What would happen if the use of fossil fuel was banned world wide to stop Anthropogenic Global Warming?
One of the more interesting details that came out of the Conference in Copenhagen is that according to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the use of fossil fuels, worldwide must be reduced to less than 10% of what they are today, if we are to have any chance at all of stopping Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
In other words, we must essentially ban the use of fossil fuels worldwide, if we are to have any chance at all of stopping Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
That is the consensus of the Climate Change Scientists, who are (as everyone knows) the experts on this subject.
The Climate Change Scientists tell us, the debate is over.
The Climate Change Scientists have told us that we must reduce the use of fossil fuels world wide by over 90%,(essentially a world wide ban on the use of fossil fuels) or we have no chance of stopping Anthropogenic Global climate Change.
That, of course, did not go over very well with India, the People's Republic of China and Russia who are extremely dependent of the use of fossil fuels. Their economies would collapse if they cut their fossil fuel use to less than 10% of what that use is today.
Let me get your thoughts, what are some of the things that would happen world wide, if we cut the world wide use of fossil fuels to less than 10% of what that use is today? That is essentially a ban on the use of fossil fuels worldwide.
Also what would happen if we tried to force India, The People's Republic of China and Russia to comply with that rule?
Remember if India, The People's Republic of China and Russia do not comply and reduce their fossil fuel use to less than 10% of what that Fossil Fuel use is today, it will not be possible to stop Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Famine, disease and a whole lot of dead people to bury.
Just what liberals want.
- DannyLv 61 decade ago
"What would happen if the use of fossil fuel was banned world wide to stop Anthropogenic Global Warming?"
Without an alternate source of cheap clean energy that could take the place of fossil fuels, our world would be thrown into chaos. Millions upon millions of people would starve, you would see wars on a grand scale, basically it would end life as we know it today. Even if Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening, there is no way to stop it. Not if what the IPCC says about fossil fuels is true.
- 1 decade ago
Quote: 'Remember if India, The People's Republic of China and Russia do not comply and reduce their fossil fuel use to less than 10% of what that Fossil Fuel use is today, it will not be possible to stop Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.'
Let me tell you something... the amount of emissions USA, France and all the other developed countries emit is a gazillion times more than that of India!!! So why retard development even If it is at the cost of the environment... when USA did it 50 years ago?
Why cant Obama just reduce America's emissions and not force Asians to retard growth?!
*Sarcasm*This seems good, let America loot us of your resources by showing us fancy $100bn package like it is stealing oil from Afganistan!!!!!!!! */sarcasm*
Stop eating beef you fat americans! Go vegetarian! And stop blaming Asians!
- JanLv 61 decade ago
There is no such thing as man made global warming. The climate goes in cycles. Back in the late 70's and 80's there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are nearly 25,000. Tell it to the polar bears that their numbers are dwindling.
We have been told that cutting down the rain-forests will lead to global warming. We have been told to plant trees to save the planet. Yet the research has shown that trees in the northern latitudes actually INCREASE global temperature because it helps absorb the suns rays, instead of bouncing off the snow. So trees are good at the equator, but dangerous at northern latitudes?? Same thing goes with eggs. Are they good or bad for you?? Bottled water used to be better for you than tap, but now the political correctness pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. I'm not saying that we should cut down the rainforests. I believe there are certain species there that will/could die out from it. Why not nature do what it wants to do? Let trees grow where they want to. If we rush to cut all trees in the northern latitudes, then erosion will increase. Animals won't have shrubs to eat, etc.
Let's take a look at the mid-west for example. Experts are saying that water levels are the lowest they've seen in decades. A recent article in the National Geographic show that the area was wet before. It had indian tribes, and evidence of settlements. All of a sudden there was a "drying" of the area. Animals died, and the indians moved away. Then it got wet again. Then it got dry again. Then the west was heavily settled, in the last few decades. It just happened to coincide with a wet time period. Is the fact that drought is coming back due to man, or a natural cycle??
In answer to you question, nothing will happen. The earth will do whatever it wants to do. The Sahara Desert used to be fertile ground, with plenty of water. Did you now that?? Now back then there wasn't the use of fossil fuels. To what would you base your theory on it's change to desert? No, there weren't herds of cattle eating everything in sight either. You can't blame it on poeple who eat meat. The coal that we aren't allowed to use in the U.S. will be shipped to China, who doesn't have/use the same scrubbers to clean the emissions that we do. The atmosphere will actually get dirtier.
If the EPA has it's wish, everybody will stop breathing. Carbon dioxide is a carbon fuel. Do you really think the the planet's atmosphere, upon being approahed by carbon dioxide gas, gives a rat's behind over where it came from? "Oh I can't react to this one. It came from a human. Oh, but that one came from a cow. Man, now the temp is gonna have to go up 0.00000000000001 of a degree!" This is all about population control and the panel for health insurance who WILL let grandma, or sick people die. I read a few months ago, Florida's plan on how/who to allow into the hospital in case of a flu outbreak. It is eye opening. It is done because the health resources aren't enough to go around. If there isn't enough money to pay for everyone's health care, what do you think will happen?? If you eliminate all carbon dioxide, then all trees/plants will die. Maybe the liberals can inform the trees/plants that those in the northern hemipsheres should die first.Source(s): Al Gore lies.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The climate would not change at all since fossil fuels have nothing to do with the climate.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Never happen the lobbyist's for the auto industry and the oil companies would help the idiots in charge cover it up and the media would never broadcast such a negative story. That is why if the government can't regulate and tax the **** out of it you will never hear of the advances in science to make us self reliant
- mommanukeLv 71 decade ago
If it were done overnight, the world would collapse and we would be back to the 1800's. Being done gradually over a period of years it would be quite easy to replace fossil fuels with other clean energy sources. You criticize China, but they are already working on the problem, building giant solar arrays and developing the technology for clean energy that they will then sell to us. They are building two giant wind farms in the Midwest right now. But you left out of your question "What would happen if we tried to force the US to reduce its consumption to 10%?" The oil companies here would fight tooth and nail any attempt at all to conserve. India gives only lip service to it now, but if the rest of the world cut back and started using the cheaper energy sources, they would soon come around. America never will.
- drgnrdr451Lv 51 decade ago
Can you say the end of civilization as we know it. A return to living conditions not seen in the 'developed nations' since before the industrial revolution.
Mass starvation, a resurgence of feudal agrarian society. War, famine, disease, oppression and death on a scale never before imagined.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The "Watermelons" wanna get Medieval on yer @$$.
Incentives, tax breaks, grants, promotions towards the inevitable.
Not Cold Turkey, fines, imprisonment and punishment.
I get a laugh how these same people tell you how to raise your kids without "Corporal" punishment, yet the second these hypocritical twits get a bit of power, they abuse it in that very way.
A. They'll need solar powered bulldozers to cut trenches in the Earth for the mass graves.
- 1 decade ago
These people are insane. The population of the world is too large to exist without a viable energy alternative. There would be mass starvation. If their theory was an indisputable fact, they would put their algorithms and methods up to scientific scrutiny beyond the IPCC. They refuse to do so. They are liars and thieves.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Russia, China, and India's economies are far too fragile and those countries ave far too many mouths to feed and homes to heat for them to give one rats asss about global warming. This is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the west to the east. This is the same reason Kyoto deal was flushed down the drain.