How Much Is Needed To Fight Climate Change?

Democratic candidates are all proposing their ideas to fight climate change, with varying amounts of dollars. How much do you think we need to spend to tackle the climate change issue? Poll answers reflect some of the amounts various candidates have been mentioning.

It can't be fought.

I think were are already past the point of no return.

Rexedgar said:

I think were are already past the point of no return.

Click to expand...

To some extent, the planet cools and warms regardless of whether there were people on the planet or not and it has done so many times. In addition, the left doesn't seem to realize that when man contributes to increased global temps, it is man himself, in many different ways, that is responsible. While the world's population grows, it makes it impossible to fight man made global warming. To reduce man made rising globals temps, you have to reduce the amount of people on the planet. Until you reduce the world's population, you are fighting a losing battle, no matter how many trillions you spend.

World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers

Climate change happens anyway, the question is how much influence is our fault and what can be done about it.

Just saying it that way means the 'amount' is entirely subjective, given where we are the politics of control and influence seem to outweigh any real interest in actually fighting climate change.

Moderate Right said:

To some extent, the planet cools and warms regardless of whether there were people on the planet or not and it has done so many times. In addition, the left doesn't seem to realize that when man contributes to increased global temps, it is man himself, in many different ways, that is responsible. While the world's population grows, it makes it impossible to fight man made global warming. To reduce man made rising globals temps, you have to reduce the amount of people on the planet. Until you reduce the world's population, you are fighting a losing battle, no matter how many trillions you spend.

World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers

Click to expand...

Not being snarky, but does the planet periodically foul the air, water and soil? ..and I agree about the amount of people adding to the problem.

Moderate Right said:

Democratic candidates are all proposing their ideas to fight climate change, with varying amounts of dollars. How much do you think we need to spend to tackle the climate change issue? Poll answers reflect some of the amounts various candidates have been mentioning.

Click to expand...

You didn't leave us an option for rejecting an exercise in futility to fight climate change at all. Or an option to help people adapt to inevitable climate change.

OrphanSlug said:

Climate change happens anyway, the question is how much influence is our fault and what can be done about it.

Just saying it that way means the 'amount' is entirely subjective, given where we are the politics of control and influence seem to outweigh any real interest in actually fighting climate change.

Click to expand...

And the answer to your question is very little, and nothing.

Moderate Right said:

To some extent, the planet cools and warms regardless of whether there were people on the planet or not and it has done so many times. In addition, the left doesn't seem to realize that when man contributes to increased global temps, it is man himself, in many different ways, that is responsible. While the world's population grows, it makes it impossible to fight man made global warming. To reduce man made rising globals temps, you have to reduce the amount of people on the planet. Until you reduce the world's population, you are fighting a losing battle, no matter how many trillions you spend.

Click to expand...

Given that over the life of the earth it was gone through warming and cooling periods whether "combating" is the correct stance. Maybe "adapting" is more appropriate. One of the interesting phenomenon that's been occurring but being underreported is that the earth is greening - green leafy covering has increased considerably; also growing seasons are lengthening - which could help deal with the growing population. And, of course, more greenery suggests more co2 consumption. I saw an article make the claim that cooling human habitat is cheaper than heating it - I couldn't find that source before I wrote this.


Climate changes, we know that, and it's not a unidirectional change - the planet warms and the planet cools. With the technologies and scientific progress we've attain I am optimistic we can find ways to adapt to temperature increased of 1 degree centigrade every few decades or seas rising an inch or two. We don't need to kill every cow on the planet or drive our gas burning cars into the Grand Canyon.

Rexedgar said:

I think were are already past the point of no return.

Click to expand...

Well we have certainly changed earth and not for the betterment for the survival of the human race. When you look at.the changes wrought in the last.500 years and wonder what it will be like in another 500 it is a little scary.

Will we become better stewards of the earth's resources or will we just self distruct and become another part of.the fossil record.

Can man adapt fast enough to mantain our present standard of living or will the near term changes cause our society to break down. Obviously man will be abandoning many coastal areas displacing huge populations.

I am old and won't be there to see it but i worry about my children and.grandchildren.

jimbo said:

And the answer to your question is very little, and nothing.

Click to expand...

Because no one really knows, and the simple nature of how governance thinks about forcing an outcome the money needed may be off the scale offered by the OP.

How Much Is Needed To Fight Climate Change?

Not sure. But doing nothing a'la Donald Trump isn't a meaningful answer.

Rexedgar said:

I think were are already past the point of no return.

Click to expand...

As human race, we don't really care enough. Short term hedonism is common practice. When we also count all bad things (not just Trump), how we deal with each other as human beings, how we deal with our nature and how we spend our time here on this planet... guess what, we don't really deserve to live here. Stupidity is world wide habit, only greed/money and status matter - and so many of us is trying to upgrade our lives, like having X amount of stuff Y is formula for happiness. This kind of thinking - for me - is just backwards in so many ways.

One columnist wrote few days ago, here in Finland, about environmental crisis and title (in english) is: Kill everyone! Sad thing is that we humans are worst thing for this planet and main factor is that we really don't care - it's just suicidal ride to end, even when it's not only possibility. But with current mind set we are truly going to kill everyone out there by making stupid decisions again, again and again - to the point earth isn't habitable anymore.

We have enough science based information about pollution and many other things, but current policies are like torpedos - something still happens, but not enough if you count all what's happening to our earth. Only thing what we can do at this point is care more and live with our conscience. For religious people I have to say that: we should take care of our environment (you can find that idea from genesis). Somehow christian people turned (most of them) against environment and you can't really hear anything about taking care of our planet, even when it's in there in bible.

