The political economy of global warming

by Russ Roberts on February 7, 2007

in Environment, Politics

The din to do something about global warming appears to be deafening. Article after article in the media. The UN report. An Oscar nomination and maybe a Nobel Prize for Al Gore. A deafening din. A groundswell of concern. Unrelenting pressure to do something to save the earth.

But I don’t think much is going to happen in the policy arena, other than a few symbolic gestures. Here’s why.

The average American doesn’t really mind global warming. Remember those mild temperatures last month? It was in the 60s here in the DC area. People loved it. They certainly like those days better than yesterday when the temperature was in the single digits. People like cocaine, too. Most of us avoid it, though because we’re worried about the short term consequences. But the short term consequences of global warming are tiny. Most of the serious consequences are at least 90 years away and even 90 years from now, a rational person is probably pretty optimistic that we’ll cope with a sea level that’s 23 inches higher. A rational person is also pretty skeptical about the ability of scientists to forecast sea level in 90 years. So there’s no pressing demand by the average person to push politicians to pursue policies that lower our income today in return for something a century or more from now.

It’s one thing to convince people that the earth is getting warmer. It’s another thing to convince people that human actions are the cause of global warming. But it’s a much harder thing still to convince people that the results of global warming will be something other than a more pleasant winter in Minnesota and a less pleasant summer in Arizona. You’ve got to convince people that we’re making the earth less hospitable for human and other life forms. We all know that the earth goes through big climate swings. So how likely is it that we’re actually going to destroy the earth? On top of all that, you’ve got to convince people we can actually do something about the problem. As Robert Samuelson points out, there’s not that much we can do.

This short-run basic human pleasure most Americans get from warmer weather helps people feel good about being skeptical about the data and the science. How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there’s a debate about whether to use 90% or 99% as the likelihood that we’re changing the earth’s climate? That’s not science. That’s politics. How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there are serious scientists suggesting the whole thing is a hoax. Jeff Jacoby lists a few here. And there are others. These folks aren’t saying the estimates are off by 10%. They’re saying the whole thing is a hoax. How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when you know that a lot of the experts are on the government and foundation funding gravy train and their livelihood depends on remaining on the right side?

But the biggest reason nothing is going to happen is that Al Gore Oscar nomination. Imagine ten years from now that the United States starts getting more protectionist. We start limiting imports and refusing to honor trade agreements. In response, George W. Bush does a brilliant documentary on the virtues of free trade. I don’t care how brilliant and accurate and persuasive the documentary turns out. At least 40% of the American people (and maybe it will be a lot more than 40%) will decide that because it comes from George Bush, the whole thing must be garbage with a hidden political agenda. Well about 40% of the American people (and maybe a lot more than 40%) think that Al Gore has a political agenda and can’t be trusted.

Having Al Gore as the most recognized advocate for action against global warming reduces the political likelihood of action. It politicizes something that should be pure science and reminds people that the solutions to global warming are going to come via the political process rather than from the experts.

The final reason we’re not going to do anything about global warming is because the Chinese  aren’t going to do anything about global warming. If the Chinese don’t do anything, our incentive is very small. We will have to take a big hit in standard of living to make up for the surge in the Chinese pollution that’s coming. And I don’t think the Chinese are going to do anything to reduce their march toward modernity.

A final thought: the experts on global warming bear little cost for making overly pessimistic predictions about the world in 2100.  So they have an incentive to make overly pessimistic predictions.

True, their reputations will be harmed. But right now they are all in the same boat. You don’t look foolish predicting that Florida is going to disappear if almost everyone else with glowing credentials makes the same argument. So I’m a little skeptical of their pessimism given that the costs of pessimism is low and benefits in the form of being on the good side of the funding angels is high. But they could be right. Maybe the earth is headed toward a fiery end. But if I’m right about the politics, then we’ll get to find out if the experts are right to be pessimistic. We’ll find out, not because we’ll all be alive in 2100, though many of us could be, but because we’re going to get a lot more data in the next decade or two to see if the current pessimism is justified. So we’ll talk again in 2020 and see whether the scientific consensus is as dire or direr than it is now.

