What are some suggestions that all people from poor to rich could do to help in going "GREEN"?

In other words...how can all the classes help with reducing global warming? Back to basics or something inbetween?

Some people have said they won't change their lifestyle, period, no matter what.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths

    Posted: 02/20/2007

    Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

    10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

    Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.

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

    Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

    Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.

    9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

    Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).

    8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

    Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

    7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

    Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.

    6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

    For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?

    5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

    Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

    4. The glaciers are melting!

    As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

    3. Climate was stable until man came along.

    Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.

    2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

    Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

    What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

    Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.

    1. It’s hot in here!

    In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.

    The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    In the US, a major decision or two was made a while back by some in government... things like funding new highways instead of a rail system because some people would make a hell of a lot of money off the oil industry, the car industry, road contruction and maintenance, etc... We could have a rail shipping system that would eliminate much of the long haul delivery trucks - sorry Norman, but I see you as a train conductor as well...

    This is just one idea within a web of many - network, investigate. I'm really sleepy and need to go and crash now - Good luck to you.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    These are some suggestions I wrote for a publication on what young people can do to reduce climate change, so are alll cheap/free - most will save you money - and can be done with very little control over your surroundings.

    Turn TV's/games consoles etc. off at the switch.

    Turn off lights when you're not using them

    Clothes swap - it's much more fun stealing a friend's top than shop, FACT. (ditto bags, jewellery, etc etc)

    Walk to school

    Persuade parents to give you bus fare rather than drop you places far away (which also means they get to save their time for about 70p, win-win!)

    Hug for warmth!

    Eat with friends (reduce waste, packaging & energy used for cooking... in theory. In practise you eat like pigs).

    Retro night? Board games, outside stuff like frisbee etc? (Doesn't sound cool when an outsider suggests it) In a "turn off for a night" capacity.

    Don't overfill the kettle

    Put a brick in it (it being your toilet or freezer, not someone's mouth)

    Collect recycling (even if it doesn't get collected/is too heavy to carry to recycling point I'm sure a parent'll take it if it's already sorted)

    NAG!!! Young people have no idea how much what they say counts until it's too late

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    My Poor Brain by Foo Fighters Poor Poor Pitiful Me by Warren Zevon Poor Little Fool by Sharon Sheeley Rich Girl by Daryl Hall and John Oates If I Were a Rich Man by Sheldon Harnick and Jerry Bock

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    My favourite answers are wind turbines, public transit, and visiting pedestrian friendly areas.

    All of them are cheaper than their competitors, if i understand correctly. So, if we make mistakes about global warming, then we still protect the environment with these methods.

    Public transit usually requires a change in lifestyle, but it doesn't have to. Public transit could be designed to accomidate the lifestyle of the rich. Cruise ships are like public transit. Trains that travel over night fit very well into many lifestyles.

    Wind turbines will always be my favourite, because they don't have any negative impacts on us, except for maybe sound. I have never heard a wind turbine, though.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    OK, this is going to be a bit complicated and I am not sure that you will get me. The fact that global warming is contrary to going green. If you take out all the CO2 in the atmosphere, we will truly go brown. All the plants will surely die, since they feed off of CO2, so saying we want to go green and global warming are two opposites.

    Now, take a look at Earth's history when CO2 was high. CO2 was brought up to a higher level because of heat generated, which allowed more plants to grow. Did you know that tropical rain forests existed almost as high as Canada? Yet there were no smoke stacks, cars or other 'man made' means of causing that increase in CO2. CO2 was a naturally occurring result of a number of factors and another way of mother nature to balance herself out.

    If you look at the medieval warm period when most of Europe's cathedrals were built, you would see just that. They actually grew grapes in northern colder climates in Europe during that time and it was a time of prosperity and growth, not of death and destruction as alarmists tout.

    That was about 900 to 1100 and it was followed by a mini-ice age at the 13th century. Regardless of what you perceive, we should all conserve, recycle and be responsible people. Do not pay some ridiculous company that 'claims' they invest in solar, nuclear or wind power and do not pay for your carbon footprint as Gore touts he is doing. He is paying his own company, which is in essence, paying himself. That is the most ridiculous concept that I have ever heard of! However, it makes money, which is what this global warming scam is all about.

    Global warming alarmists have to bring themselves in check. While we are attacking progressing countries and preventing their progress by our global warming challenges, we are in essence, not only making them poor and unable to support themselves, but we are also creating another enemy and possible war that the alarmists will not fight. It is kind of selfish that we have had our day in the sun and put out all of this CO2 in the 40's and 50's, even though we faced about 40 years of cooling, we are now telling other countries that they can't? Come on!

    Plus, with all the famine, drought and disease that we will be causing by not allowing other countries to protest, would be so far greater than the harms of global warming, if it even existed in the first place.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    A person who won't change their lifestyle is destroying the earth their own children and on down will have to live on.

    Solar panels and hybrid cars are good things. Also, alternative energy sources (they are already there) should be used more widely. To hell with the oil companies and the Bush family.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Poor people should be requested to not to go to rivers and do their different activities such as washing, bathing etc. human wastes are polluting the natural resources.

    Rich people are requested to organize programmes so that they may help awaring about the present condition of our environment.

    Scientists should find ways to convert the harmful and waste products into useful things or fuels.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I won't change unless I can save a dollar or make a dollar from the change. If going green made money in a free market, we'd all be doing it already.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think what you should do is sell your car, sell your house, go live in a tent somewhere and eat berries. Go primitive. Then you won't be contributing to GLOBAL WARMING.

    Don't forget to stop breathing.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Vote to elect all new politicians, or help change the current philosophy of most of our government. Seems to me...most of them have the biggest impact for changing things but most don't seem to care. Just my opinion.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.