1. 

The use of figures would bring the opposing views closer together, in my view.

If everyone realised what a 20% reduction in CO2 would mean for their lifestyles and how little any increase in temperature (fractions of a degree) would be reduced then we might see more sense.

As I have said before, we could switch off the UK completely and bury the population alive in the disused coal mines so that no man-made CO2 is produced at all. Within less than a year the world would be producing more man-made CO2 than ever before.

Maybe they do not understand about gasoline and fracking or maybe CO2 reduction is not their real aim. Who knows?

1. Few if any people are calling for an immediate halt to all gasoline use. People are instead calling for a *phasing out* of petroleum use--probably through a combination of electric cars, more fuel-efficient cars, and bio-sourced gasoline and diesel.

2. The objections to fracking tend to be more about local environmental concerns (tectonic instability, contaminating water supplies, etc) than about global warming. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but gives us much more energy per unit of CO2 than coal (in addition to other benefits), and is more likely to naturally re-enter the atmosphere if we don't mine it. I think, on the whole, environmentalists would cheer if we replaced all of our coal power plants with natural gas plants.

3. The US is a major contributor to global warming, both total (I believe we're second behind China) and per capita (I think we're about 10th or so there, but the countries ahead of us have much, much, much smaller populations). If we significantly reduced our CO2 emissions, it would do a *lot* to slow global warming, even if no one else acted.

4. We would be setting a good example. Other countries would be much more likely to take serious action against AGW if we showed that we were seriously tackling it. Right now, we have essentially no standing to try to get anyone else to reduce their emissions, while we're still doing so little to reduce ours.

Not liberals but scientists and not think but can prove.

Gasoline and fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas, it rises to the atmosphere trapping sun's energy, keeping heat escaping out from the earth into outer space.

Thus a rise in temperature in the atmosphere is caused.

But global warming can't be stopped it's a natural process. It keeps the earth warm enough for life to survive. What we are trying to do is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas that causes "enhanced" greenhouse effect i.e. CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrogen oxides.



Because if a country this big can do it, then others can too and one can make a difference per se. ;)

Jeff M, you are actually wrong. The biggest countries for producing goods like China and India are just getting the high polluting technology that we used to use.

Now for my answer. I am a liberal myself. I, don't think we have to stop using gasoline and stop fracking, because I think that it is already too late. If we had stopped a long time ago, we would've had a chance to prevent the natural disasters to ensue, but we don't now. The storms are getting worse each year, more ice is melting (water levels going up), and it's just depressing.

I’m not sure where you’ve been getting your information from but it’s clearly not a reliable source.

No-one is saying that stopping the use of gasoline and fracking will stop global warming. These are two of many different factors that contribute to global warming, even if they were stopped outright with immediate effect the result would be to slow down global warming, not to stop it.

The argument that some people use isn’t to stop using these resources but to use alternatives instead and to reduce the use of fossil fuels where practical.

And no-one is saying that any one country should go it alone. Every government in the world accepts that global warming is real and all of them, as far as I’m aware, have their own policies and agendas for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Countries that are entirely reliant upon fossil fuels, such as Saudi Arabia, are way ahead of many other countries when it comes to going green. They’re building entire cities powered only from renewable energy sources with zero emissions and zero waste. The technology they’re using puts them decades ahead of the US and Europe.

Furthermore, the measures that the US are proposing are positively tame compared to those of many countries in the world. I’m from the UK and the government has set a target of an 80% reduction in emissions, as have other countries as well.

questions isn't completely clear but the most general, rational answer is that the combustion of fossil fuels is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions--leading to climate change. So, in general, the reduction of the combustion of fossil fuels benefits reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's certainly correct that no one country's actions can stop climate change. There's no effort at the international level to make any one or only one country reduce emissions. Every country should paly a role--some more than others, some less.

We don't.

What we know, for example, is that the US uses 50% of the world's gasoline yet contains 4.5% of the world's population. That situation is obviously unsustainable. Other nations will consume greater and greater fractions of the world's supply - particularly developing nations such as India and the most populous nation on Earth, China. And as these economies grow, the US will find itself capable of buying less and less.

So what do Western nations do? Well, since they are the largest contributors to global warming, they have a responsibility to the rest of the world to manage the impacts. If they don't, they can expect unrest, resentment (possibly leading to terrorism), and legal actions as people in developing nations suffer the negative effects. The US is one of the world's largest polluters. Everyone knows it. No one could do anything about it. But times change. And the US will not be the largest superpower on the planet, either in terms of military might or in terms of economics. I'm not suggesting there will be a war over pollution, but if Europe, Russia and China suddenly decide that the US isn't moving fast enough on cleaning up its act, well, expect a few votes against you in the UN Security Council, a few economic trade pacts not going your way, etc.

There is a massive market out there to find ways of generating power and fuelling cars without gasoline/fossil fuels/etc. This knowledge and technology are things that can be sold to developing nations. After all, if you want to sustain your 'way of life' while having less gasoline because China is hogging it all, then you'll need to adapt. What I find remarkable is that the US is trailing other nations in realising how lucrative that market could be. While people debate their taxes being spent on green technologies, European nations are signing contracts with African nations for the technology and smart grids they've been developing. The US is behind. I'll say it again. The most technologically advanced nation on earth, the land of opportunity, is itself behind and failing to see the opportunities.

Global warming is only one issue. The overuse of gasoline by the US is something that will come back to bite you on the ***. When you become completely dependent on a single commodity, that leaves you open to huge problems if there are problems in obtaining, buying, or using that commodity.

"Why do liberals think that stoping the use of gasoline and fracking will stop global warming?"

Why do conservatives think Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya?

You make me ashamed to call myself a conservative. I have problems with our country sending trillions of dollars to middleastern countries instead of jumpstarting our crumbling economy. The increased use of oil (not natural gas) is causing more and more diseases and is making us fall behind countries like China and Brazil. The future is paved with "green" technology and anybody who doesent see that is hopeless. Fracking and oil independence will make our country the best again and will appease all those hippy liberals. Hopefully we can get somebody smart enough to realize this into office come 2016.

Liberals don't think that. Scientists do.

Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

And were not the only country in the world? And What about every other single country in the world doing the same thing? Making one country stop using these methods will literally make no impact on the whole GLOBAL warming cause

"Stoping" is a mining term.

I doubt that any "liberal" thinks that stopping (the word you meant) fracking will stop global warming.

Learn to read and write, study some science, and maybe in a few years you won't embarrass yourself with your questions.

Because only one country in the world is attempting to switch itself away from CO2 emissions right? Perhaps you'd better take a step back from whatever world you fantasize you are in and turn back to reality.

Learn the 4th grade grammar difference between "were" and "we're."

Then you might be ready for the 7th grade difference between "liberal" and "scientist," and for realizing that copy-pasting "stop" does not make it = to "slow the development of."

Wow, someone using their mind at last, of course it will make no difference to the Worlds CO2 just hurt the USA. also take into account stopping the Keystone XL pipeline will not stop crude and petroleum being transported to the US it will just go by rail and road, which is hundreds of times more dangerous (note the Canadian rail disaster) and most of it being transported by Obama's chief supporter Warren Buffet.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/06/ca...

Why do liberals think that stopping the use of gasoline and fracking will stop global warming?

Uhmmm............."Medical" Marijuana?

They cause there liberals and they all drive a pink Prius.

They want us to go back to 11,000 years ago and live with nature in caves and eating berries. That's a fantasy too, but one they like.

liberals don't think, they are incapable