Number 1 MUST know fact

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2087320,00.html

It's always good when a politician says they'll reduce X by 50%

Do they mean Today's X or 30 years later's X

Or are their ass crack's crooked

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

Errrr I meant the difference from 2050 and today being reduced 50%

They've pulled fast ones like this a while ago about E85's increase in use

It's more effective to target corporations.

Take the major car companies (worldwide)

They are producing cars everyday TODAY as we speak. These cars are going to pollute regardless if they comply with today's standards or the standards of reducing emissions by 10% within a few years. It doesn't matter if these companies are american, euorpean, or asian.

Changing what they do will really make a difference.

There's really very little the average person is going to do. Sure everyone doing their part is going to make a difference...but no one's going to do it.

If I take Al Gore's advice and shut the light off, or turn the computer off for that hour I'm upstairs eating lunch, or use warm water instead of hot when I take a shower, have sex in the dark instead of the light (If I were Jericho, I can show the light in the dark during sex...does that fit Gore's suggestion?), I will not determine whether the world is going to end otherwise.

If they charge 1% on every sale made in the country, and put that into improving car batteries and solar power so we don't need gas for cars, lights, computers, solar power, etc...that can make a difference.

Requiring zero emissions likewise for those smoke stacks at factories can make a difference.

Good luck changing each individual's daily habits.

They might be willing to give in to a modest tax toward something like car batteries, solar power such that these products would allow them to continue in their current way of life.


Trying to change the car the average person drives and effecting their habits to survive, to live off the streets, to shelter them, clothe, feed themselves and their kids is going to result in a lot of resistance.

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

You're right...but there's little chance in putting the focus on 6.5 bil people to micromanage their daily activities.

Their number 1 concern is (refer to my above post)

They're concerned with what's gotta be done for today's survivalhood (even if that's paying for their past mistakes...like being a beta provider and getting into 20-40 k in debt is one of them)

Buf if there's something like a 1% tax on all sales made, and that goes DIRECTLY into battery and solar power research...then we're talking.

Once they have a product that can produce zero emissions...all they have to do is outlaw or phase out the current cars or current technology today...or face a penalty. Then people will act.

In other words, it's easy to put the change on corporations and research facilities. Such as giving them unlimited money to produce zero emissions devices

People will act when they have an alternative. Such as zero emissions cars and solar power.

People will act when it's in their interest to do so.

Use emissions free devices - You will save money or face the penalty.


-----------------



Edit/ Addition: People are threatened everyday by credit card companies, surviving to their spouse/kids, threatened by the weather to put clothes on themselves, to feed themselves etc.

That is RIGHT NOW.

People care more about the threats they face NOW than the threat of global warming's consequences. That's in the future...hence here come the doubters and naysayers.


Putting the burder on research facilities, corporations, etc. is how to get action. And putting something like a 1% tax on all sales transactions people can and will tolerate way before telling them to adjust the temperature of their shower and other small acts like that.

By the time you convince someone to adjust their shower temperature you could have donated a 30 min to 1 hour's worth of work to a research facility to pay them to do research

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

A politician telling people to adjust their shower temperatures is weak. No one will listen to him. He will command little to no attention. He's putting the burden on someone else to spread to someone else. They have an easy way out.

A politician telling people he's going to tax all their sales transactions is going to get EVERYONE'S attention. They have to comply. No one can "cheat" out of the agreement.

Anytime you rely on others in some sort of mass agreement they're going toback out.

Well my neighbor doesn't watch his shower temp or how can I be so sure he does, so neither should I.

I am a bit stubbron...but I give in...I'll watch my shower temp....

LOL, ain't it the truth!

I'll watch my shower temp...you can even add a notch under your belt in your global warming notches area...next to the area for notches for lays

You just proved my point.

The US is willing to invade Iraq because of Saddam who was basicly a pest, yet here is something potentialy way greater in scale that will affect the world as well as the balance of power goes and they do nothing and just let it happen?

This is precisly what I am saying if this can be scientificly confirmed that this will happen for sure the US will do something about it. But as it goes the scienctiifc facts are incoclusive, that is why they are doing nothing.