?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Climate Poll

Haven't had a poll for ages and just got back from the Dana Centre so have a lot of debatey thoughts on my mind, so...

Poll #664784 Climate Change

Climate Change is..

a problem
13(100.0%)
not a problem
0(0.0%)

If it is a problem, the main issue is...

hundreds of people could die as a result
3(23.1%)
interfering with the natural progression of the eco-system
6(46.2%)
the effect it will have on the economy
1(7.7%)
other (please comment - but not to stand on the fence)
3(23.1%)

Assuming there wasn't any global warming due to pollution or anything like that, should we then try to prevent the natural occurance of the next ice age to prevent human death

Yes
1(8.3%)
No
11(91.7%)

The issues in the Middle-East are forcing Bush to admit he might have to look into alternative energy sources, etc, so in that way the "War on Terror" is actually a good thing?

Yes
2(16.7%)
No
10(83.3%)

Assuming climate change is now inescapable and that we will have to adapt as a result, it is more important to investigate ways...

to minimise this change
4(33.3%)
to adapt to this change
8(66.7%)

If you could give up your future pension knowing that the funds would be put to researching alternative energy sources would you? (A bit of a strange question, but I actually heard someone ask it...)

Yes
1(8.3%)
No
3(25.0%)
Partially
8(66.7%)
No, but I would if it the money was put towards ... instead (please comment with what)
0(0.0%)

Comments

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
ex_robhu
1st Feb, 2006 22:17 (UTC)
Your questions are too loaded!
hmmm_tea
1st Feb, 2006 22:32 (UTC)
The first one is certainly, but I felt it had to be there as a start...

but the others?
ex_robhu
1st Feb, 2006 22:35 (UTC)
The issues in the Middle-East are forcing Bush to admit he might have to look into alternative energy sources, etc, so in that way the "War on Terror" is actually a good thing?
Implies by default it is a bad thing.

hmmm_tea
1st Feb, 2006 22:37 (UTC)
Yes, ok, skip that one if you think the war on terror is a good thing anyway then...
ex_robhu
1st Feb, 2006 22:39 (UTC)
What is the thinking behind "Assuming there wasn't any global warming due to pollution or anything like that, should we then try to prevent the natural occurance of the next ice age to prevent human death" ?
hmmm_tea
1st Feb, 2006 22:43 (UTC)
I was curious...

the vast majority of our recent evolution has been outside an ice-age, so we've naturally developed to live in a non-ice age environment. Is it best to keep it that way?
ex_robhu
1st Feb, 2006 22:45 (UTC)
Why would we want to allow something to happen that would cause mass deaths?
hmmm_tea
1st Feb, 2006 22:46 (UTC)
Why have so many people said no to preventing it then?
ex_robhu
1st Feb, 2006 22:49 (UTC)
When I read the question I felt like it was leading me to agree to doing something now which I wouldn't agree with... so that's why I was about to click no.
hmmm_tea
1st Feb, 2006 22:56 (UTC)
You're clearly reading far too much into this...

I'm not used to being taken that seriously! eeek!
ewx
1st Feb, 2006 23:13 (UTC)

Climate changes of of tens of degrees can happen in a single decade (e.g. Younger Dryas); I suspect that's not something we can hope to counteract at current levels of technology, merely to adapt to.

It's not only the Middle East that's causing people to look at routes to energy independence - consider Venezuela and Russia (the latter having been throwing its weight around regarding gas rather than oil, but the lesson is the same).

AIUI nuclear energy does not require fresh fuel supplies "on tap" the way oil/gas do, and the source are in any case more stable (Canada and Australia are top producers by a fairly comfortable margin). Wind and tides don't require any fuel imports at all of course but I don't think anyone seriously believes you can run a modern economy on just those.

hmmm_tea
1st Feb, 2006 23:22 (UTC)
that's not something we can hope to counteract

Yes, but I didn't mention counteracting I mentioned minimising. ie is it best to invest money to try to reduce the amount the temperature changes by or to develop ways to cope with a massive temperature change if you could only do one or the other?

nuclear energy does not require fresh fuel supplies

Yes, but what do you do with the waste?

anyone seriously believes you can run a modern economy on just those.

Maybe not entirely using current technology, but every little helps...
ewx
2nd Feb, 2006 00:23 (UTC)

Yes, you have to do something with the waste. But that's true of combustion-based power sources, too. Nuclear waste, however, is easier to localize than CO2...

There's only so much energy available from wind and wave, no matter how good your technology. (And these aren't necessarily pollution free either: suck the KE out of air or water and we might well find that various living things - not just surfers - were taking advantage of that energy.)

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Me

Other Sites of Interest

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow