See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5110357/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
I, for one, am grateful for global warming.
The existential threat will drive innovation even faster, leading us to a Singularity.
It's all part of the embryology of the Global Mind. The nucleus is consuming the albumen.
The convergence of Bio-, Nano- & IT, fossil, hydro, nuclear and etc. (non-renewable) will become stone age technology and be abandoned. Energy in the form of hydrogen or organic fuel from sun via synthetic biology will soon arrive. Examples: LS9, Joule Unlimited and etc. The key is how to cooperate and collaborate worldwide, and how to share and spread the technology, and to avoid another energy business war. Human civilization urgently need an upward evolution in the way we live, the value system we used to. System based on selfish and greedy capitalsitic competition just won't work. With all the fantastic technology, old system will still screw the world up anyway. Why can't we make energy as free as air, then people will not abuse out of greed and selfish, but like air only take the part needed.
After being critical of the options available in your previous poll, I'll note that I think the selection of options available in this one are chosen well. Good job.
Note that the third, fourth, and sixth answers are not incompatible. They just seem to focus on different aspects of the remediation timeline.
This reflects an important reality regarding the practical approach we must take to climate change: there may be s0me question about short-term magnitude of the warming trend - how hight it will go, how great its effects will be, and how effective any practical efforts we take now will be in ameliorating those effects. But that uncertainly actually has little significance for the debate over what solutions we must adopt. Whether we believe global warming can be stopped or reversed in the short term, or will produce centuries-long climate changes, the steps we have to take now and in the medium-term are the same.
Reversing global warming, if it can be done, requires curbing atmospheric CO2 emissions, but even if it's too late to undo the harm we've already done, we still must drastically cut CO2 emissions to avoid making it worse - so the practical steps to be taken regarding carbon emissions are the same in either case. The only way to reduce carbon emissions in the short term is to end our dependency on fossil fuels, but even if that will not effectively slow global warming, we must stop wasting fossil carbon resources by burning them up, in order to preserve them now that we are on the downside of peak oil - so the practical steps to be taken regarding fossil fuels are the same in either case. The only way to wean ourselves from fossil-fuel energy is to develop safe and clean alternative energies - and since we must stop burning fossil fuels whether or not that will reverse global warming, the practical steps to be taken regarding energy policy are the same in either case.
In short, it doesn't matter whether you think we can reverse global warming now, or must settle for stopping it at some elevated point in the near future, or are doomed to long-term climate disaster and slow remediation; the steps we have to take now and in the medium term are essentially the same. So not only are answers 3, 4, and 6 not incompatible, they point to the same practical programs (in broad perspective at least). Anybody who offers one of those answers is a naturally ally of everybody who offers any of the others.
voted: sensible approach.
But solar panel will likely follow a Moore's law trend given massive manufacturing bases in China.
How about another choice--reduce CO2, formulate plan to adapt AND!!! develop brains to innovate around this challenge.
Stop wasting human potential. And slap those greens who think people in poor countries should die.