Only if suicide is only right thing to do (idea isn't mine), there is way to justify careless.

Rexedgar said:

Not being snarky, but does the planet periodically foul the air, water and soil? ..and I agree about the amount of people adding to the problem.

Click to expand...

Yes, the planet does do that. Recent example: Amazon forest fire. There are many other examples. And, yes, man made climate change can't be stopped or even decreased as long as the population continues to grow unchecked. The vulgar truth is, if you want man made climate change to decrease we need to cull millions or even billions of people.

AlbqOwl said:

You didn't leave us an option for rejecting an exercise in futility to fight climate change at all. Or an option to help people adapt to inevitable climate change.

Click to expand...

Yes, I realized that after I made the poll. You're right. I should have had an option for it being an exercise in futility.

AlbqOwl said:

You didn't leave us an option for rejecting an exercise in futility to fight climate change at all. Or an option to help people adapt to inevitable climate change.

Click to expand...

I agree, we should adapt. We should stop making gas guzzlers so profitable. We should shut down coal and replace it with cleaner, greener power. We should invest in energy storage like there's no tomorrow, cause if we don't go green immediately, there may not be a tomorrow for our children and our grandchildren.

Bullseye said:

Given that over the life of the earth it was gone through warming and cooling periods whether "combating" is the correct stance. Maybe "adapting" is more appropriate. One of the interesting phenomenon that's been occurring but being underreported is that the earth is greening - green leafy covering has increased considerably; also growing seasons are lengthening - which could help deal with the growing population. And, of course, more greenery suggests more co2 consumption. I saw an article make the claim that cooling human habitat is cheaper than heating it - I couldn't find that source before I wrote this.


Climate changes, we know that, and it's not a unidirectional change - the planet warms and the planet cools. With the technologies and scientific progress we've attain I am optimistic we can find ways to adapt to temperature increased of 1 degree centigrade every few decades or seas rising an inch or two. We don't need to kill every cow on the planet or drive our gas burning cars into the Grand Canyon.

Click to expand...

One thing that seems to not be reported hardly at all is the fact that our poles are very close to switching, which could have catastrophic unknown results. This happens every so often and the process has already started so it could be happening very soon - maybe even tomorrow. Add to that that an asteroid could hit Earth and do massive damage before global warming gets us goes to show that the left are chasing a fool's errand.

Moderate Right said:

Yes, the planet does do that. Recent example: Amazon forest fire. There are many other examples. And, yes, man made climate change can't be stopped or even decreased as long as the population continues to grow unchecked. The vulgar truth is, if you want man made climate change to decrease we need to cull millions or even billions of people.

Click to expand...

I’m not there, but I have read and heard that the Amazon fires,(most recent,) were caused by farmers looking to increase arable land.

The Real Reason the Amazon is on Fire | Time

Rexedgar said:

I’m not there, but I have read and heard that the Amazon fires,(most recent,) were caused by farmers looking to increase arable land.

The Real Reason the Amazon is on Fire | Time

Click to expand...

Well, I've never heard that there actually was an official proven cause of the Amazon fires but my point was that lightning could have possibly triggered the fires, just as it triggers many other forest fires and there are still other examples of the planet destroying itself. Volcanoes are another example. The planet has a yin/yang balance and whenever it gets out of whack mother nature takes over and rebalances the planet. Another example is the 1918 flu epidemic which killed 50 million people and the bubonic plague which may have killed close to 200 million people. One way or another, mother nature will balance things out if that balance gets too far off, which is also what happened to the dinosaurs. That's why, even before people, the planet had periods of being both warm and cool.

Moderate Right said:

Well, I've never heard that there actually was an official proven cause of the Amazon fires but my point was that lightning could have possibly triggered the fires, just as it triggers many other forest fires and there are still other examples of the planet destroying itself. Volcanoes are another example. The planet has a yin/yang balance and whenever it gets out of whack mother nature takes over and rebalances the planet. Another example is the 1918 flu epidemic which killed 50 million people and the bubonic plague which may have killed close to 200 million people. One way or another, mother nature will balance things out if that balance gets too far off, which is also what happened to the dinosaurs. That's why, even before people, the planet had periods of being both warm and cool.

Click to expand...

So you are.one of the like the guy i met in a.colorado campground

Don't worry about it. GOD won't let us screw it.up.

who knows, certainly none of us do. One simple thing we could do is plant trees. Millions upon millions of them. Everywhere. Plant a tree folks, they are carbon sinks.

Moderate Right said:

Democratic candidates are all proposing their ideas to fight climate change, with varying amounts of dollars. How much do you think we need to spend to tackle the climate change issue? Poll answers reflect some of the amounts various candidates have been mentioning.

Click to expand...

Everything. All the money and total government control.

apdst said:

Everything. All the money and total government control.

Click to expand...

Seems like the left is too chick**** to even answer the poll question.

I see Al Gore is so worried about raising oceans that he bought a $9 million beach property in California. He says thanks to all the climate control lemmings who bought it for him.

Moderate Right is correct. If man made pollution is the problem, the only thing that will change that is less men. I expect that soon Al Gore will be selling biodegradable razor blades to the lemmings so they can slit their wrists and save the world. He will use the proceeds to buy a bigger jet.

Moderate Right said:

Yes, I realized that after I made the poll. You're right. I should have had an option for it being an exercise in futility.

Click to expand...

It's okay. It's an interesting topic and one that I think thinking people need to stay on top of or they'll insert some fool draconian law or regulation when we aren't looking and we'll have to live with it.