Would you accept some economic burdens in order to help prevent global warming?

I doubt that many people would be willing to pay higher taxes or more money for renewable energy. I suspect most of us would say we are willing to help as long as it doesn't cost us anything. A more interesting question might be whether people are willing to give up something in order to help prevent global warming, for example, no air conditioning or heating in winter and summer, lower-wattage light bulbs, water restrictions (including automatic time limit on showers), no wrapping or bags when we buy goods, etc.

Brainiac, I wish we had an automatic shutoff on our shower. My teenage kids spend so much time in the shower. Funny, when kids are little, they don't want to take a bath. When they are teenagers, you can't get them out of the bathroom.

Speaking of water restrictions, last year when I was visiting Australia, one city was trying to implement a 3-minute time limit on showers. The local council even sent every household a timer to use. Of course, no one did.

The thing is, there is no need for an extra economic burden to prevent global warming. We can save money by taking shorter showers, turning of the heating and so on. We've just become too used to a comfortable way of life that we lack the willpower to do so.

Global warming is a crock. We should face the real issues instead... the end of cheap oil, the emergence of China as a superpower, the growth of radical islam.

Instead, we pump up this politically correct non-issue because it feels sooo good and is so non-offensive.

We are already accepting more and more economic burdens and many in the name of preventing "climate change."

I think what we are being asked is - Do you mind even more gov't control over your life?

Not the right question. The right question is, will accomodating to global warming incur greater economic costs than questionable attempts to prevent it?

Far too late. We've been screwing the planet for 250 years. When the last human infestation has died out, then perhaps the Earth can start to heal itself.

Can we list down the areas where we absolutely need to spend money in order to combat "Global Warming"?

I ask this, because sometimes, NOT spending money might acheive more!

For example my simple solution to gasoline pollution: Encourage people to use mass transit (force this my raising road taxes) and encourage them to stay close to work and walk to office at least once a week. Its healthy, it saves me money and prevents pollution. Three strikes in one! :)

The global warming issue is the global burden as long as each person lives on Earth and uses natural resources. If people are afraid of a sharing burden in a form of paying more, that will pay them back in the future for their children, grandchildren. Consequently, more effects of the global warming will occur soon. Alternative energy is one of various solutions; therefore, people need to share the burden as much as they can. Each country has a limited financial fund to commit its promise on the matter of reducing the global warming. I believe most of developed countries can initiate the campaign from now and gradually implement new technology in all industries to increase productivity, wisely-usage of materials, energy-sufficient equipments (cars, machines, computers, electric devices, lighting systems,...etc)

but first let's do some common sense stuff:

Ban heated toilet sets Ban Pachinko girls standing outside in winter with an electric fire Have escalators that turn off when no-one is on them Let's turn some of that singage off late at night

Just a few things off the top of my head. But on an economic front make it law that new buildings have proper double galzing and insulation - wake up Japan this in not just for cold countries as I keep being told.

Also make it law that there should be no overtime (for general workers) past 8pm. I say general workers because certain jobs have to be done out of hours. Whilst we are at it let's reduce the temperature in government offices and schools in the winter - if they are cold they can wear another jumper!

why would i sacrifice something for hoax describing a natural phenomenon?

Global warming is a crock. We should face the real issues instead... pollution, corrupt monetary systems, the growth of radical zionism.

Instead, we pump up this politically correct non-issue because it feels sooo good and is so non-offensive.

Man made global warming isn't....

If there has been any kind of global warming, it should be noted that in 2005, sloar flares were so bad, sattelite relays were KO'ed. If there is global warming, lets blame the sun instead of anything people could do. Volcanoes produce more climate-changing chemicals and more pollution than man could in 1000 years...

Global warming is hoax.

How can you vote yes to such a vague statement? What are some economic burdens? As usual I'm sure those burdens will fall to the middle class and somehow the rich (read politicians including Mr. Gore)will be reaping the reward of said burdens. I think we've had enough of a squeeze with cost of living far outpacing earnings growth. Global warming is just another scam to squeeze the average citizen.

