Why EPA/US can't do anything about Climate Change explained by Berkeley prof. Richard A. Muller

Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller explains why even if US would cut all of their emissions, it would have no effect on Global Warming/Climate Change (considering we pretend there actually is something like significant global warming due to human CO2 emissions as claimed by IPCC)

Link to the op-ed in WSJ by Richard Muller: http://on.wsj.com/6hbzzv

The entire presentation this clip it taken from can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climate change
• global warming
• carbon tax
• cap trade
• climate science
• richard muller
• co2
• epa
• regulation
• carbon emissions

[dlbattle100]

Whether or not I'm willing to regulate myself into poverty is irrelevant. If we don't find some way for emerging countries to grow without the massive emissions we produced during our growth, then we have effectively regulated ourselves into non existance (by omission if no regulation is passed at all, but still with the same consequences). And if you think God is going to save you from it, think again. I would not recommend testing God in that way.

[Androidoful]

@dlbattle100 I do not believe in God neither do I believe CO2 emissions are any problem - there is no evidence it is and no reason to worry. But even if you believe CO2 is a problem, EPA regulations are not going to make a slightest difference and politicians know it (easy to understand in 6 minutes). Doesn't that make you wonder why are they trying so hard to pass them? Could there be another agenda involved? Face it, they do not give a sh-t about environment and this little video proves it

[dukof1]

There is absolutely nothing to worry about. We've used up 50% of the planet's fossil fuel reserves already. The remaining 50% will make our ocean rise another 10cm, and temperature maybe half a degree. That's IT. Earth wins again. Btw climate change is mainly due to solar activity, but for those who believe it's fossil fuels, has at least nothing to worry about.

[Antithropocentric]

@dlbattle100, how about ditching the whole notion that 7 BILLION people (and counting) have a magic "right" to live at modern standards no matter how much they deplete resources? The planet is finite, with massive depletion of forests, marine life, topsoil, aquifers, etc., yet all people want to do is grow, grow, grow like nothing's the matter.

A solution is to use far more birth control, stabilize the population, then let it shrink to a level that might be sustainable with renewable energy.

[Antithropocentric]

@Androidoful, you claim the EPA doesn't care about the environment, so who exactly does? It sure isn't today's money-grubbing Republicans.

The EPA was created in 1970 because people like you had long proven that industry was NOT capable of honestly self-regulating. Enough time has passed that you take the EPA's progress for granted, and are reverting to the same mentality that forced the EPA to regulate greed in the first place! The "free market" has no innate conscience about nature's plight.

[Antithropocentric]

You cut off the video right after he said any U.S. emission cuts would be "irrelevant." What did he say NEXT? I bet there's missing context.

You have a clear denier agenda and are selectively using a borderline denier like Muller to boost it. Remember, he's not a climate specialist.

It's irrational to claim that the U.S., which consumes 1/4th of the world's oil (even if our percentage is shrinking) can do "nothing" about AGW. It's Muller's opinion and I haven't seen it stated thusly elsewhere.

[Antithropocentric]

@Androidoful, Muller's own study debunked the claim that warming isn't happening, as other scientists (actual climatologists) knew all along.

Now, he's claiming that we can't be sure Man is causing it via CO2. How likely is THAT to be true? Look at the denial precedent that was busted.

His assertions about China's emissions vs. us seem like a case of school-yard "they're worse than WE are, neener neener!"

[ExtremeWelder]

That carbon does not exist in the ground tobe mined and pumped up and burned. The consequence of this is: all carbon in the ground that can be mined or pumped up, economically, will do so.