Americans Gearing up to Fight Global Warming

TechnoGuyRob writes "Global warming has been one of the most controversial and debated issues in the political and scientific sphere. A recent poll published in the Chicago Sun-Times now shows that 'An overwhelming majority of Americans think they can help reduce global warming and are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed, a new poll shows. After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real.'" (Jamie adds: and all it took was twelve years of overwhelming scientific consensus.)

Comments

There's a lot of potential

[yog]

This is clearly a situation where strong federal leadership is needed. If Americans are on board with reducing global warming, then let's make reduced fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions a reality by:
- mandating higher MPGs in automobiles
- granting huge tax credits for solar heating/electric panels on private and commercial buildings
- mandating solar equipment for ALL federal buildings
- mandating a switch to ethanol or methanol biofuels for federal fleets
- grant tax breaks for anyone switching to biofuels
- aid to cities that want to build or expand public transportation
- aid to cities to convert existing buses to biofuels
- massage research into alternative energy
- end the war in Iraq to free up the funds for the above initiatives
- Wind mill farms granted more eminent domain power (e.g., to overcome NIMBY opposition by estate owners in Marblehead, Massachusetts because "it ruins the view").

Germany during World War II switched to hydrogen for its cars when its petroleum supplies were cut off. Brazil has switched to domestically produced alcohol. It's all do-able with a strong federal leadership. This is clearly a situation where the market economy is going to favor lower prices, not (necessarily) environmentally desirable results. The federal government is the agent that can mandate the conditions necessary to make this stuff a reality.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[uniqueUser]

mandating higher MPGs in automobiles

I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[kannibal_klown]

Exactly.

I recently bought a new car. I was on the hedge about getting either a super-efficient car or a larger car with a sporty engine. I picked the larger car that gets around 20MpG with suburban-area driving (better on the highway).

However, my commute is only 10 miles (through the suburbs) each way and I don't go very far during the weekends. Meanwhile, I know people who drive 4-cyl Civics that drive about 4-5 times as much as I do commuting alone; lord knows what their weekend travel is like. Meaning they use at least twice the fuel I use.

If I have to pay more at the pump, then fine. But if I want to buy a bigger car with a sporty V6 then I should be able to without having to worry about the Fed crippling it.

Sure, my next car will probably be a more efficient car (possibly a hybrid) but for now this is the car I wanted.

However, I'm all for gas-guzzler tax. I just think that margin shouldn't be raised much more than it is. If you have a newer vehical that can't even break 15MpG on the highway (and it isn't a commercial truck/transport) then getting hit with a tax is acceptable.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[steveo777]

All of these are good alternatives, but I'd say that we really need to SHUT DOWN coal plants. Yes, nuclear power is fine. More radioactive material is sent into the air via a coal plant's emmisions than nuclear power. I agree completely that solar equipment must be fully utilized, but these coal plants are atrocious. I first learned how bad these plant were a few years ago when I was watching the Discovery channel reporting on those massive dumptrucks at coal mines. An engineer was holding an eight pound chunk of coal and say, "This is just about enough power to turn on a laptop computer." I was appaled.

I'm not saying there isn't other things to worry about, but nuclear power isn't going to spew waste and carbon into the atmostphere. America could also take a look at the design of Frances 11 or so rebirthing power-plants that re-use radioactive matierial.

I'd rather see wind, solar, and hydro power riegn supreme, but where these are unavailable, we shouldn't be burning fuel like coal.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait, the years from FDR to 1994, when the Democrats had total control of congress, wasn't long enough for everyone to establish that both (of the big 2) parties exist purely to serve their own power interests?

Surely, you must still think it is April 1?

Re:There's a lot of potential

[Theatetus]

Well, some that come to mind are the Interstate Higheway System, the FDIC, the Marshall Plan, WIC, the GI Bill...

