The answer would be to not try and prevent it from happening but to fix any ill effects later.
For instance, one day I will die. My friends and family could start finding ways to prevent that from happening. The amount of research required would be enormous - along with the cost. The alternative plan would be to let it happen and work round any problems arising.
In the case of AGW with "serious effects", we can't even be sure how serious those effects will be. We might be spending a huge amount of money for very little benefit.
As soon as a need was identified, the capitalist system would provide someone to fix that problem for a fee.
Because the claim that AGW is about promoting socialism is a denialist straw man argument. Denialists are more interested in obstructing solutions than in promoting free market solutions.
Global warming was discovered by people in the physical sciences. Hardly a hot-bed of socialism.
Plant billions of trees, there is room on this planet for trillions more, especially if planted in semi arid regions. that would be a lot of work and provide lots of jobs, from the nursery seeding, the planting and the watering in first years.
But that is not a solution they could consider, because they want power, control, and beaurocracy.
Pretty little liar. I am a Brit too. and you are wrong I worked for 7 yrs in Kuwait and they planted trees there, and with a bit of care they grew fine, in fact one area where Aramco employees lived had lots of trees and the temperature there was always a few degrees lower than everywhere else.
Capitalistic solutions?
Usually capitalism is based on filling a need with a product and/or service and then producing it. AGW was founded on a 'seek and find' mission instigated by science. Science is not an industry. If it is, then we better start paying every living thing for observing and studying anything through our Governments.
Science is a bi-product of business. It is now a bi-product of Government and being seriously misused. Science use to be used in productive ways. Now it is working in the opposite direction. AGW is inhibitive and counterproductive. There are no free market solutions to AGW. It's merely a choice by consumers in a free market society to not use a product unless Governments intervene and put a "mandate" on it and tell us that we can not use it like they have done with other products.
The U.S. Government was put forth to help us govern ourselves not to tell us what to do. Unfortunately, that (telling us what to do) is what they are doing with AGW (or at least trying).
Trees will not grow in areas affected by exessive drought or flooding. As temperatures increase, species will simply be unable to grow in certain regions.
Planting a lot of trees is one solution, but it is unlikely to be enough, quite frankly, and is a rather simplistic approach.
As a brit, I do not care a flying fig about the americans who seem to believe that the global issue of CC is an attempt to steal their tax dollars. It makes me laugh. How self-centred do you have to be to believe the whole world is banging on and on about climate change just so a few americans will have to pay more tax? It is the stupidest response to CC I have ever encountered, and just reinforces the stereotype that Americans really are that selfish, and really do believe they are the centre of the world.
People like that are not doing their country-men any favours.
Every other first world nation takes CC more seriously than the US. It does not mean you are cleverer, more in touch with the facts or more informed. It means you are delusional as a nation.
If all the people that Trevor claims believes in AGW (95%) cut their CO2 footprints in half that would get the ball rolling.
maybe they're not from nations hit hard by it and facing constant droughts due to climate change.
http://images.watoday.com.au/2014/04/03/...
it's not fun.
Capitalist don't spend money on things that are not broken.
The capitalist 'solution' is to cut the funding and prosecute the climate criminals.
-----------------------
Chem - You are worried about the cost of the trees that Kano wants to plant? For 1% of what we've spent on the climate scam we could have probably planted a tree on every square yard of dry land.
-----------------------
It's extremely difficult to even pretend that Catastrophic, man-made global warming is a problem when Thousands of Climate Scientists, politicians and Activists jump on fossil fuel burning jet planes to travel to luxury resort/hotel locations all over the World....eating steak and lobster....to discuss how WE....NOT THEY....should lower our carbon footprint. Pretty disgusting!!
Tax the emission of carbon dioxide.
Subsidize alternatives, including energy efficiency and CO2 sequestration.
The free market will respond.
But ops... is regulation socialist?
It seems to be a maxim among "skeptics" that "alarmists" are all socialists that want to tax the American economy to death, or something like that. And I will admit that most of the solutions to AGW being proposed do involve, in some way, increasing (or at least altering) government intervention in the economy.
But, just because you don't like the existing solutions to a problem, that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. And there are, presumably, some solutions that are less "socialist", or not "socialist" at all. Can any of you come up with some?
In other words--assuming, for a moment, that AGW *is* real, and *is* a serious problem, how would you solve it without the "socialism" that you're so afraid of?
Large tariff on China, start war between China and India.
OK. I’ll play your game.
Plant trees. Who is going to pay for them? The UN should. In December of 2012 President Obama just gave the UN $100,000,000,000 for GW. Added to that Australia added the same amount. Added to that other countries gave lesser but substantial amounts. Where did that money go? In part it went to people who flew off in CO2 spewing jets to exotic places for ‘conferences’. It went into needless energy using propaganda campaigns. It went to supporting huge energy using UN buildings and activities. Ironically it went for propaganda against the timber industry. An industry that DOES PLANT TREES!
It went directly or indirectly to people who produce more CO2 in one day than the average citizen does in a year, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong.
It went to countries that promote war. War activities create CO2.
How many trees would all that money have planted? Instead it went to CO2 spewing campaigns. If you can remember that Al Gore created carbon tax with planting trees to gain credit.
Governments should take the lead in reducing CO2. How much energy is wasted in needless spying? Those computers they do this with are not the desktops but mainframes. They take massive amounts of energy. Leaders and their wives should take less vacations. These produce thousands times more CO2 than the average person. All government buildings should comply with the energy limits they have in store for us. In fact they all should be powered by green energy. Wouldn’t it be great to see the UN and Washington take that energy burden off of fossil fuels?
Road and highways should be made more efficient. Just think of how much energy is wasted for automobiles sitting a stop signs or red lights. Why should the total burden of efficiency be put upon the populace when many energy wasting activities are a direct result of the government?
Wars should be taxed. Right now Russia is invading other countries. This creates a lot of CO2.
There should be a worldwide governmental EPA. (A GEPA so to speak.) This would only be able to affect government never an individual.
Stop all government controls on energy and its distribution. This goes back to Capitalism. If a company can produce energy cheaper, go ahead. If a company can make energy more available, go ahead. If a person can put a dam that supplies his property with electricity then let him have at it.
You see, energy became expensive the more governments put controls on it (Socialism.).
Stop all greenie movements to tear out hydroelectric dams. Stop all expensive litigation on obstructing power generation. San Luis Obispo power plant cost over three times as much due to greenie and government intervention.
Put a carbon tax on environmental demonstrations. Put a tax on environmental law suits if they are the cause for raising energy costs or distribution.
These are just a few of practical things that could easily be installed by the governments themselves. What it means though that the governments would have to control themselves not the populace. Obviously that is not what governments (especially socialistic ones.) think they are about. They want control of every aspect of an individual’s life and the environment is one tool.