That din we’re hearing now is either going to keep getting louder or it’s going to fade away. But because we’re not likely to do anything serious, we’re going to get a lot more data that will either enhance or destroy the current so-called consensus.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

Add a Comment    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 35 comments }

tw February 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Just curious….do you see anything Malthusian in the argument/dire predictions coming from the "global warming is caused by humans" side?

Brian Moore February 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

To me, a big part of the equation is that 100 year time frame. I'm completely willing to accept that global warming is happening and that people can cause it. But if temperatures go up 2 degree F (a normal yearly variation) and the oceans rise 1000mm (again, a normal variation) then I'm not really concerned, 100 years in the future. Especially since there will be 100 years of technology to counteract or minimize these effects.

It's like someone in 1850 saying "the drastically increasing production of buggy whips will cause an environmental catastrophe in 1950 that will only be curable if mankind is somehow able to fly through the sky on magical machines." Sure, it may be a concern given the current state of affairs — but that's the whole point of the future, it's a different state of affairs.

Just like "Peak Oil," any future scenario that's dependant on current technology is inherently suspect because it doesn't take into account 100/200/300 years of technological advance that may make such problems trivial.

Randy February 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm

The global warming issue is primarily a political issue just like the minimum wage is primarily a political issue. Both are used by the Democrats to make those of us who have a tendancy to see and point out the cost side of the equation appear heartless and uncaring. What's amazing to me is that they get away with it time and time again. An appropriate response to calls to raise the minimum wage would be, "absolutely, we think it should be raised to $20/hr". An appropriate response to calls to "do something" about global warming would be, "absolutely, we should shut down all the factories immediately, impound all SUVs, and go to war with China if they refuse to comply".

ben February 7, 2007 at 3:49 pm

I think what is going on here is this. Global warming is the touchstone that has given socialists a new home now that communism is finally discredited. These socialists see consumption itself as immoral, and now have a scientific hypothesis with at least some credibility to demonstrate that this immorality has real world consequences. For socialists, the environment is the excuse not the goal. Their goal is the suppression of capitalism. I believe this explains the limited role of technology and R&D in green policy, when it seems to me technology is central. Technology promises ever higher consumption alongside ever lower environmental effects – win-win to anyone except a socialist.

The socialists have found in true environmentalists – these are the ones that actually care about the planet – a common goal in the suppression of consumption.

Just a hypothesis, but if correct then the global warming movement promises disaster. Socialism killed more people than war last century. The suppression of DDT, on which the environmental movement was founded, has killed 10-30 million. Now these two movements have joined forces. Again I say Al Gore is the most dangerous man on the planet.

Gary Dikkers February 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm

The thing to remember is that global warming is real, but that it is also natural. Global cooling is also a natural phenomenon.

In fact, where I sit writing this was covered by 5,000 ft of ice only 15,000 years ago. That ice disappeared (fortunately for the people and agriculture in the upper Midwest) as part of a natural cycle. Many times during the last 2 million years, the climate fluctuated between warmer and cooler temperatures. During the colder fluctuations, glaciers formed and spread outward from Arctic areas, engulfing most of northern North America. Each of the major glaciations has been followed by a warmer interglacial period, similar to that of today, during which the glaciers melted away.

Both warming and cooling work on long natural cycles with periods of tens or hundreds of thousands of years we can't even begin to understand.

Remember this

* It has been both cooler and warmer in the past than it is now.

* It will be both cooler and warmer in the future than it is now.

It is hubris in the extreme to think we can control or affect natural cycles that operate on geological and cosmological time and that will continue long after there are no longer any humans on the earth.

Francois Tremblay February 7, 2007 at 6:32 pm

"You've got to convince people that we're making the earth less hospitable for human and other life forms."

We're not.

Ivan February 7, 2007 at 6:54 pm

You've made some valid points regarding the politics of global warming, but I think you're missing something about the science… "How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there's a debate about whether to use 90% or 99% as the likelihood that we're changing the earth's climate? That's not science. That's politics." No, that is exactly science. (And by the way, if you had either a 90% or 99% percent of crashing your car when you drive it, would you really need to hear the final consensus before you decide to take the bus?) Scientists are constantly re-evaluating, re-testing, debating, and honing their hypotheses. The technology used for global warming analyses (GPS, fast computers) is mostly only a decade or two old, and the scientists are tweaking their models as they learn more and develop better technology. (You'll notice in the most recent UN report many of the predicted numbers have been decreased.)

