What's the best approach to deal with AGW?

Conservation and energy efficiency measures are a good starting point, but are ultimately as inadequate as the "duck and cover" film from the cold war era in response to a nuclear attack.

Solar energy in various forms is the best long term alternative.

The US could theoretically satisfy its transportation fuel requirements with algae cultivation on approximately 15,000 sq miles for a capital cost on the order of $308.billion.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

The advantages of this approach are:

1. the fuel can be used in the current fleet of diesel vehicles.

2. the existing fuel distribution network can be used

3. the estimated cost of producing 140.8 billion gallons annually is $46.2 billion or about $0.33 per gallon.

A mixture of photo voltaic and photo thermal energy could supply all of the electrical energy requirements of the US for an investment on the order of $400 billion.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-...

The plan is cost competitive with coal power plants and has the principle advantages of being renewable and non-polluting.

Neither power scheme is a net contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Wind and wave energy projects should be developed where ever feasible.

The source cited is apparently a photo catalysis method for converting carbon dioxide to a reduced form, ergo an artificial plant. Although the process looks feasible in principle, I think that nature is far ahead in the photosynthesis business.

Funding: I think that a tariff on imported energy should be enacted to encourage all forms of domestic energy production. The proceeds of the tariff should be used to build renewable biodiesel and solar energy projects. Domestic oil production would benefit indirectly and would displace some imports in the short term.

I'm all for increased mpg's,but carbon based compounds will never disappear.It's in everything from metal,lubricants, and paint.Not to mention organic life forms.

Basically the only insight I got from extraction,is massive carbon dumps.You know of course,that molecules work on the same principle as energy. All they are doing, is the same thing nature does.So it's not a viable solution,unless they can make a carbon atom transform into something else.

Prevention is not going to work. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the AGW crowd focuses exclusively preventing global warming through GHG emissions reduction.

If the globe is warming, it will continue to warm for several decades. This will occur regardless of GHG emissions reductions in the next couple of decades.

The proper approach would be mitigating the problems that will arise in the future.

In areas of predicted sea level rise, low lying areas need to start thinking of building dikes and flood control devices.

Places that are predicted to experience more extreme weather need to implement building codes to better match the power of storms predicted.

Agricultural growing zones need to be closely monitored so that crops can be planted in the proper conditions so that food shortages don't occur.

I think you get the drift of what i am saying, mitigation not prevention is the better way to go.

I consistently tell individuals that when learning or experimenting, ultimate purpose is of the utmost importance. i'll possibly get many thumbs down for my reaction. no longer through fact it is illogical, yet through fact it annoying circumstances what you have desperate is real. regardless of persisted scientists from the AGW gadget stepping forward and admitting that their conclusions have been consistent with fake records, regardless of fewer individuals each and each twelve months believing interior the hazards of international warming, regardless of the blatant passing of recent rules and freedoms lost interior the call of environmental protection, and regardless of the overpowering evidence that there have been considerable climate alterations previous to the invention of the scapegoats of international warming, the schedule remains pushed forward commencing with people who're hiding the reality onto nicely meaning individuals like your self who're purely attempting to do what's perfect. perform a little purpose analyze, be a minimum of keen to admit which you will have been deceived. I firmly believe in preserving out planet. this is the only one we've. we could desire to consistently be preserving it sparkling, reducing, reusing, and recycling. I firmly stand against the mendacity to the individuals of our great u . s . with the intention to deprive them of freedoms and economic protection. analyze the two aspects of the argument. I even have.

Tidal power, hydroelectric dams, clean cars, offshore wind turbines, appliances no longer sold with standby buttons but must be turned off at the mains, flights only allowed in holiday seasons. I still don't think that reducing 60% of our 5% of the amount of CO2 in the atmoshere can make a difference, because it's 5% of 0.0038% of the atmosphere, which is nothing.

Why does "BUSH" enter into discussions on GW? If this ONE guy is so powerful that he can change the course of the US Economy, Control Global Oil Prices, Affect the Weather, and put children and old folks out on the street!--- then let's fire all those useless politicians in Congress that actually write our laws and dole out the money----- and let one person run it all!

Bush has absolutely nothing to do with any discussions on this forum--- our with GW pros or cons.

Since it's not real and there are no scientific studies that prove humans cause global warming, we should just ignore it.

If you really believe it you would turn off your computer for the rest of your life, quit using oil and carbon products and also quit breathing out.

I doubt you'll do any of that, so quit telling us to pay for your beliefs.

You say you're a non-theist. I say your religion is AGW. Quit preaching your religion. We're not interested in joining this fascist religion.

Reduce human population down to about two billion people by each couple having only one child. That will reduce the human contribution. Of course, other species will move in and take up the slack.

Time will tell if there is any overall difference. The current neo- Marxist eco-bigots assume most human-generated greenhouse gasses comes from industry. I suspect a lot comes from both ends of people and their livestock, and land usage in the non-industrial world.

Sit b back and watch the whole thing go away in about 2 years.

Add a carbon tax to products at the point of sale. This will incent the market to reduce carbon impact of products.