Brainiac you have a good point. Being vague about the sacrifices makes it seem too easy to give up. I'm sure no one would want to give up any sacrifices you mention, except maybe change to CF light bulbs or no shopping bags. What would be a better question is would businesses be able to accept higher corporate costs for these resources. When I go to sleep I turn out the lights, but I see all to many companies watering the streets with automatic timers, keeping lights on all nights, or even worse not having any of the computers go into some kind of "sleep mode" after a period of not being used. How much paper is used around the office and how much gets recycled?

Why do a lot of you think global warming isn't happening? What scientific evidence supports that all variables of the earth remain static? If global warming isn't happening now then its naive to think that it will never happen, especially with the rise of China and India as global powers and an increasing demand for consumer and oil goods around the developing world. It doesn't matter if man is causing change or if its a "natural" climate shift, the source is irrelevant.

We as humans can only prove the world works for us in this kind of environment that we live in today. If climate shifts in any direction we would have a completely new planet to deal with and the costs to humanity would be enormous. Many people could die if they are uninformed or too poor to prepare for an uncertain future and even if you have the money the costs to ready ourselves could be enormous. If weather patterns change even just slightly then ideal farming locations could shift in such a way that we no longer have enough farm land in the right places to be able to grow enough food to eat. We can only prove the world works in one way, and that's the way it is right now, so if any force, whether man or nature, tries to change the way that the planet is set up then we should use the power of the human mind to reverse these changes to keep the planet in as static an environment as possible.

The same exact scientists who are now proclaiming gloom and doom because of "man-made" global warming are in large part the same people who ten or so years ago were warning us of the next ice-age if we didn't do something soon!

Last year's winter was one of the coolest on record. According to several scientists, if our atmosphere is indeed warming slightly, that could lead to enormous increases in the available land mass areas hospitable to farming and agriculture.

I'm all for conservation and alternate forms of energy, especially wind and solar-hydrogen to ween us off the teat of opec and their ilk, but the "science" behind climate change is way too tainted by people with nefarious political agendas and under-the-table business tie-ins like "221,000 kilowatt-hour burning" Owl Gore has with his climate change consulting business. Carbon-credits....yeah right. I $mell a racket.

"Global warming is a crock. We should face the real issues instead... the end of cheap oil, the emergence of China as a superpower, the growth of radical islam."

Regardless, your first two issues both tie in with the fact that our demand for energy is getting so high while our ability to produce that energy is diminishing in many countries. We need to reduce energy consumption regardless and get more renewable sources of energy - and that's because of long term economic concerns. Global warming is also a concern, but our emissions can be lowered as a result of the increasing energy crisis. Prices will continue to rise so long as demand increases and we don't offer up solutions to meet that demand, or change societal attitudes to decrease the demand.

I'm not as concerned about an overall warming trend as I am about the fact that our CO2 levels are higher than they've been in the past 400 000 000 years, and the scope of all the effects that could have on our environment - not just from the warming perspective.

Growing corn for biofuels = less food crops grown = thrid world people starve to death = reduced carbon emissions

That seems to be the way things are going

We are already burdening with all of the crap of how the enviroment is, was and is going to be. People, like myself, are very much aware of the effects we MAY give to this world. But allot of the little people, like me are being bambarded with idealogues who think they are changing the world. Go after the BIG COMPANIES and let them pay for ALL of the pollution that they poisoned us with. The little people must not PAY NOTHING.

no, but i want other people to accept them for my benefit

I'll believe global warming and rising oceans and polar bear displacement or whatever are for real when waterfront real estate is affordable even to schmucks like me.

Won't happen, because the same unregulated economic trends that increase profits are also increasing the socioeconomic divide between the rich and poor, essentially creating the classic class divide that the free market was supposed to destroy in wake of autocracy.

Btw, biofuels are the worst possible solution, because as was just said they reduce crops for food. Also, the net energy gain with modern farming methods is negligent when you factor in the fuel that is used for tractors/combines, making ammonia fertilizers, etc.

I figured that the Kyoto Protocols made it pretty obvious that the entire reason for the Global Warming movement was global wealth redistribution, biased against Western countries. That, and the main players behind the movement are political activists rather than scientists.