Obama's Act of Climate Change

[Vawmataw]

Obama explained the new plan for our future. Here it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

What do you think about that?

[Tìtstewan]

Interesting!

To first:
- Easy. Burn coal, gaz or oil with more efficiency and install filters. Invest in renewable energy sources.

To second:
- I think, this is one of the most expensive step of all. Modernizeing house insulation is very complex and costly.

To third:
- Also really expensive. Renewing energy supply for more efficiency energy transport.

To fourth:
- A bit late, isn't it?

The US will have to do a lot of things, to reach the goal.

Edit:
I remember it was a picture here on the first post?

[Niri Te]

 Yeah, like STOP BURNING ALL COAL. Don't Burn it, Mine it, or Transport it.

[Tìtstewan]

To stop burn coal, the US need to build new power plants that don't burn coal. An importat point is that global worming is a global effect so all countries have to work together. Do we save the clima when we stop burning coal in the US but in China every two weeks is build a new one? I think no...

[Niri Te]

  Then we have a choice, my friend. We can either SHUT DOWN all coal burning in the United States, thereby making a sizable "Dent" in the amount of pollutants that are pumped into the planet's atmosphere, taking care of what WE can do, we can say "To HELL with it", and go back to our old ways, after all, "China's doing it", or, we all could commit mass suicide one day. I think that the first choice is the best for us, while, if done on a Global basis, the Third would be the best for the Planet.

[Tìtstewan]

If I have the choise, I would choose the first: Stopping all coal burning and the air pollution on Earth. Why? Because I think, China and other growing countries will fall on their nose with their environment handling and crazy economy growth soon or later.
The planet Earth can't anymore.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Stopping the use of coal to generate electricity is a noble long-term goal, but it is suicidal in the short term, and it is the short term that Obama thinks about. His goals are more abut crippling the economy than about renewable energy.

The biggest hurdle with renewable energy is that it is more expensive, and in short supply. If we use renewable energy 9which I am all for doing) we need to make the investment to do so, and accept the higher costs. This won't happen overnight, and as long as we have mega-cities, I doubt we will ever completely get away from fuels we have to burn.

Although I am very conservative politically, becoming energy independent is one are where I believe massive Government subsidies, even to individual homeowners, will be necessary to achieve that goal. This truly would create many long-term jobs, but it would also hit us all in the pocketbook to some extent.

[Raiden]

I've got news for all of you.

The only way to save the planet from turning into a s*** is to give up some luxuries and stop having babies.

If there were only 2 or 3 billion people on the planet, and they lived in dense cities away from forests, and they kept agriculture strictly sustainable, we could burn coal all we wanted, because the carbon would be re-sequestered in phytoplankton, algae, and vascular plants.

Having some economic trouble from giving up coal is one of those luxuries. I'm sure that all of you wouldn't die if you couldn't afford to go out to eat every week.

[Tìtstewan]

The only way to save the planet from turning into a s*** is to give up some luxuries and stop having babies.

I just start with "stop having babies": In the rich countries generally the rate of birth are really low. In some countries they are so low, that they have problem to finance the pensions for the old people and this is - depending on the pension system - a big problem. In the poor countries the people need children as basic care for their survive and that cause a high rate of birth. Also a factor is the religious views of the people, and this is one of the most difficult topic. I think, it is not needed to explain more about this point. We will have two serious problems, one is the aging of the people and overpopulation in many countries. I don't know any idea, which would help. Maybe it comes a similar system like that in China - the One-child policy - in the overpopulated countries. But this hides a risk for riots and massive protest etc.
Some long-time prognoses says, that the number of people will be reach a constant level and far in future will dropping.

Anyway, if you want to have 2-3 billion poeple on the whole Earth, you have to wait for a giant natural catastrophe or something like that (big asteroid, supervulcano...what ever).

And to add the point of the luxuries; we need a fair distribution of the whole money. It is also a huge factor that 80% of the money is hold by lower than 10% of the world population - or to say it in other words: we need a drastic system change.