So while I certainly agree that the doomsday contingent (Gore included) has gone overboard and has largely ignored the rapid pace of advancing technology (my '67 Impala is surely polluting the air more than the rest of the vehicles on my block combined) and also the need for industrialization in developing countries, just to name a twothings. But by and large, I don't think it's the scientists blowing this out of proportion; once again it lies with the media's inability to present scientific information (and especially both sides of an issue) to the layman and politicians inability to understand how to do anything other than get elected. Pick any topic in your field of expertise and then find an article in the newspaper or find out your congressman's position on it and see how that information compares to what you know.

The columns on this site are generally so informative and full of facts–this one struck me as anecdotal and not so well thought out.

Anyway, it's the cows and the volcanoes doing all the damage. And really it's the LONG-term consequences of cocaine you need to look out for.

Sam February 7, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Let's not look at this as a debate over science. It's a debate over who's going to be in charge.

August February 7, 2007 at 7:04 pm

The noise coming from the environmentalists today sounds just like what we have recently heard from the so-called New Atheists.

Both of these groups are happy to have the government mandate their views. They also, quite clearly, want to criminalize their opposition.

So, the question is, are these groups ready to treat America in the same way the Nazis treated the Wiemar Republic? I am worried because these people are doing this for some reason. Perhaps they are getting desperate and they think they will lose it all soon. Or they have some reason to believe they will win.

Either way, I remember how we used to make jokes about people suing McDonald's for making them fat back when the major tobacco lawsuits where going on. Now those jokes are real, and it's just not funny. So, I am starting to think stronger responses are necessary, along with more than a bit of wariness.

kurt February 7, 2007 at 8:30 pm

I wonder if there could be some kind of arrangement where climate scientists could put their money where their mouth is? They'll get a good return when there is a belief that their predictions become "true," and I should be able to hedge on the possibility that their predictions will eventually turn out "false." Let the free market decide upon the yields :)

David White February 7, 2007 at 8:31 pm

tw is right:

"We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years. Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences, such as global warming, fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem." — http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html

marysienka February 7, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Thank you, Gary Dikkers. It is awfully self-absorbed to run around thinking that the preceding 100 years and the following 100 years are all that counts in this arena. I don't feel Al Gore is qualified to pronounce doom and moral necessity upon us all. Unless, of course, he really did invent global warming just like he invented the internet.

Henri Hein February 7, 2007 at 9:07 pm

The big clincher is that environmentalists have been so consistently and so spectacularly wrong with all past predictions of doomsday. If we are not running out of food, we are running out of coal, oil, water, forest, or little furry animals. If we are not running out of something, we are getting too much of something else. The rumors of Earth's demise have been regularly exaggerated.

I do have one nitpick:

"The final reason we're not going to do anything about global warming is because the Chinese aren't going to do anything "

You can't say "the reason for X is because Y."

http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/072303.htm

jpm February 7, 2007 at 9:19 pm

This blog is clearly infected with by a bunch of Right Wing Republican CHRISTIANS!!

RWP February 7, 2007 at 9:25 pm

I too read the CFP article. The howl is deafening and the article reminded me how much people tend to go with the herd.

We sure are an arrogant species. Even given the most dire predictions about global warming, and let's say they come true, things might change greatly but nature will endure. We might find it uncomfortable but natural state of humanity is probably not 21st century western civilization. For most of history having enough to eat and maybe an alcoholic beverage was paradise.

Living on the Florida coast, pardon my harsh opinion, is asking for it. Remember boys and girls… there is no free lunch.

ben February 7, 2007 at 9:37 pm

"Remember boys and girls… there is no free lunch."

Actually you are surrounded by free lunches. You are typing on one, wearing one, and you drive one. Technology is a free lunch.

python February 7, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Like many other readers, I have thought long and hard about global warming. I believe that humans have a lot of good and a lot of bad ideas. But I can't recall any bad ideas that had enough strength to destroy the planet. Even if releasing gobs of CO2 is a vastly bad idea, what observer believes that humans don't have the ability to adapt to the negative effects – either by reversing the negative effects or by using technology to deal with those effects.

Bad ideas die by their own sword, we don't need the government to ordain ideas. If driving gasoline vehicles is really a bad idea then we will figure it out before the end of the world comes.

