Given the current status of the Kyoto Protocol, what changes would you propose for it to be efficient?
412356
Kyoto intent is great, but until an economically viable way to implement that intent, it is unworkable.  Same goes for Renewable Energy & The Hydrogen Economy.  The Hydrogen based transportation industry is a big joke that the press was parading as the entrance vehicle to The Hydrogen Economy.\n\nYes there is a way to make Renewable Energy economically viable, but one has to start from the reality to require it to be directly economically viable means that our energy bill has to skyrocket after installation.  The amount of energy to purify & crystlize silicon is a given.  One has to do the utility design to create sell-able spin-off benefits to subsidize the cost of infrastructure.  \n\nI can only fine one place on this planet that has the ingredients.  The time that it can be done is drawing to an end, because it requires a triving economy to start the change over.  The change over has to take decades to insure the builder of the solar collecters is economically viable.
787329
Stop Smoking\nUse your feet/bicycles rather than driving and polluting the air and causing GLOBAL WARMING.\n\nGlobal Warming has already taken affect in Alaska.\n\nIt's amazing how this generation is considered the "Eco-Friendly Generation" when many of us drive gas-guzzling SUV's
492736
Reduce pollutions is the answer, but a certain political party, and their lobbyist will fight you all the way. So I say there is no answer.
61035
I think what you are refering to is the "Kyoto Protocol".  Its an international movement to put requirements on the release of greenhouse gases most notablely CO2.   The US is against it because the requirements that are wanted would cause the US to go into a economic recession resulting in millions of dollars lost.  oil refineries in the US and other industries would have to do billions of dollars worth of changes to thier processes and when business have to spend money they have to cut jobs.  It will never be done, so forget the word Kyoto Protocl it will never happen :) :0
1008178
You may want to rephrase your question to indicate zero net carbon emissions or something along those lines.  Carbon is a part of all organic life; carbon is a vital component of all known living systems, and without it life as we know it could not exist.\n\nAs for a zero net carbon/zero net greenhouse emissions city I imagine it would be very nice to breathe and the night & day sky may look dramatically different.  People with breathing disorders may be able to breathe better.\n\nAs for new ideas, do you mean ideas that would lead a city to not contribute green house gasses to the atmosphere?  I'm not sure, it would take a lot of initiative and a huge shift in perception.  Individuals should take it upon themselves to reduce gasoline (drive more efficiently, combine errands, carpool, use other forms of transportation) and energy consumption (turn off computer & lights, turn down thermostat) and should let their representatives in government know how they feel.  None of these ideas are new, sorry.
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
602324
Drive less (or stop alltogether) and lobby your politicians for renewable energy reform.  Also, turn the lights out, keep your lint filter clean, skip a shower, turn computer and monitor off when not in use, eat organic, use natural cleaning supplies, put furnace on a timer, turn water off while soaping up in shower, reuse everything, read Walden by Henry David Thereau, etc.
173619
Common sense solutions but difficult to implement.\n\n1.  Consumption\nCut down on consumption through reducing wastage.  This can be as easy as switching off aircons or lights not in use.  Another area is the over consumption eg Las Vegas.  It is almost obscene the way the whole place is lighted up.  Encourage use of smaller and more economical cars.  Some cars are just petrol guzzlers for the egomaniacs.\n\n2.  Relations with OPEC\nThese relations are sometimes dictated by politics.  The idea is not to rely on them too much by doing 1 & 2. Anyway, most of these countries elites are just squandering trillions of $ without significant benefits to their poors.\n\n3.  Dependency\nDevelop current technologies in alternative energy sources.  The technologies are available.  The problem is to convince the petrol trading communities to fully support research and utilization of alternative energies.  Can you imagine the nightmares these people such as large oil companies, OPEC, etc are having should someone came up with a viable and sustainable alternative energies?
628063
How about the Immigration issue or global warming?\nBoth are highly controversial issues.