Re:There's a lot of potential

[pHatidic]

There is no way that we can get by without coal power any time soon. What we can do is install scrubbers on top of the stacks and filter the fine particulates out of the air. This way there is still greenhouse gas, but at least kids aren't getting asthma attacks on the soccer field. Then once we have alternative power in place we can work to phase out fossil fuels.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[aaronl]

If you want something like that to be a complete failure, then what you need is Federal interference. Your way would result in total failure to accomplish your goals. Any time the Federal gets involved in something, that something fails, but brings with it a dozen unwanted, and unrelated, things. We could, however, get rid of two of your bullet items by reducing the Federal to a sane size.

Next, mandates don't work. You can encourage a sector to do something, but as soon as you mandate, you are requiring without funding. For a private company, it is often less expensive to simply ignore these mandates. That's why it took 10-15 years for many factories to get scrubbers on their smoke stacks. If you simply state "all vehicles will be 40mpg or better", what you have is bankrupt auto companies, and a very pissed off populace.

First, you want to avoid the common solar panels, which are previous generation solar panels. The harm they do for the environment during production is not recouped by energy production during their lifetime.

Maybe some day people like you will bother to look at a picture larger than your own house. Decentralizing energy production results in *more* wasted energy, *more* pollution from production, and a *less* efficient infrastructure. If things run on electricity, then you need to make the central generation equipment better. Throwing a solar panel on everything just means you shift the pollution to the production of panels.

If you want to aid cities in their projects, then the Federal needs to stop taking all their base tax monies. Cities can't afford to operate without Federal aid, because the Federal requires so much money for all their bloat and inefficiency. Cities would *have* good roads and public transit systems if they could keep the money where the applicable citizens live.

You don't need tax breaks or to massage anything. If you simply got the Federal out of it, the problem would tend to itself. Make the Federal stop fighting wars for the oil companies, and stop subsidizing other aspects of the oil industry, and prices will go up dramatically. That means gas will be more expensive, and people will demand more efficient vehicles. It means that research into alternative fuels will spike. All of what you seem to want, with none of the Federal meddling.

BTW, wind mills don't work, not the way you seem to think. They especially don't work in places with highly variable wind, like Massachusetts. You need *reliable* and high density energy production. Wind power is a supplementary energy source. It augments the grid and allows other, more reliable, energy production methods to scale back operations when conditions allow. What we actually need is more efficient, reliable, primary methods of power production. If you want to minimize pollution, that means fission.

Oh, and Marblehead is a roughly 3 sq mi town just south of Boston, on a small peninsula into the Atlantic. Try putting something like wind turbines in places where people don't currently have their house. There's a lot of places where you could locate something like this. If people wouldn't choose sites that "coincidentally" happened to be where the highest land values are, then you wouldn't get much opposition. You don't hear about a bunch of rich people complaining that a wind farm is going up in Kansas, do you? Do you think such things aren't being built? If you do, then you should stop keeping your eyes closed. I'd be pretty pissed if someone wanted to devalue my land, or take part of my land, and you'd bet that I'd be trying to find another location for it. The same is true of just about everyone else. I hear the Federal owns a ridiculous potion of the US; how about we use *that* land?

If you have to use eminent domain, then you've *FAILED*. You're basically stealing a person's land by doing that. You need a damned good reason, and windmills isn't one of them. If you wanted to put up a real generation station, that would produce respectable amou

Re:There's a lot of potential

[shilly]

Yes, but while you don't have to fight a war (honestly, you don't), you do have to pay for healthcare. Whether you do it through taxes, insurance or out-of-pocket has a major impact on equity, but only a minor impact on system costs. So you're not going to suddenly reduce the costs of healthcare by cutting back Medicaid -- you'll just shift them. By contrast, you can of course cut the costs of social programs, but you may find other costs rising as well. And there's the disadvantage of heaping misery on poor people's shoulders, but you may be able to rationalise that away with some moral indignation about the feckless poor...

