even if man made global warming isn't true whats wrong with reducing GHG anyway?

there's nothing wrong with that.I am sceptical about GW but it's common sense to use resources efficiently and to limit your impact on planet earth.........it's the only one we've got

Which question do you want answered?

What's wrong with reducing GHG anyway?

or

So why all the complaints about governments introducing laws, initiatives, taxes etc to try and reduce the amount we pollute?

...because they are not the same thing.

There is no logical reason to believe that bureaucracy will solve anything. Please read this:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2093...

"The CDM is one of two global markets which have been set up in the wake of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997. Both finally started work in January 2005. Although both were launched with the claim that they would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evidence collected by the Guardian suggests that thus far, both markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through a combination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment."

"The environmental problem is two-fold, first that HFC factories tend to pour out other pollutants which don't happen to be greenhouse gases but which are unpleasant or dangerous for local communities; and second, that the potential profits from burning HFC-23 are so great that companies are being encouraged to expand production of refrigerants so they can produce more HFC-23 to incinerate, thus increasing the net amount of pollution."

You already know about the ill-effects that we can have on our environment. Would more laws or taxes help you to do the right thing? Doubtful.

But for the rest of folks, you stand the risk of diverting attention away from real problems, alienating people with layers upon layers of bureaucratic meddling which may, in the long run, actually cause more environmental damage to the Earth.

It's worth reducing CO2 emissions as much as we can just in case. There are a lot of scientists who claim that there is no evidence for global warming, or human activity isn't the cause of global warming, but their research may be funded by companies that cause a lot of pollution.

Drinnan's point is right, if an electric car is powered by batteries charged using fossil fuels, then this will emmit over twice the CO2 of a petrol engine, because water is heated to make steam to power a turbine to turn an alternator. The electricity is transmitted through cables which loose some of the energy to heat, & em radiation, then the electrical energy is converted to chemical energy in the batteries, then back to electricity when required to power the car.

In a petrol engine the fuel combustion is converted directly into mechanical energy.

Electric cars would have to be charged from renewalble sources.

I know nothing whatsoever about Global Warming Climate Change or Science. What I do know is that you seem to be asking why nothing is being done about the adverse changes we can see, indeed, the pollutants that everybody can see, in the environment?

Now action. That is what I do know about. You want to see how nature changed a flat featureless cow field into a thriving habitat. We have done it, you can see the pictures to prove it. Our neighbours' flooded, see the first of the smaller pictures, we did not because our thirsty trees drank all the water. The photos are the most recent first. So check out the first and last. It was not difficult. It is about observing nature and doing the absolute minimum to ensure she can heal herself. There is a long way to go yet but look at it already. My husband planted trees and dug a pond and dug contours. Nature is healing the land. We have done nothing to it in the last 12 months (shown in these pictures). We will be able to plant anything eventually and it will grow.

My photos are: http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x75/belldonnade...

There are literally thousands of photographed and videoed examples all over the web of Permaculture working on the problems you are concerned about. Permaculture is a way forward.

See:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai_Oi...

I agree with some of what you say.

I am one of those who thinks that global warming is Mostly from natural causes and cycles, and I really am turned off by the hype and by being told I am a "denier".

I do not believe in increasing taxes on gas or things like that though. It would be better to market the alternatives better and let the market handle it naturally.

However, I believe that decreasing pollution, coming up with alternative fuels, and increasing the efficiency of vehicles are very good measures global warming or no global warming, I do Not believe we need to legislate it. Legislating morality has a way of backfiring. If you want a better earth come up with products that people will buy that will be better and the problem will be taken care of without laws.

Having a clean earth is good for everyone, but please without the hype.

There is a lot of evidence that this has happened many times before there was industry and that the sun and underwater warm spots in the earth's core have a lot to do with it. I also agree that China and India and perhaps Mexico pollute thousands of times more than us.

Some of the recommendations I have seen say we should reduce GHG by 80%. an 80% reduction in Carbon Dioxide would essentiallly eliminate all plant growth. This is just another smokescreen to obtain control of our lives. It might be a benefit to reduce hard pollutants, but lets not mess around with Carbon Dioxide levels until we are sure we are doing more good than bad.