662320
A really good resource is the recent IPCC report on sequestration (first link under sources). Unless you're really into this stuff, the summary for policymakers probably has all you'd want to know.\n\nBriefly, the pros are that sequestration has a good chance of being a cost-effective way of reducing the CO2 emissions from large point sources (power plants and such).\n\nThe cons are that it does cost something, that there are still some engineering and scientific uncertainties about it, and that not all power plants will be in suitable locations.
627641
Depends on the change being proposed.
874475
Educating People to be more concious of the Problem!\n\nWe all could recycle more, dispose of less.\nWe all could use more energy efficient heating and motor vehicles.\nDo we really need to use so much power - light that are not needed, leaving chargers plugged in, etc\n\nPeople need to be made aware of the situation and how we all can do our bit to help!
428505
do something on alternative energy or fuel sources. or hybrid machines.
331539
Create an endless clean energy source, limit population growth, eliminate mental illness and stillbirths and miscarriages. Eliminate STD's.  And make it just a little harder for people to 'harm' others somehow, maybe make them like 10% more compassionate.  I don't want a boring place where everyone walks around loving everyone, but I do want it a little better.
1091688
The key to preventing global warming is to ensure that all our best ideas are implemented globally and immediately.\n\n1. We need a set of building codes that requires all new construction, everywhere, be erected with enough solar arrays to power three or four homes. In 25 years the world's homes would all have their own solar-generated power supplies. In addition, all homes could be built with either masonry (in very warm areas not subject to earthquakes) or with structural insulated panels (styrofoam sandwiched between two chipboard sides). Either provide excellent climate-control properties and dramatically-reduce the need for artificial heat or cooling.\n2. Cars can be built out of carbon-fibre, with flex-fuel engines, large batteries with plug-in adapters and solar arrays across their horizontal surfaces that together would enable commuters to travel 100 miles a day or more without emitting any greenhouse gasses.\n3. Cities should be planned with a view towards shortening everyone's commutes, thereby not only reducing the amount of pollutants in the air but also allowing people more leisure time and a better quality-of-life as a result.\n4. Taxes: If our society levied "sin" taxes and applied them to polluters to such an extent that it made their lives uncomfortable, people and industries would naturally gravitate towards more eco-friendly solutions on their own.\n\nWhat's really necessary is that there be a powerful economic incentive (or set of incentives) before anything will happen. \n\nObjects in-motion tend to stay in-motion, objects at rest tend to remain at rest, and people who've become accustomed to having their cake and eating it, too, are going to continue to be unthinking, uncaring gluttons until there's no cake left.\n\nIt's government's role to be proactive, to see what's coming and to act to ensure that life continues. It's for government to engineer things in a way that makes life better - or that at least provides a framework within which we can do it for ourselves.\n\nGovernment isn't doing its job ... and sooner-or-later we're all going to suffer terribly for it.
410198
nothing really.\n\ntake a look at the climate statistics in last 200,000 years and you will see the changes happening currently is negligible compared what happened in the past.\n\nit does not mean tough times are not ahead, with global warming sea levels will rise up 30+ feet. \nBye bye Venice unfortunately... Probably that will be the least of our problems. Warm water currents will be disrupted severly and Northern, Western Europe will be frozen...\n\ni still believe in an eternal balance.. as long as we human beings dont push it too hard it should manage to find a equilibrium of its own.\n\ngood luck and dont buy a house near the coast line.
929342
Reducing greenhouse gasses is the primary goal in reversing the effects of global warming\n\nThe introduction of hydrogen fuel cells into cars may help reduce green house gas emissions. much research is going into this.\n\nUtilisation of coal seam methane for energy as opposed to burning it is reducing emissions.\n\nusing nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric power sources as opposed to fossil fuels.\n\nResearch is also being undertaken to further understand the problem of global warming and possible solutions - the problem cannot be treated successfully if it is not understood.