U.S. Government: Global Warming Is Real, Serious

"Interact with many social… stresses?"
.
Why, that's a thinly-veiled assault on our precious freedoms and an unfounded political attack against principled conservatives! Science must apologize immediately!
.
Wait…
.
Sorry – apparently insanity is contagious after all. Never mind.

According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 66% of Americans find deficit/debt to be a "very big threat to our country and its future." Compare this to 30% who feel climate change/global warming to be a serious threat to our nation....
.
Not drawing any conclusions from these findings, just putting this out there for discussion.

I am sure that the administration will now address the issue with the urgency of saving Goldman Sachs from insolvency.

An excellent Step 1: acknowledging reality.
I'm just as interested in Step 2: doing something about it.
And hoping that we eventually get to Step N -- reducing humanity's overall impact on the planet, chiefly by population control and (peaceful) reduction -- before we run out of planet.

Population control and reduction?
.
Did I miss the memo informing us that individual life is no longer something to be held in high regard?

Joe:
Your proposed means are in no way justified by your pursued ends....
.

My own feeling is that global warming is real, man-made and serious and the proper time to get down to business and take care of it is 40 years ago.
The proper task now is figuring out how to mitigate the damage that's already been done.

@neo,
The population of the world has more than doubled during my lifetime. Do you actually think it can do so again in yours without some serious ill effects?

[...] in Daily life, Environment, Global warming, Government, Science at 12:54 pm by LeisureGuy Actually, he’s quoting the conclusions of the government study, but it’s well worth noting: A group of 13 federal agencies, coordinated by the White House [...]

I'd rather take my chances than lower myself to the position of advocating population control...
.
If that's our solution to this problem, its not worth the moral costs...

Yes, God forbid that people are ever encouraged to use condoms. That would be utterly beyond the pale......
.
You're kidding, right?

That is called population control. Joe used the term population reduction. There is a difference....

And as I see I used the term "population control" as well in my 3:57PM post. My apologies. I am taking issue with Joe's proposition of 'population reduction,' peaceful or otherwise.

Neo,
I'm sure Joe meant something similar to a one-child policy in order to achieve population reduction, not actually killing a bunch of people or whatever. At least I hope that's what he meant.
I believe population control is an ugly, taboo, and unpopular topic that we are going to have to take seriously and get used to in the next 50 years.
I also believe that the best way to keep individual life in high regard is to make sure we have enough water, food, air, fuel, and land to comfortably go around. I'm sure the non-human species wouldn't mind a bit of earth themselves.
Seriously, we need to get our population in equilibrium with our environment (like every other mammal species). This will benefit everything and everyone in the end, even if it offends some people's deep seated tendency to breed like rabbits.

Neo - I be beginnin' t' think tha' ye be one o' our own wee trolls reincarnatin' itself...be ye rusty? spongy? texty? 'r one o' th' others?
.
Then ag'in...ye weren't seemin' t' be familiar wi' th' pirate wench, so per'aps ye be a new stonefish blowin' yer gills after all...
.
RE th' report, I'd be sayin' "DUH!", bu' it be apparent tha' it be needin' t' be spelled out, fer those workin' off wha' they be feelin' instead o' wha' actual be.
.
Arrgh!

PD,
-
That's a pretty neo-malthusian statement about the inability of the planet's population to double or not.
-
I'd also like to point out that while some models of climate change predict declines in the food supply, many others predict increases in food production due to warmer weather, longer growing seasons, and extra CO2 in the air to fuel photosynthesis.
-
I really like that this piece (at least the excerpt in the post) doesn't go all crazy on the carbon bandwagon. Could this be a sign that the land use theories are finally beginning to gain more traction with those in power? One can only hope.

Well considering that around these parts troll is synonymous with conservative, than yes, I suppose I am a troll.
.
I see no oddity in me being uncomfortable with solving the world's problem by way of population reduction. I have no problems with birth control and such, but if we are talking about regulating how many children a woman may bear, i.e forced abortions or mandatory surgical procedures, or worse, eliminating the elderly and sickly, than we are facing a moral crossroad which I am confident will destroy what little decency there is left in this world.
.
The reason this is even a problem is because of advancements in medicine and technology. We now live longer, overcome illness easier, and infant mortality rates are way down. So to offset these advancements we now become merchants of death, eliminating through societal and legal means those who we fear may become a burden upon our lives.
.
In case you haven't noticed the earth is largely uninhabited. Urban populations account for over half of the world's population and this trend is growing. By 2030 it is predicted that 60% of the world's people will reside in major cities. If you were to look at global satellite night imagery you will see that the vast majority of the earth (land included) is unlit. There is abundant room left for expanding populations. There is no need to begin regulating expansion patterns by way of enacted birthing limits. This is absurd and contrary to any notion of rationality, morality, and freedom.

Neo -- It's not only where folks live... you've got to leave a lot of room for agriculture and other types of food production for all those bodies, too. Then there's the question of potable water -- after all, lot of those "dark" places you're seeing on the satellite map are, of course, deserts.

"There is abundant room left for expanding populations."
If you want to take that statement literally, then yeah. But you have to FEED and WATER and FUEL those populations. The prime reason behind deforestation is the need for MORE LAND to grow or graze more food to feed MORE PEOPLE. World seafood consumption is so high that most feeder species will collapse within 40 years. Closer to home, cities in the American southwest know first hand the water shortage problems that are become a major issue in many parts of the world. And don't even get me started on peak oil or traffic congestion. We don't even have enough space to store our trash! Landfills are rapidly filling up everywhere. There are garbage islands in the ocean the size of TEXAS. People are going to be displaced as sea levels rise (you think NOLA was bad?). Where are you going to send them? There's no free frontier land ripe for the taking anywhere. I'm sure there will be some positive effects from global warming, but they will be far outweighed by the negatives. People like you that are implying there is plenty of untouched virgin earth that is just ready and waiting to be populated because it is our manifest destiny to spit out as many kids as we feel like have another thing coming. Population reduction is about as comfortable as having The Sex Talk with your parents, but it is just as necessary.

I'm firmly in favor of population reduction efforts. I'd like to see us take firm action that makes it clear that large families are NOT the way to go. I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating the tax credit for every child after number two. Starting now, not retroactively. I'd like to see birth control be made free and widely available. Educate the high schollers on sex, not the abstinence only nonsense. These are least controversial things I'd like to see implemented. Free vasectomies. Free tubes tied. Incentives for having no children. And last...F#@K the Borgen Project. If you feed em' they'll breed.

OK, schoolers.

This is a good step-- but the ultimate question is: will we switch to an alternate transportation fuel?
.
IMO, as long as cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, etc. run on oil-based fuel there will be no significant change in our climate's trajectory. Alternatives are possible (for instance, here) but I'm pessimistic that our elected polititians have the will to buck the oil lobby and the military industry.

I second sacredh's solutions! As someone who is childless by choice, I am amazed at how negatively people view our decision here in 2009. The mindset about large families needs to change and adoption needs to be made a more available option for those who do choose to raise children. Did you know pretty much no doctor will tie your tubes before 30 soley for sterilization purposes (http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/tubal_ligation_denied)?

I just had my third kid. I guess that makes me an enemy of the planet.

I'd like to quote the ultimate of authorities...
~
Agent Smith:
~
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
~
The Matrix