very likely that there ever WILL BE any such management that could be described as "successful". Instead, individual countries, regions, companies etc., are mostly acting, or not acting, on their own.
There are two main reasons (in addition to the ignorance and denial of science that is, incidentally, so evident on this website) why global cooperation on reducing greenhouse gases is very difficult:
1) Countries that would not participate in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or who would not live up to agreements on reduction, would avoid any costs of participation yet benefit just as much as those who did reduce. Google "free-rider problem," "economic externalities," or "tragedy of the commons" to learn more about this aspect.
2. Taking action to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions involves current generations paying a relatively small price in order help to spare future generations a relatively large cost.
I guess you could break it down into five key areas:
? Reducing emissions in the first place
? Capturing emissions once they’re been released
? Compensating for our emissions
? Mitigating against the effects
? Living with the consequences
1: Reducing Emissions
ˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉ
The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions are power generation, transportation, deforestation, industrial processes, farming and agriculture, waste and sewerage.
We could generate power from sources such as solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, geothermal etc; this alone could reduce out emissions by a quarter. Using alternative fuelled vehicles will also make a big difference, this could see the use of electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells or more futuristic technologies such as carbon nanotubes.
If we were able to reduce the rate at which we’re losing forests around the world this too would make a big difference. The forests are great absorbers of CO2 but we’re losing millions of hectares of forest each year as land is cleared for farming, infrastructure, logging etc. Many organisations and countries balance this out by planting new trees to replace the lost ones, unfortunately this isn’t the case everywhere.
Other changes are harder to make. For example, breeding sheep and cattle etc produces large amounts of methane gas. Changing the feedstock and adding enzymes to feed can reduce the emissions but unless the world becomes vegetarian it’s not something that’s going to ever be fully addressed.
2: Capturing Emissions
ˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉ
Power plants and industry use carbon capture technology to significantly reduce their emissions at source, but in many other situations this isn’t practical. But there are ways to remove emissions directly from the atmosphere and we can turn to nature or science for this. Simply planting more trees will soak up some of the excess CO2, as would encouraging the growth of marine organisms such as cyanobacteria and phytoplankton. Often all that’s required to do this is to replace minerals such as iron in the parts of the oceans that are nutrient depleted.
Alternatively we can chemically react greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and sequester them this way. Sodium hydroxide for example, will readily react with CO2 and by further reacting the product we can generate synthetic oil almost from thin air.
3. Compensation
ˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉ
Another option is to accept that we’re going to keep contributing to global warming and to compensate for this we deliberately induce global cooling. This can be achieved in lots of ways.
One option is to enhance cloud production whilst another involves injecting reflective aerosol molecules into the atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight back into space before it reached us. More ambitious suggestions have included constructing a giant sunshade in space so as to block out or deflect some of the incoming sunlight.
4. Mitigation
ˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉ
If we accept that climate change is inevitable then we can take steps to reduce some of the consequences. Coastal defences can be constructed to hold back the rising seas, flood schemes can be implemented to alleviate flooding risks, farmers can plant crops that are more suited to warmer or drier climates, communities can be relocated when water supplies dry up or become contaminated, we can implement wider immunisation programmes to offset the spread of diseases etc.
5. Acceptance
ˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉ
Whatever we do it’s extremely unlikely that we’re going to be able to reduce our emissions to a naturally sustainable level – there’s simply too many people on the planet for that to happen. And whilst we can go some way to reducing our emissions and preparing for climate change, there will be consequences that we simply can’t avoid. For many we’ll have to accept the changes that occur and make the most of them.
What are major factors required for successful global management of gases that harm the atmosphere?