In my 30 something years I have been inundated with fears of famine, drought, hurricanes, meteors, Soviet invasion, overpopulation, flooding and earthquakes. But this one is for REAL, trust them.

A proof of their cluelessness is when these "scientists" continue to say things like "if the current rate continues until 2100…". And the media echos them like they were Gods. These "scientists" are awesome – they can predict the temperature 100 years from now, and how much gas my great grandchildren will use in their cars, but they can't accurately tell me if it will rain in 3 days.

I believe many of these guys are anti-capitalist, anti-freedom socialists who can't stand it when individuals choose to use resources without first consulting the Elders for permission.

It blew my mind recently when some big study stated that the United States uses something like 20% of the world's drinking water, but are only 5% of the world's population. It was listed amongst other resuorce-hogging things like pollution and garbage. As if there is a limited supply of drinking water and we were going around the world taking it from people. And this was supposedly a serious report.

TKC February 7, 2007 at 10:03 pm

"So there's no pressing demand by the average person to push politicians to pursue policies that lower our income today in return for something a century or more from now."

That certainly is believable but it is not so much the people that are pushing this than it is the politicians. Politicians who see a bigger cash haul and more power while at the same time pretending to do what is right for us. So it is not surprising to me to see where the global warming pressure is coming from.

Bruce G Charlton February 8, 2007 at 1:37 am

Well said, Russ – this is it in a nutshell!

Another point is that the current consensus combines almost hysterical pessimism about the magnitude and causes of global warming, with an nearly-insane *optimism* about human capability of controlling the global climate.

It is this optimism concerning the efficacy of leftist technocracy, combined with a non-geological sense of *urgency* which makes me feel that the current consensus is unscientific and mainly politically-motivated.

tigertail February 8, 2007 at 5:21 am

Great and concise piece Russ. Global warming is all politics all the time. As you, Michael Crichton, lot's of scientists and many of the posters here have pointed out, it's hard to predict what's going to happen in 24 hours let along 100 years. As you pointed out, there are absolutely no consequences for guessing wrong in the negative here. Here's a little anecdotal proof: In 1977 it was very, very cold. As a high school kid growing up in Central Florida we had the first and only "snow day" in the history of the school, the air temp was down to 14 degrees F, around 9 with the wind chill. It was below zero in much of the northeast and midwest for much of the winter that year. Time magazine had a "definitive" article on climate change where scientist declared with real certainty that the world was going into a global ice age and there was nothing we could do to stop it. None of those scientists was ever fired, outed, humiliated or ostracized to my knowledge. A few of them still working probably totally endorse the global warming theory-even though it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS their findings from the 1977 study that was used in Time magazine. And they take this position without consequences. If it were a more traditional conservative cause and the economist, scientist or sociologist who made the prediction based on his/her theory wouldn't be ignored. Like Milton Friedman who said over and over again free trade, less regulation and lower taxes equal freedom and prosperity for those who wish to embrace it, the main stream media ignores the fact that his theory is completely correct and that he should be lauded. Instead they continue to push socialist agendas like protectionism, wage gap equality, universal health care, marriage between any two persons and zero moral value legislation. So, it is politics with global warming and the very worst kind too.

Lee February 8, 2007 at 7:39 am

"This blog is clearly infected with by a bunch of Right Wing Republican CHRISTIANS!!"

I honestly can't tell whether this comment is intended to be a parody or not.

If anything many "right wing republican Christians" seem quite at home with the idea of a coming apocolypse. Ironically, modern "liberals" are likely to berate them for this.

Competition is most fierce between those comepting to provide the same product and attract the same customers. The apparrant polarisation along the left-right spectrum disguises the fact that they are competing for the same minds, and hence are the most fierce in competition. They are competing for the same minds.

I think Hayek first made this observation somewhere.

Keith February 8, 2007 at 7:54 am

I can't help but think of global warming fanatics through the analogy of an ancient astronomer that has just discovered that all through October and November the days have been getting shorter and shorter, and by sometime in February or March the sun will disappear completely. The evidence is irrefutable and anybody that doesn't recognise it is simply delusional and irrational.

Unfortunately, by the time our "spring" arrives, the damage wrought by these fanatics will be done (and they'll take credit for bringing back "spring" on top of it).

