1 Is climate change happening, what evidence do we have ?
2 What would the adverse effects be?
3 Are there any beneficial effects?
4 Can we actually do anything to change it?
5 How much would it cost to carry-out actions to alter climate change
6 would it not be better to adapt to climate change
When you can answer those question then we can consider what we should do.
My question would be how would we know that that any efforts we made to reduce the adverse effects of climate change actually made a difference?
I think by far the single most effective policy measure would be a revenue neutral carbon tax.
http://www.carbontax.org/
http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/sc...
Set a more realistic price on carbon fuels, that better reflects some of the massive social costs that using them imposes on the long term global economy, and then market forces among producers and consumers will promote energy efficiency and development of alternative energy sources.
Authoritative conservative publications, such as Economist, have advocated this approach for many decades. There is nothing remotely "Marxist" or "Alarmist" about it, except in the delusions of those persuaded (mostly by non-scientist bloggers with weird agendas of their own) that climate science is some kind of hoax or swindle.
British Columbia has had a revenue carbon tax for several years without the sorts of problems that many people often facilely associate with such taxes. Most of the objections are addressed by the revenue neutral feature or come from people who deny the science of climate change, such as Raisin Cain, Kano, and Ottawa Mike here. Climate Realist is right to say that Raisin has given some good ideas here, but that is no excuse for deliberately spreading disinformation about science.
A revenue neutral carbon tax, even if adopted promptly in more countries around the world (highly unlikely) would not be sufficient -but would go a long way, far more than any other single policy measure- towards keeping climate change from doing major long term damage to the global economy.
But even more important than that, would be if people would better educate themselves as to the real science and economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie... involved, and not take the lazy way out of being swayed by the fossil fuel industry denial that is so prevalent on this untrustworthy website where four of the nine "top answerers" in the global warming section are hard-core anti-science liars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinio...
Here are a few links for more background on the 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/Global_warm...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
For more on the deliberate denial of climate science, see sources below.
Do you want a plan? OK, I can do that.
1.) Nuclear power:
The cost of nuclear power in the US is higher than Europe. BUT there have been no death from nuclear power. This is something that not even wind power can say. So it is extremely safe. In fact, Fukishima proved that. The 5th largest earthquake on record followed by a tsunami was ONLY able to bring down the 30 year old plant due to a known problem of the placement of secondary systems. How many places in the US have to worry about tsunamis?
So nuclear is safe AND does not produce CO2.
But it costs so much in the US due to over-regulation and the public being lied to about nuclear which leads to local gov'ts stopping construction or killing nuclear plants from starting.
So with about $100 B investment you buy up some lands to make federal and out of local jurisdiction for nuclear plant construction. You develop a plan for many nuclear power plants using the same design. AND you drop non-safety regulations.
This would make nuclear power less costly than coal and allow the US to quickly recoup the initial investment. Then you can replace aging coal power plants with nuclear power plants when the coal plants are older than 30 years. Thereby completely replacing coal with a non-CO2 solution in 30 years.
2.) R&D. Keep the R&D for solar and add some for batteries to the point of making them economically feasible. Solar power can help with the load, especially during the day, when power usage is higher. But solar needs needs batteries to hold power and not kill the grids. We also need better batteries and more cost efficient batteries for e-cars to become cost efficient.
We should also be able to get most cars to be electric cars within 30 years as well.
Meaning in 30 years, with a relatively small investment that would be recouped, we could get our CO2 emissions down to nearly 0.
Of course the "environmentalists" who CLAIM to care about AGW, do not really care. They will try to block nuclear to the best of their ability WHILE proposing a MUCH more costly regressive tax.
Not that I think global warming is nearly the catastrophe portrayed by the media. I have done too much research to buy that non-sense. There is some warming that needs to be addressed, but the world is certainly not ending.
As far as what you can do to help? Recycle, reuse and reduce what you use. The all save you money, reduce energy expenditures and less waste to be buried. If you have the ability to place solar panels on your house, I would recommend saving up money to do so. Right now if you do this, you will likely make back your initial investment in saving within about 13 years. After that its free energy. The prices will continue to decrease though, so if you need to wait to save the money for that initial investment, there is no need to worry.
Raisin Caine gave some good ideas. And mortgage rules should require the banks to take cost savings from renewable sources into account.
Replace fossil fuels with cheaper alternatives.
Regulate fisheries sufficiently to rebuild oceanic standing biomass.
Modify agricultural practices to increase topsoil organic carbon.
By taking care if our environment