Re:There's a lot of potential

[Perl-Pusher]

HUD
Aid To Dependent Children
No Child Left Behind
20 Trillion spent so far on fighting inner city poverty (how's that going by the way? I still here about those poor folk in New Orleans)
The war on drugs
The War on Terrorism
FEMA
Medicare
Social Security (might not be worried about that if congress had not borrowed money from it.)
The Space Shuttle
Funny you should mention WIC, I have witnessed people buy Milk and cheese with WIC and load it into a Mercedes Benz, is that what congress had in mind?

Re:There's a lot of potential

[avasol]

Following your logic here, you'd be living in a house packed with asbestos because it's the best insulant for houses known to man. Much value for your money. I also suggest painting your house with lead paint, if you can find any, and I believe there's still some leaded gasoline available if you buy from the Army Reserve.

Freedom at being an idiot consumer is not necessarily freedom, and especially not consumer-friendly.
Don't believe me? How come I can't buy crack? Just raise the taxes on crack. I think it's fair to say that heavy users of crack should pay more taxes, that way the crack-problem will go away in no-time.

Sometimes sarcasm is the only weapon I have. Quite effective in this case, I hope.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[mausmalone]

I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now.

Raising the minimum MPG rating does not restrict what types of products you can sell or buy. It sets standards for the products for production, not trade. I understand the concept of having a "smaller" government, and completely respect that point of view. But in this case, I feel that liberterians have been especially lied to. The federal government already does have minimum MPG standards for cars manufactured in the US. The proposal is not for additional regulation, but rather for increasing the standard to better reflect what's possible with modern technology (the MPG standard has not changed significantly since the 1970's).

I look at it this way... we want the government (and I bet you do too) to set minimum standards of safety for electrical applicances so that they don't short out and injure us. These standards don't have to harshly restrict trade, just ensure that products are minimally safe. It doesn't seem outlandish at all when these standards are tightened to better reflect what kind of electrical saftey is possible with the advancement of modern technology.

Global Warming (as seen in the increase in intensity of storms worldwide and the devistation of Hurricaine Katrina) has become a safety issue. Increasing MPG standards to match modern technology is a measure the government can take to better ensure our safety in the long run.

Re:There's a lot of potential

[mengel]

You're missing an important point.

Yes, Biodeisel and ethanol do not reduce the CO2 emissions that come out of the car signifigantly, if at all. (they do reduce some other pollutants, which is nice...)

However, the source of that carbon is the big win there -- the carbon that went into the biodeisel and ethanol comes from C02 in the air, (go read any high-school biology text on photosynthesis and the carbon cycle...) not out of the ground. And you don't put all of the carbon from growing the plants into the fuel. So using biodeisel and/or ethanol reduces the net amount of C02 in the air. (i.e you use 100g of carbon from the air to grow the corn; you put 80g of that carbon into the fuel, and burn it, you have a net loss of 20g of carbon from the air...)

So if we switched everything from petroleum to biofuels overnight, we would change from adding x amount of carbon to the air a day, to removing x/10 or so per day.

However, unless we change the way we grow our crops (with petroleum derived fertilizers) and produce our ethanol (petroleum fueled distilleries) we arent' actually going to reduce our fuel consumption nearly as much as we ought to with this approach; as numerous studies "debunking" ethanol as a solution have pointed out. (The part those studies get wrong is that there *are* ways to grow corn, etc. *without* using all that petroleum, ask any Amish farmer in Pennsylvania...)

Re:There's a lot of potential

[WinPimp2K]

The source of the carbon is not as relevant as you think?

What happens to the materials used to make ethanol/biodiesel if they are not used for that purpose? They have already removed that CO2 from the atmosphere. By turning them back into fuel we may be pumping more CO2 back into the air(depending on effieciency vs fossil fuel) than if we plowed them back under (or whatever else we are doing with them now)

If you posit that more crops will be planted solely for the purpose of feedstock for fuel production, then remember the energy costs involved in dealing with these new crops (additional tractors, harvesters, etc). At what point would it become cost effective to raise "crops" of biodiesel and ethanol?