Ray February 8, 2007 at 8:23 am

So I'm supposed to believe economists about global warming – am I then supposed to believe climatologists about economic theory?

Just replace scientists with economists and global warming with minimum wage or free trade in your screed and what happens – good economists disagree with your stand on minimum wage and free trade and there are certainly a lot of economists on the gravy train of governmental, foundation, and academic largess.

Matt C. February 8, 2007 at 8:52 am

Ben states: "Actually you are surrounded by free lunches. You are typing on one, wearing one, and you drive one. Technology is a free lunch."

Actually there is no free lunch. See the earlier post by Russ about the Opportunity Cost. There is ALWAYS a cost.

Russell Nelson February 8, 2007 at 9:00 am

Ray, economists study the science oof human action more than anything else. Consequently yes, we are qualified to say what Russ has said: that no action will be taken on global warming.

Russ Roberts February 8, 2007 at 9:02 am

Ray,

I didn't say you shouldn't agree with the "experts" on global warming. I said that most people don't agree. But to be fair to your point, I am skeptical.

And I think most Americans are skeptical of economists views on the minimum wage. And rightly so, for all kinds of reasons. But I would never try and persuade some about the minimum wage using my Ph. D as proof that I'm right. I try and use logic and evidence. The logic and evidence on global warming are less convincing to me than the consensus seems to indicate. That's partly because, as an economist, I am skeptical of predictions based on data and imperfect theory. My feeling, maybe wrong, is that the theory of global warming isn't quite as ironclad as the theories we have about how gravity affects the orbit of the moon. Then you toss in the incentives facing scientists and I get even more uneasy. But I'm happy to admit I'm uninformed on global warming and it really is real and it's caused by humans. What remains to be shown is that this makes the world a less pleasant place. I think the science on that is even more tenuous. Then you throw in the politics of trying to solve the problem and I get even less interested in centralized top-down solutions to the problem.

I think a lot of people share this skepticism in varying degrees and that will make political consensus very hard to reach. That's the essence of what I'm saying.

Matt C. February 8, 2007 at 9:08 am

Lee-
Hayek did discuss the Socialist, Communist and the Nazis as trying to compete for the same individual. It was in the Road to Serfdom. All with the same basic ideas with minor changes in ideology, but still leading to the growth of Socialism over all.

gene berman February 8, 2007 at 11:52 am

Global warming is no hoax! "Words mean stuff."–Rush Limbaugh The (proper) word is "fraud."

Sam February 8, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Many of the younger scientists have been through public indoctrina…ahem, excuse me, I mean public education, where they learned about global warming as accepted fact from well meaning but mostly incompetent teachers (lacking an ability for critical thinking).
What do you get when a scientist with an avid belief looks at interpretable data?
A foregone conclusion.

I think J. Patrick Michaels has been on point on this topic for years.

Brad Hutchings February 8, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Good point Russ. I've been trying to make a similar point in a discussion on Nick Schulz' latest TCS essay. The point is that this is political now. The science may or may not inform the debate, but it does not drive it. Even if the science is 100% explanatory and (better) 100% predictive, it does not drive the debate. Our political process has other concerns to weigh, and it will weigh them. And people who think that the science is some trump card they can continually play are in for a fight.

The world will not be rolled like it was over DDT, CFCs, etc. There is way too much historical context to bring into play. And America doesn't give a rat's backside that Europe is leading the way on global warming. These are the same people that let tens of thousands of their elderly die in a heat wave (France) and have violent riots over soccer games. Puh-lease.

ben February 8, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Matt C

"Actually there is no free lunch. See the earlier post by Russ about the Opportunity Cost. There is ALWAYS a cost."

Yes, of course, you have to pay for the laptop and the car. My point, though, is that for the same time and effort I can have 10 times more today than I would have a century ago. I have done nothing to earn that. For any given expenditure of effort, I get so much more. All the *extra* returns I get to an hour of my labour is – from my perspective – the free lunch. And it is free in the sense that those returns were taken from nobody: the providers of those increasing returns are themselves better off.

yourdrum February 8, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Well, of course, with your attitude and ridiculous reasoning, nothing will be done.
We'll just keep burning fossil fuels till the ice caps melt and your swimming in the b——t of a Rebublican ocean. yourdrum

David White February 8, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Hay ben,

Guess how many cubic miles of oil the world consumed last year?

