that makes no sense. then they will benefit from US it's the underdeveloped countries that pollute the air more than the developed countries.

 

Please, provide me with the proof you deem lacking from my arguement and prove me wrong. Also, please provide proof by an internationally recognized research institute that your fact on near-recent global fluctations were normal... I would like to learn more about that.


It's unfortunate that you don't understand how climate change will cause many, many things to be disturbed beyond rainfall. Please, tell me how well educated you are in global weather patterns

 

I think we need to find a new form of fuel for the simple fact that it creates a ton of pollution, it's horribly inefficient, and we'll run out of our supply one day or another. Not because of global warming, in the least.

 

are you being serious?

 

It's a double edged razor, that approach. The theory standing is that if we can get these countries to develop as fast as possible, then it would be economically feasible to quickly turn them to environmental management, and in the end, have a net reduction in emissions. The problem with this approach is that this is ideal, and I believe that they will continue in "business-as-usual" policies and the problem will only aggrivate itself. On the other hand, forcing them to work on the same effeciency levels is economically impossible, and if enforcable, will destroy their economies.

I'm a fan of strict emissions guidelines that are porportional to population and life expectancy; as these factors of wellbeing increase, so should the internationally mandated pollution controlls increase... unfortunately, there's too much room for beaucratic error in this, so I don't think it would be a realistically applicable situation.

 

no I'm being honest. it's a fact.

 

correct. I feel the same way about that particular approach.

 

Agreed on that level. I think global warming is a factor, but your push to change to environmentally sound fuel is the same as mine: It's not sustainable, inefficient, and the costs associated with it's cleanup are, simply put, unacceptable.


I think my favorite solutions so far are:

1) Use tidal energy to seperate hydrogen and oxygen, suspend it in a sugar-liks solution, and use that for fuel

and

2) Farm more possible sustainable fuels, like jojoba oil and such

Those are the most realistic and possible solutions to date that I've found.

 

except neither of those solutions are feasible right now and if only say the US did it. it wouldn't make a big difference at all.

the main failing point is that unless everyone did it, it wouldn't matter.

 

It's altogether too much of a literal "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach... BUT the failure to act upon this problem will have much more dire consequences than overenforcement. It's easier to rebuild an economy than to restore habitats.