I sure wouldn't cut down pine trees, or breed the pollen out of flowers, etc. and Congress had better keep their hands off till they know what they are doing. It is just like the ban on DDT. Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined with "Silent Spring"

We (the Western world) can do all the reducing we want - if you ever venture out into the the big wide world you will see second and third world countries burning fossil fuels for power and using bad grade petrol to power their antiquated cars. The pollution is so bad in Kathmandu and Delhi - you cannot see the sky. These countries have no intention of doing any different so people here spraying one can less of deoderant or buying a smart car is going to make no difference whatsoever.

Then there's the small issue of animal flatulence (trying no to giggle) that accounts for more methane emission than all the cars in the world!!

nothing whatsoever.

i am skeptical of the causes of GW, but i am not skeptical of the environmental and health problems created by that same pollution.

That is why i usually just smile and nod when I discuss the issue with people.

It doesn't matter what is occurring with the climate, pollution is still a HUGE problem that we need to get under control.

people who say CO2 is not a pollutant, should try standing in a room with 3% CO2 concentration, and find out how they feel about it after 3-5 hours.

anything that isn't properly disposed of, is a potential pollutant.

What's wrong is all the smog requirement that are forced on to cars.

I remember building my hot rod back in the 80's that burned cleaner than most other cars that still had the smog equipment installed and prices of cars have been jacked up because of the smog crap.

We shouldn't force "laws" do make things cleaner. That only causes "fines" for those who don't comply properly and then if there's less money for them to have for research, then they can't comply any time soon.

I think it's mainly the money issue. The government doesn't really want to make the time and money to do this, therefore they try to dismiss the belief of man-made global warming. If people start thinking that it isn't true, then the government wouldn't have the need to find the time and money to do such a feat.

Pollutants, and GHG's, are not necessarily synonymous.

Make sure your chemistry, physics, and biology are correct.

GHG's are normal constituents of our atmosphere, and necessary for us to function. The water vapor is from all the water of this earth, and we are ourselves largely water, along with other life. Get rid of H2O vapor in the air, and we are dessicated dust!

CO2 is a GHG, and is a necessary part of the plant cycle to get our food and shelter, among other things. It also regulates our breathing to an extent. Get rid of CO2 and you destroy our food and ability to breathe normally.

Methane is a normal byproduct of the fermentation of our food inside our bodies; to get rid of it would require a total biological overhaul, including new enzymes, new bacteria, etc.

I am one who does not believe increasing CO2 is the end of the world; I see it as benefiting food plant growth, making the clime in general easier on man as a warm-blooded animal, and offering many new opportunities to expand and have places for the new population arrivals. An opportune timing.

And I am not nearly convinced by computer runs that cannot show the MWP and LIA lest they not show huge global warmings attributable to man and man only. I am not convinced by computer runs where they adjust the "multipliers" until the get the results they want. I am not convinced by computer runs where they have to adjust the "smoothing" factors to wipe out inconvenient variables to get the desired results.

Now as to pollutants, like noxious dusts, gases that cause diseases, chemicals like pesticides that harm more than the pests, etc. By all means have at them. Keep mercury where it belongs. Fight lead contamination. Go after gases shown to have carcinogenic characteristics. Ban smoking except in controlled home environments with purifiers before the air is released back into the ecological system.

Cut down pine trees that pollute the air with hydrocarbons, terpenes, and ozone.

Ban sprays of anything not natural: deodorants, perfumes, foaming cleansers, polyurethane insulations, etc., that can release pollutants. Likewise house paints and varnishes.. Ban the use of hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons as cleaning agents because to the tendency to get into the atmosphere.

We got lots more important things to work on than CO2 and H2O and CH4, which are natural, non-toxic, and normal!!.

And remember, going to an all hydrogen economy for power would not only cause potential for explosive results, but all the water vapor produced is a GHG, and would put the natural GHG balance all out of whack.

Shall we invent a hat to put over forest fires with fans feeding a bed of refrigerated slaked lime to suck away and sequester all the CO2 and H2O and hydrocarbon GHGs the fire produces? Or does "natural" GHG like this produce no problem?

What say, friend?