Missed the Mark

[ExE122]

"Politicians finally came up with a cheap, last-minute solution to control Global Warming: dropping a giant ice cube from the Halley's Comet in one of Earth's oceans every now and then. This fix worked for nearly a millennium, and so by the year 3000, Global Warming was considered by many a scientific fraud, like secondhand smoke."
~The Futurama Encyclopedia

It's wonderful that so many people are willing to say they want to make a difference. That's just as good as actually doing it! Studies also show that 74% of all Americans also say they want to start excersizing regularly, continue their education, spend time with their families, and find a cure for cancer. That's a load off my mind, I'll definitely sleep better tonight.

Regardless of that, the real problem isn't with the masses, its with the elite. My father is a plumbing and mechanics inspector in one of the richest counties in America. He recalls one house he inspected that had 7 heated swimming pools joined together with hottubs. The owner would keep them heated year-round just in case a random party broke out. He also had 10 furnace and airconditioning units in his 35,000 sqft. house that I'm sure he ran the hell out of. He also had a 6 car garage, one spot for each of his SUVs.

The real problem is, there are no limits on how much gasoline, electricity, or natural gas one person is allowed to use. Supplies are being wastefully depleted and turned into greenhouse gasses, and people are blaming the average consumer.

So when gas prices go up by 80%, this rich bastard probably won't even think twice. Meanwhile, an average person is being asked to "turn thermostats down in winter by 2 degrees, caulk around windows, combine driving trips when running errands... wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars." And this is a solution?

It's like having some large corporation lower 100,000 sub-management employee wages by $5 an hour instead of laying off one CEO who is making $500k per year.

Whoever said one person can't make a difference. --
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"

Re:Missed the Mark

[Junks Jerzey]

Regardless of that, the real problem isn't with the masses, its with the elite.

I'm not so sure. You ever go look at the energy usage of appliances in any store? The low-end budget models tend to use the most power, and those are the ones people getting hourly wages are buying. The Energy Star rated ones you'll pay a premium for.

Look at washing machines, for example. The ones that use the least water and electricity--by far--are front loading models. Now just try to find a front loading washing machine in a U.S. store that doesn't cost $800+.

Re:Missed the Mark

[garcia]

It's wonderful that so many people are willing to say they want to make a difference. That's just as good as actually doing it! Studies also show that 74% of all Americans also say they want to start excersizing regularly, continue their education, spend time with their families, and find a cure for cancer.

Exactly! As long as someone else has to do the cutting back everyone is all for it! *I* would *love* to be able to take mass transit to work daily -- problem is that it's just not possible as the transit system here (from the suburbs) was intended for suburb A city rather than being able to go from suburb A suburb B.

We need the local, state, and Federal governments to be able to help a bit and allow us the ability to help -- especially for those of us that really want to.

Can we, and should we?

[PFI_Optix]

We've spent so long talking about global warming that I don't think anyone has stopped to consider some possibilities.

First, is it even our fault? Is global warming really a man-made disaster, or is it part of a climatic or solar cycle? It always seemed to be simply assumed that what we have documented is because of something humanity did...what if it's not? If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?

Second, what happens if there's nothing we can do? Action plans are great and all and we need to do everything in our power to reverse any damage we've done, but we need to get our heads out of the sand and have a Plan B. It's very possible that anything we do now will be too little too late, that we have already hit critical mass and warming will accelerate even if we climbed back up in the trees tomorrow.

Re:Can we, and should we?

[dsci]

If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?

Probably not. If you are in the camp that the planet is more resilient than we give credit for, than taking action against a phantom problem probably won't matter.

The place for potential damage, with AGW real or not, is to the economy. We've spend about 100 years building a petroleum based economic engine, and that cannot changed overnight.

Gearing, eh?

