What should we DO about climate change?

[Alpha]

First, a disclaimer. I don't want this thread to become a debate on whether climate change is occurring, or whether it is human induced or not. If you want to debate that, there's a few threads you can necropost in. That debate is for the 20th Century. We're beyond it. As far as I, the vast majority of scientists of the relevant disciplines, and the Arctic ice cap are concerned, it's happening now, it's really bad news, and irrespective of how much of it we caused, we have to do something about it.

Some questions to jog the brain (you don't have to respond to them):

Do you think we should cut emissions? How rapidly? Through what mechanisms (voluntary, emissions trading, taxes on carbon)?

Do you think we can't or shouldn't do anything about climate change---but instead should focus on adaptation to its effects?

Do you think we should rely on technology? Carbon capture and storage (CCS) sounds pretty cool, but can we rely on it? Is greater energy efficiency the key--doing more with less?

============

I intend to explain my perspective in my responses, but I will say that there aren't very good signs. The UK government spends P0.0012 billion per annum (P0.20 per UK person per year) on renewable energy R&D support. In 2006 it spent P5 billion on military hardware (P83 per person per year). In October 2008, the US government bailed out Wall Street to $700 billion; $2000 billion is the cost to Americans of the Iraq war. Priorities.

[P = Pounds, given I don't have one of them buttons].

[Heartless Angel]

The simplest way to cut carbon (not that I believe that makes any significant difference in the global climate, or would fix the problem, but as you said, that isn't the issue) is to rely more heavily on other types of energy, particularly nuclear energy. Something I used not long ago for a college argumentative essay, found in the school database, with information from the EPA and NEI (Nuclear energy institute), "Nuclear power plants already play a powerful role in preventing greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. By using nuclear energy rather than fossil fuel-based plants, electric utilities prevented 647 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in 2009. For perspective, the volume of greenhouse gas emissions prevented at nuclear power plants is equivalent to taking 92 percent of all passenger cars off America's roadways. In the near future, nuclear energy could help decarbonize the transportation sector by providing carbon-free electricity to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric light rail."

And unlike other alternatives, nuclear energy is actually cost effective. Per terawatt hour, the only cheaper energy source than nuclear (that IS including decommissioning costs) is hydroelectric, and only by a little bit. Most other alternatives are terrible in that regard.

But, I honestly don't think cutting carbon now is going to change anything. Global warming IS a natural process, and whether we've sped it up or not, it's here now. Stopping our contribution to the heating isn't actually going to cool us off any. As far as the results of global climate change are concerned, what we need to be focusing on now, is damage control.