Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gotta spend money to make money. That's capitalism. As long as the money stays here there's no problem.
Climate change has already cost money and caused disruptions. America could use more preventive mind-set.
Climate change is happening, that’s a known fact, and it’s getting worse each year. “IF” anything can be done to “learn” and “improve” our weather conditions then moving forward is important. We can’t turn back and say “wish we had done more research”. As for costs, how much loss is there when our weather is moving away from what is considered normal? How many farms will be unable to plant crops, how many homes and businesses will be flooded and underwater, how many lives lost to the heat and weather changes? Spending a little money and learning something is important and worth every penny. If you take no actions, then you can expect the same results ~ more bad weather.
Yes. I read the US loses more lives due to heat problems than through earthquakes and storms.
' . . . proposals to pump the skies full of sunlight reflecting particles and build machines that vacuum greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.'
That was so interesting. I'm glad that this issue is being addressed. I live on the East Coast and we have had about three unusual heat waves this year. The weather predictions, based on past history, are fairly consistent in being lower than the actual temperature. We know a woman in Northern California. Her weather has been hanging unusually in the triple digits but fortunately her nights are cool. England has been having temps in the 80's where it is usually in the 70's.
I think if anyone wants to purchase a summer place, try somewhere in the North. Scotland, Scandinavia, maybe.
We seen to be a disease on the face of the planet, choking in our own refuse. We need to lessen pollution and to curb our population growth. If not, nature will cut us down to size and that's something none of us wants to contend with.
I can't believe that there are still deniers. What, in heaven's name, does it take?
The study costs peanuts in terms of government expenditures. I wonder what they are doing differently than IPCC unless it has been folded into a multi-agency US assessment, which is badly needed. The US used to be a leader in climate change research. Now it is lagging well-behind the EU. In truth, a lot of the EU money is being wasted in my opinion because the policy focus behind it is, well, unfocused. They are throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks. The US spent considerably more on climate change basic and policy research under George "the Good" Bush than it does today. Clinton started cutting in this in favor of funding DOE and EPA programs, rather then research. In both the EU and the US, understanding what adaptation to climate change means, how it will be implemented and by whom, is not so much badly neglected by government these days as it misunderstood. There's room for a lot of improvement, there. As far as mitigation research and policy is concerned, it's basically dead in the water everywhere. Attention has been focused more on reducing GHG emissions by policies with different objectives, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