[karolgajewski]

...so they're still not going to actually DO it, just prepare and get ready? (that's the meaning of "gearing up" that I'm familiar with)

Rather than gear up, why not start right now? Sales of Hummers were up 174% from last year. If that's not going in the exact opposite direction, I don't know what is.

Useless polling

[Red Flayer]

"Between 80 percent and 90 percent are willing to take these energy-saving actions: wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars.
70 percent are willing to drive less, and walk, bike, car pool or take mass transit."

BS. When it comes down to it, people will do what is cheapest and most convenient. It's very easy to tell some pollster you're willing to do something, but when push comes to shove, forget it. There is a social factor in polls that causes people to answer the way they want to be perceived, not the way they actually are.

I take mass transit daily (by choice), and I have lost count of all the people I know who've tried it but given it up as too inconvenient.

And as for energy-efficient appliances, the sticker shock is too much for many people, even when the appliance is cheaper in the long run.

You want real reduction in greenhouse gasses from US people? End the light-truck exemption for mileage standards. Increases mileage standards for all vehicles. Bring mass transit funding levels up to highway funding levels -- if it's pervasive enough, it WILL be convenient. Reducing consumption of power by 15% at home is not going to make near enough of a dent -- it is not enough, and it's irresponsible to let people believe it will be.

Actions ?

[sane?]

So "between 80 percent and 90 percent are willing to... wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars."?

So how many are actually DOING any of those things? And did you notice they were good little capitalist consumption-enhancing options? Buy this, buy that. The idea is to *reduce* consumption.

I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy. There are practical things that *could* be done, like increasing tax on fuel to promote efficient usage, setting real requirements for home insulation, reducing coal burning. However its much easier to say you'll maybe think about buying a new SUV with 2mpg better economy, some point in the future.

Changing mindsets takes much more positive action than this - and I see no sign of a change there.

Re:Actions ?

[stlhawkeye]

So how many are actually DOING any of those things? And did you notice they were good little capitalist consumption-enhancing options? Buy this, buy that. The idea is to *reduce* consumption.

Look how fat America is. We're not a people who naturally cut back on anything.

I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy.

This is a monumentally stupid statement for reasons that I'm not even going to bother to get into. You know nothing about economics, sir.

There are practical things that *could* be done, like increasing tax on fuel to promote efficient usage

Which won't solve anything. It'll just cause the poorest people in the nation to have even less discretionary income. It's not the nation's $18,000/year citizens who are buying H2's. They're driving pickups and old cars with shitty gas mileage. You're screwing them, not the idealized rich shithead in your head that's tooling around the suburbs in a Hummer dumping motor oil on puppies on his way to the RNC convention. When gas prices go up, consumption is reduced slightly but most people just bitch about it. Sometimes Congress has hearings in their unceasing search for the guy who sets the oil price so they can tell him to lower it again. Again, you don't seem to understand much about economics, particularly how fuel is purchased and distributed.

setting real requirements for home insulation

This one has some merit.

reducing coal burning.

Driving up general energy costs. Again, we're just going to hammer the poor with this shit. I know, I know, what good does it do to help the poor when we've all got melanoma and are racing Kevin Costner around on Ski-Doo's because we melted the ice caps. Fine. Go try to sell that to the poor. "I know you only make $23k/year, but we'd like to jack another 25 cents a gallon on your gas taxes and raise your home heating and electricity costs by about 18%. It might force you to sell your home and move somewhere cheaper, but it's for the environment!" Good luck with your next election, Congressman.

However its much easier to say you'll maybe think about buying a new SUV with 2mpg better economy, some point in the future.

I hate to urinate in your Kashi Go-Lean, but SUVs are not destroying the environment, and their contribution to global warming, if any, is statistically insignificant.

Changing mindsets takes much more positive action than this - and I see no sign of a change there.

