[BlueZone]

questionmark, on 05 November 2009 - 05:00 PM, said:

Nobody escapes climate change... big business will only learn that one cannot eat money...and sincerely, their abilities for survival are pretty low.

Yes, but realistically the CEO's making the decisions would be the last people to be affected by their policies because they would have the money to buy what little food there was.

[The Silver Thong]

I can see a "buy green only" movement starting. Hell it already has. This would hurt the U.S. as countries would probably end up buying from countries that go green. Not that America manufactures what they use to but it could really hurt America in the not so distant future. For example the u.s. just bailed out the big three car companies if America doesn't conform to the agreed on standard for co2 emmisions over sea sales could fall through the floor. Just an example.

[The Silver Thong]

BlueZone, on 05 November 2009 - 03:11 PM, said:

Yes, but realistically the CEO's making the decisions would be the last people to be affected by their policies because they would have the money to buy what little food there was.

Who will grow and make the food? Who will run the farmes? who will mantain the equipment? who will get and purifiy water?

[-Reborn-]

Michelle, on 05 November 2009 - 02:38 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia...._USA-states.png

Not according to this map. Will this fallacy ever stop?

That map simply shows percentage of Americans that "Identify" with religion as opposed to having no religion. This does not mean that the percentages showed are Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. Last time I checked the church didn't encompass every religion and I don't remember a time when they all agreed on something and spoke out together for or against an issue.

I fail to see where religion will play any role in the global warming issue, but if you have some articles showing where major religions have spoken out about it passionately I would be interesting in seeing those.

As for the original question, the old ways will be used until they aren't profitable. Simple as that. Change is slow and begins in the hearts and minds of the citizens of a country not within government buildings. Those who comit to change in their personal/professional life will change the world.

Everyone here is given the chance to make a difference, only problem is we just talk about it, start living it.

[BlueZone]

-Reborn-, on 05 November 2009 - 05:22 PM, said:

As for the original question, the old ways will be used until they aren't profitable. Simple as that. Change is slow and begins in the hearts and minds of the citizens of a country not within government buildings.

In this case the people who had the most interest in changing things would be the disorganized, under educated poor. I suppose that's always the case in revolutions .

[nowonmai]

Same thing is going on here in Australia. Our last government refused to sign the Kyoto agreement because they make too much money off coal exports (city I live in is the largest coal exporter in the world and soon to be bigger with more infrastructure being built) and most of our electricity is coal generated. The current government is planning a range of carbon taxes which would hit the coal industry hard with the closure of mines and the resulting job losses but what can you do? A small measure of pain now to stave off greater pain later? Someone mentioned India, they want the industrial boom that made the western countries what they are today. How do we stop them and countries like them from polluting at the levels we have been for decades? Try as we might to reduce our own emissions, it's the potential emissions from developing countries that hold the biggest risk. I can see the point of the western goverments; a major crackdown on greenhouse gasses would produce an economic downturn that would dwarf the one we're trying to crawl out of at the moment but do nothing and there won't be an economy to try and preserve.

[questionmark]

BlueZone, on 06 November 2009 - 12:11 AM, said:

Yes, but realistically the CEO's making the decisions would be the last people to be affected by their policies because they would have the money to buy what little food there was.

Money is worth nothing if you give and only get money in return. Most CEOs don't know that yet...as well as some UM users. Unless you can get something for money you get for the food there is little need to exchange the food for it. Besides, with the present climate models food will become too expensive to pay with money.

[-Reborn-]

BlueZone, on 05 November 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

In this case the people who had the most interest in changing things would be the disorganized, under educated poor. I suppose that's always the case in revolutions .

Not always, I think there is very good base group from all demographics in this case. Considering its leader is Al Gore

I think the main thing that really bugs me about questions like this is "What will the US do??" Its not about what will the US do or Canada do its about what will the people of that country do to get the right officials in place and what will we do within our own markets to demand green thinking.

Lets be honest if everyone is just going to sit on their hands then why would anything change? The consumer elects the government and the consumer drives the market demand.

[Siara]

nowonmai, on 05 November 2009 - 10:36 PM, said:

Same thing is going on here in Australia. Our last government refused to sign the Kyoto agreement because they make too much money off coal exports (city I live in is the largest coal exporter in the world and soon to be bigger with more infrastructure being built) and most of our electricity is coal generated.

I was thinking in terms of the coal industry too. I come from a coal mining family. Back in the 19th century management's attitude was that working conditions didn't matter because if your coal miners died you could always get new ones (immigrants from Wales). The problem in this scenario is world ecology (ie living conditions) rather than working conditions. But the two situations seem somewhat similar. Mining conditions DID eventually change without an organized mass slaughter of management.

[questionmark]

-Reborn-, on 06 November 2009 - 12:50 AM, said:

Not always, I think there is very good base group from all demographics in this case. Considering its leader is Al Gore

I think the main thing that really bugs me about questions like this is "What will the US do??" Its not about what will the US do or Canada do its about what will the people of that country do to get the right officials in place and what will we do within our own markets to demand green thinking.

Lets be honest if everyone is just going to sit on their hands then why would anything change? The consumer elects the government and the consumer drives the market demand.

Ah, the key...it is not what THEY do it is what YOU do. And that counts for everybody.

[KennyB]

I don't think there's anything anybody can do about climate change anyway, even if they wanted to. Humans didn't cause it and humans can't stop it. It's just a natural fluctuation and you might as well try to get used to it. All the yada,yada is politics.KennyB

[questionmark]

KennyB, on 06 November 2009 - 12:58 AM, said:

I don't think there's anything anybody can do about climate change anyway, even if they wanted to. Humans didn't cause it and humans can't stop it. It's just a natural fluctuation and you might as well try to get used to it. All the yada,yada is politics.KennyB

Thank you for your input...now would you let those who actually know something about it continue this discussion?

[Siara]

KennyB, on 05 November 2009 - 10:58 PM, said:

I don't think there's anything anybody can do about climate change anyway, even if they wanted to. Humans didn't cause it and humans can't stop it. It's just a natural fluctuation and you might as well try to get used to it. All the yada,yada is politics.KennyB

In this thread the question isn't how much of it is a natural fluxuation. The question is that if most of the scientists in the world believed it was caused by pollution and the US made no effort to cut down on their pollution (in fact let it continue to accelerate) what would the political result be? It's an alternative history question (hopefully)

[nowonmai]

KennyB, on 06 November 2009 - 08:58 AM, said:

I don't think there's anything anybody can do about climate change anyway, even if they wanted to. Humans didn't cause it and humans can't stop it. It's just a natural fluctuation and you might as well try to get used to it. All the yada,yada is politics.KennyB

Sorry to tell you but we are going against the "natural fluctuation". The earth's wobble in its rotation has the northern hemisphere further away from the sun during the winter solstice than it was 2000 years ago. If that's the case, shouldn't we be cooling and not warming?

[questionmark]

Siara, on 06 November 2009 - 01:25 AM, said:

In this thread the question isn't how much of it is a natural fluxuation. The question is that if most of the scientists in the world believed it was caused by pollution and the US made no effort to cut down on their pollution (in fact let it continue to accelerate) what would the political result be? It's an alternative history question (hopefully)

The problem is that until the EU actually demonstrated that it is possible to reduce carbon emissions without going bankrupt, in fact, create additional wealth by it, there was no real "pressure" means. It was all gray theory.

That has changed, so the question is more: what will happen in the next few years?