Energy Crisis vs. Global Warming - what is more important to you?

Global warming. We can solve the energy crisi with alternative methods but the people who are getting the money, like getting the money. The government and large business constantly try to keep the power from shifting hands (no pun intended). But on a simpilar note, I can live (uncomfortably) without power. I can't live without oxygen, water, food, etc. Global warming hands down. And for all the its a myth people, so what if it was, we would clean up our air and water and have less cancer outbreaks. Ooo sounds horrible.

Since both are essentially beyond my control... NEITHER. I can't control the rate of production or use of energy beyond my very meager demands. (far less than the average per capita in the US) I can't control the stuff that may or may not be affecting "global warming"... Which I primarily believe is due to changes in solar output. (which no one on Earth can control..) I can only control my SPENDING. Since I already tend to spend a lot less than the average person... and I produce far less trash (a good indicator of how wasteful you are) I probably live a more environmentally sound lifestyle than most self professed "environmentalists"

Global warming. The potential consequences if it's not addressed are infinitely more serious than running out of oil. There are alternatives to oil which we could develop given the impetus to do so. Such an impetus doesn't exist because there's not really that much of an oil crises. We have about 30 years of known reserves left to tap, add to this an unknown quantity of as yet undiscoverd reserves (20+ years worth, could be 100 years worth) then add in all the oil we know about but have so far ignored because it's harder to extract (tar and sand oil for example) and it gives us upwards of 100 years worth of reserves to go at. Worst case scenario in 100 years time - oil is expensive because we're having to extract it from contaminated oil fields. With global warming, $4.2 trillion a year economic loss (Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist World Bank), one million deaths each year (World Health Organisation), 1 billion people displaced (United Nations)... you get the picture.

It's a political problem of co-dependence: if global warming is NOT caused by excess CO2, then there is no energy crisis. Yes, petroleum is realistically limited in the short term, but coal is not. We have more than enough coal to power us until technology catches up with alternative energy research, leading to a truly viable, and sustainable alternative. Even if we find out that carbon dioxide is the root cause of global warming, it may not be wise to "slow down" economies and subsequent research into the development of new alternatives. Consider that limiting this energy could lead to a kind of Dark Ages where people put more value on simply SURVIVING instead of THRIVING; such an atmosphere could actually push a workable solution out of reach. Instead, we might devote a considerable amount of energy towards developing alternatives, even if it meant INCREASING CO2 output in the short term. In economics, it can be thought of as an opportunity cost. Think of this: You are walking along the train tracks and through a tunnel. You are 3/4 of the way through when you hear the oncoming train. Do you take the counterintuitive action and run TOWARDS the ongoing train, or do you take the seemingly safe action, running away from the train? There is nothing that fuels progress/innovation like freedom. Unfortunately, most of the "solutions" require that we sacrifice some of this freedom. Are we taking the "safe" choice by trying to run away from this problem?

No, Oil is only expensive because we have no political will to extract it. It's better to have oil above $65/bbl so other sources can make a profit. There's plenty of oil in Alaska, the Arctic, off the Florida and California coast. We could be free of imported oil if we chose.

They are both bad and interwined. I think that, in way or in another, we will be forced to adopt a very different model of society: no more centralised, no more money based, local and agricultural. We will plant and farm the remaining species, those which will reveal themselves the more resistant to heat, cold, poison and viruses. And notwithstanding our efforts, the homo sapiens could follow a sudden and incredibly fast extintion path. "And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably."(Stephen Falken in Wargames,1983)

Trust me, the energy crisis will be a non-issue in the very near future. Global warming is actually climate change and is natural--mankind has little to do with it----that line of thinking is more Establishment propaganda. The Golden Age is right around the corner, and all will look a whole lot better than it does now. Remember, it is always darkest before the dawn.

If we go nuclear, solar, geothermo, solar, and whole host of engery sources I think that would take care of the engery crisis. Thus require us to burn less fossile fuels and cut back on the green house gases.

I think pollution is my greatest concern, whether it causes global warming or not.