Nor do I. Because no matter what a poll sponsored by an environmentalist group says, people aren't willing to change their lifestyles until it's clear that it's unsustainable. Given how frequently we are wrong in our scientific consensus, I can't blame a skeptical nation for being hesitant to abandon their lifestyle because a bunch of government scientists think the temperature is going to go up 2 degrees in 200 years, long after we're all dead, and that it might cause a famine. It's a battle that can't be won. I fully expect extreme environmentalists to begin engaging in increasingly destructive, deadly, and dangerous stunts and demonstrations to give people something to think about. And that'll also fail.

Re:Screw Federal Leadership

[tc]

The problem with environmental issues is that, contrary to your assertion, the free market doesn't work unaided. It's an example of what economists would call an "externality", because it's a cost which doesn't fall on the players in the market, and hence cannot supply information to that market.

The notion that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions now then the world we be an ugly place in 50-100 years time simply can't be accounted for without giving the free market a helping hand, because unaided there's no mechanism by which that potential future event has a dollar cost for the companies and consumers involved in energy transactions today.

This is specifically the situation that governments are for - they are able to apply to a cost to something and hence influence the market in a way that accounts for this externality. For example, raising the tax on gasoline is a very direct way of applying some of that external cost into the appropriate market. The free market still does it's work, we've just made the cost of gasoline what it "should" be to take account of future global warming. The market can then decide what to do about it, whether it's building more efficient cars, taking fewer journeys, or investing in alternative fuel sources.

No need for fancy tax credits or pork barrel schemes. Just make the price of gasoline (and other carbon-emitting fuels) reflect the future global warming risk, and let the usual action of the market do it's work.

Re:Screw Federal Leadership

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Analysis of your comment:

First paragraph: knee-jerk ranting about environmentalists.

Second paragraph: You're obviously a William Dembsky fan, notorious creationist (who uses the term intelligent design). That bastard is in a feud with the University of Texas scientist Eric Pianka, and actually *reported him to the Department of Homeland Security* while misrepresenting what he said. It is a fact that Pianka was not calling for the extermination of humans, but in fact he was warning about a danger which he sees as a reality. He brought up the Ebola virus to shock his audience into thinking about his message: airborne agents that can kill 90% of the human population are not science fiction. They exist, and few people are concerned. Another part of his message was that biological systems crash when they become overpopulated, and that humans are setting themselves up for a crash. He was not calling for the extermination of human beings, and since you're saying that he was, I'm going to state that I consider you a vile sort of liar, who lies by misrepresenting what others have said.

Third paragraph: Unreasonable faith in the free market, which treats the environment as a commons that they can use up. When a company uses the environment as a dumping ground, they are stealing from everybody else. Make the companies pay the true cost of their pollution. When pollutants are injected into the atmosphere or into the ground water, I expect to see a check in my mailbox reimbursing me for the loss of a resource that I do not have any more.

Fourth paragraph: Finally, something that can be discussed. Nuclear power is definitely something that we should consider right now.

Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax

[PitaBred]

Spain -- Land Area: 499,542 km Population: 40,341,462
United States of America -- Area: 9,631,418 km Population: 295,734,134
That's only a land area factor of, oh, 19. Yes, the US is 19X the size of Spain, but with only 7X the population. Things are nowhere near as close to one another as they are in Europe. It's not ideal, but that's the way things are in the US. You just about have to drive to get to where you need to go in anywhere less than a day, unless you happen to be right on a bus route that goes very near where you're going. But most bus routes to where I need to go would take multiple transfers, many stops, and be at least 3 or 4 times as long.
Gas is cheap and subsidized here for a reason... we need it to get where we're going. When you can walk across the street to get your groceries, it's not so bad. But the nearest market to my house is over a mile away, and I'm not lugging a couple week's worth of food over a mile. And that's just food.
I'm not excusing waste. I drive a more efficient car, I try to drive as little as possible, walk where I can, take public transport when i can (they're on strike now... that really sucks). But Europeans seldom seem to understand the actual SCALE of the United States. It's big. Bigger than most anything you've experienced. 3 hours is not a long drive in a car. 24 hours is getting there.