Answer: one — http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/01/why_we_love_oil.html — so let's do some math:

One gallon equals approximately .16 cubic feet (conversion table here — http://www.taylormade.com.au/billspages/conversion_table.htm). There are approximately 147 billion cubic feet in a cubic mile, so that divided by .16 equals approximately 920 billion gallons in a cubic mile. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, so dividing that into 920 billion equals approximately 22 billion barrels of oil. Since "The United States Geological Survey (USGS) puts yearly world consumption of oil today at about 30 billion barrels" — http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p14s01-wogi.html — I'll go with that figure and do some more math:

Each gallon of gasoline burned generates 20 pounds of CO2 — http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml — which comes to around 25 trillion pounds, or 12 billion tons, of CO2 annually. That doesn't quite jive with this assessment — http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.af.limitco2.html — but as that's no doubt due to the fact that we don't burn all the oil we produce (as much of it goes into products that are later landfilled), the lower figure makes sense.

Now let's say (even though it's obviously not the case) that humanity has been pumping that much CO2 into the atmosphere for the past 100 years, running the total up to roughly a trillion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans over that period of time. This sounds like a lot until you compare it to the size of the atmosphere, which I did by calculating the volume of the earth and subtracting it from a sphere with a radius 60 miles larger (since that's where 99% of the atmosphere is contained). That gives us approximately 24 billion square miles of atmosphere, so if you divide a trillion by 24 billion, you get roughly 42 tons of anthropogenic CO2 per cubic mile added to the atmosphere over the course of the past century.

Given that you can put a ton of roof shingles, say, on a single pallet (call it a cubic yard), you could store 42 tons of them in 1134 cubic feet, or 5/100,000,000th (.00000005) of a cubic mile. Now, all you hysterics are welcome to believe that dispersing that amount of CO2 throughout each cubic mile of the atmosphere has not only warmed the planet but that continuing to add a hundredth of THAT per cubic mile per year will soon end life as we know it. But I for one don't buy it.

Della Franklin December 2, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Global Warming Tips

Many may not believe that we, as people, have an affect on changes within the climate. It is a rather difficult concept to grasp. However, we can do things to prevent the devastating changes that are occurring in our environment. Global warming is a term that is frequently used to describe the rising temperatures that are occurring in our world. Lately, global warming has seemingly grown in popularity. It has been found that global warming can produce many negative reactions in our world. As the planet heats up, ice melts away. When the ice melts away, the levels of the sea start to increase. Global warming is a result of many years of neglect by people to the planet. It is not too late to stop the issue of global warming from proceeding. It is too late to reverse the issues that have already developed as a result of global warming. In this article, we will review some of the ways that we can prevent global warming from doing any more damage than it has already done.

The main theme behind the prevention of global warming is to reduce the level of certain gases that enter our atmosphere and cause devastating changes to our world. It is certainly not possible for one person to reduce the issue of global warming, but change can start with one person. It is vital to our future, and the future of many generations to come, that we start putting this change into motion as soon as possible. If we all start contributing to the prevention of global warming, the results can end up positive for the entire world.

If we reduce the amount of certain gases that we use, such as gasoline and oil, we are on the road to global warming prevention. The first step in preventing global warming is to try to reduce the amount of energy that we consume in our homes and businesses. It is important to understand that it takes certain oils to create the electricity that we use. If we use less electricity, then we will do less damage to the atmosphere. There are numerous ways that we can reduce the amount of energy that we use. The first thing that we can do is to use lighting in our home that saves energy. As a matter of fact, it is better to make sure that all the items in our home are purchased under the fact that they are energy efficient.

The next step to preventing global warming is to watch how much fuel that you use in vehicles and other fuel powered machines. You can use less fuel by ensuring that your vehicle is maintained, you drive less, and purchase vehicles that are advertised to use less fuel. All of these tips will help you to save money on fuel, and will help to preserve our environment.

It is very important that we all pull together to ensure that we are doing what we are able to do to reduce the effect that global warming has on our atmosphere. Practice the tips listed in this article, and pass them along as well.

GoingGreen June 15, 2008 at 5:26 am

I might be bit late to comment on this blog, but I find this post and the comments very intresting on global warming.

Previous post:

Next post: