It's not just developing countries, Most if not all of the developed countries have already cleared huge amounts of forest for either habitation or agriculture. Loss of habitat is yet another issue we face, at what point does the worlds ecosystem start to collapse... Biodiversity is important, but (modern) man's practices are causing many problems in this area. You could have a parallel discussion about it that could probably rival the subject of this thread
Tony.
That couldn't be repeated enough: Much of Europe was cleared from forests and that practice has been exported to other continents. The Canary Islands (where I've been living for 15 years) are a good example how the local climate changes when forests are destroyed: only a part of the island of Gomera still has the original cloud forest the other islands no long have. See http://scholar.google.com.pa/scholar_url?url=http://www.academia.edu/download/31856719/2011a_Izquierdoetal.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3QeDohNbBK4j68MFH5Yl5BQRRQiA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr
I'm surprised this revelation came and went without comment. If factual, and it appears to be, it speaks volumes.
The defamation lawsuits in D. C. are still mired in procedural motions to dismiss AFAIK. It will be interesting to see if one of the defendants decides to drop the motions, and go straight to hammering him with discovery.
Scientific American really has some interesting articles currently on this thread's topics.
Climate Migrants within the U.S. Will Need a Strong Health System explores the need for health policies when internal US migration gets underway from areas where agriculture becomes nearly impossible and from coastal areas to the inland.
This is another reason why I want to live another 100 years! I really, really want to see what's happening the coming century. Unfortunately, statistically I only have a dozen years to go, but I intend to beat that statistic!
Jan
Climate Migrants within the U.S. Will Need a Strong Health System explores the need for health policies when internal US migration gets underway from areas where agriculture becomes nearly impossible and from coastal areas to the inland.
This is another reason why I want to live another 100 years! I really, really want to see what's happening the coming century. Unfortunately, statistically I only have a dozen years to go, but I intend to beat that statistic!
Jan
YouTube - Let us never tolerate outrageous cons...
Zee troof!
ps. Did anyone mention yet Maunder Minimum in this thread?
River Thames frost fairs - Wikipedia
Zee troof!
ps. Did anyone mention yet Maunder Minimum in this thread?
River Thames frost fairs - Wikipedia
It seems that the oceans are not the salvation of the planet although they absorb CO2, because they themselves are being deprecated and changing their "healing" properties .....
The rise in sea level endangers 280 million people in the world
The threat of the oceans, between pollution and defrosting
The draft of a UN report, which will be discussed in Monaco in the coming weeks, gives an overview of the serious danger of the oceans. The pollution of its waters and the increase in temperature, which melts the ice raising the levels of the seas.
Pollution acidifies the seas and produces strong damage to fish stocks.
Pollution acidifies the seas and produces strong damage to fish stocks.
The oceans, which have been central to the evolution and survival of millions of species, are becoming a global threat generated, above all, by human interference. If CO2 pollution that damages the marine environment is not reduced, the UN revealed in the draft of a report that will be discussed in Monaco over the next few weeks, the oceans will not only pose a huge danger to small island-nations and to Coastal communities, but will also have a significant impact on the world's largest economies.
The oceans absorb a quarter of CO2 emissions, as well as more than 90% of the additional heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions since 1970. Without this marine sponge, the heat on Earth would be unbearable for species.
But the excess of man-made CO2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned in the special report on oceans and icy areas (cryosphere), has a cost: acidification, which is altering the food chain of the oceans, and the marine heat waves, which are creating vast dead zones.
The pollution generated by the great economic powers, experts said, could, in the future, make the fish stocks decline sharply, multiply the damage caused by cyclones by one thousand and leave hundreds of millions of people homeless due to the rise in sea level.
This increase in sea level, from the melting of glaciers, could exceed more than one hundred times the current levels towards the end of the 21st century. In addition, the experts warned, the permafrost surface of the northern hemisphere could melt between 30% and 99% and record an explosion of CO2 and methane emissions, further accelerating global warming.
These changes in the oceans, caused by pollution, leave humans extremely unprotected. According to the IPCC, even if the most optimistic emission reduction scenarios were given, in 2050 many megacities located at low altitude and small island-nations will experience annual "extreme events" related to sea level. In 2100, meanwhile, those annual damages caused by the floods will multiply, in scale, from 100 to 1,000.
Since the end of the 19th century, the global average temperature rose 1 ° C. At this rate, the IPCC explained, at the end of the 21st century it is expected to increase by another 2 or 3 degrees. That is why the Paris Agreement advocates limiting the rise to less than 2 ° C. However, although its magnitude can be halted, much of the damage is already done: even if the world manages to limit warming to 2 ° C, the level of the oceans will rise enough to displace 280 million people in 2100.
Although it is a problem that affects all countries in the world, the proposals of the largest emitters of CO2 - China, the United States, India and those of the European Union - may not live up to the urgency of the climate. On September 23, they will meet in New York at a summit convened by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to obtain greater national commitments in the fight against warming.
China
"Beijing has less and less eyes on environmental issues, especially on climate change," said Li Shuo, China's climate policy analyst at Greenpeace. The resurgence of domestic coal plants and the relaxation of air pollution standards suggest that China's main concerns are the economic slowdown and the trade war with the United States.
According to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, China issued 10.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2017, or about 29% of the world total. If emissions continue to rise at the current rate, Shanghai could face sea level rises of 2.6 millimeters annually during this century. In addition, a study revealed that of the 20 cities with the highest risk in the world, nine are Chinese.
U.S
The United States, historically the most emitting country, has large coastal metropolises and is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. However, President Donald Trump wants to take his country out of the Paris Agreement and has shattered the weather policies of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
According to the IPCC report, the 1.2-meter rise in sea level in a century could increase the number of areas affected by flooding on the east coast. Another study warned that New York could experience floods of 2.25 meters once every five years between 2030-2045. The east coast, meanwhile, has already been hit by several devastating cyclones between 2005 and 2012.
European Union
The EU aims at a goal of zero net emissions, but several Member States are reluctant. In 2017, in fact, the EU produced 3.5 gigatons of CO2.
In general, Europe is less exposed to the risks of rising sea levels, although the IPCC report mentions a danger of flooding in the Rhine River Delta, a large commercial artery. An increase in temperature, due to emissions, could also slow down the meteorological phenomenon called Southern Atlantic Return Circulation, causing more powerful winter storms on the continent.
India
Some 260 million people, that is, one fifth of the population of India, live in coastal regions that, in recent years, have suffered an increase in storms due to climate change. While the country is developing solar energy, it still continues to build coal plants.
Harjeet Singh of the NGO ActionAid said that India is the country most vulnerable to rising sea levels and said millions of people would be displaced in the coming decades. "The question is where they will go," he reflected. "We are talking about one of the most populous countries in the world, which means that conflicts will eventually erupt between resident and displaced populations. We are on a time bomb," he warned.
La amenaza de los oceanos, entre la contaminacion y... | Pagina12
The rise in sea level endangers 280 million people in the world
The threat of the oceans, between pollution and defrosting
The draft of a UN report, which will be discussed in Monaco in the coming weeks, gives an overview of the serious danger of the oceans. The pollution of its waters and the increase in temperature, which melts the ice raising the levels of the seas.
Pollution acidifies the seas and produces strong damage to fish stocks.
Pollution acidifies the seas and produces strong damage to fish stocks.
The oceans, which have been central to the evolution and survival of millions of species, are becoming a global threat generated, above all, by human interference. If CO2 pollution that damages the marine environment is not reduced, the UN revealed in the draft of a report that will be discussed in Monaco over the next few weeks, the oceans will not only pose a huge danger to small island-nations and to Coastal communities, but will also have a significant impact on the world's largest economies.
The oceans absorb a quarter of CO2 emissions, as well as more than 90% of the additional heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions since 1970. Without this marine sponge, the heat on Earth would be unbearable for species.
But the excess of man-made CO2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned in the special report on oceans and icy areas (cryosphere), has a cost: acidification, which is altering the food chain of the oceans, and the marine heat waves, which are creating vast dead zones.
The pollution generated by the great economic powers, experts said, could, in the future, make the fish stocks decline sharply, multiply the damage caused by cyclones by one thousand and leave hundreds of millions of people homeless due to the rise in sea level.
This increase in sea level, from the melting of glaciers, could exceed more than one hundred times the current levels towards the end of the 21st century. In addition, the experts warned, the permafrost surface of the northern hemisphere could melt between 30% and 99% and record an explosion of CO2 and methane emissions, further accelerating global warming.
These changes in the oceans, caused by pollution, leave humans extremely unprotected. According to the IPCC, even if the most optimistic emission reduction scenarios were given, in 2050 many megacities located at low altitude and small island-nations will experience annual "extreme events" related to sea level. In 2100, meanwhile, those annual damages caused by the floods will multiply, in scale, from 100 to 1,000.
Since the end of the 19th century, the global average temperature rose 1 ° C. At this rate, the IPCC explained, at the end of the 21st century it is expected to increase by another 2 or 3 degrees. That is why the Paris Agreement advocates limiting the rise to less than 2 ° C. However, although its magnitude can be halted, much of the damage is already done: even if the world manages to limit warming to 2 ° C, the level of the oceans will rise enough to displace 280 million people in 2100.
Although it is a problem that affects all countries in the world, the proposals of the largest emitters of CO2 - China, the United States, India and those of the European Union - may not live up to the urgency of the climate. On September 23, they will meet in New York at a summit convened by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to obtain greater national commitments in the fight against warming.
China
"Beijing has less and less eyes on environmental issues, especially on climate change," said Li Shuo, China's climate policy analyst at Greenpeace. The resurgence of domestic coal plants and the relaxation of air pollution standards suggest that China's main concerns are the economic slowdown and the trade war with the United States.
According to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, China issued 10.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2017, or about 29% of the world total. If emissions continue to rise at the current rate, Shanghai could face sea level rises of 2.6 millimeters annually during this century. In addition, a study revealed that of the 20 cities with the highest risk in the world, nine are Chinese.
U.S
The United States, historically the most emitting country, has large coastal metropolises and is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. However, President Donald Trump wants to take his country out of the Paris Agreement and has shattered the weather policies of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
According to the IPCC report, the 1.2-meter rise in sea level in a century could increase the number of areas affected by flooding on the east coast. Another study warned that New York could experience floods of 2.25 meters once every five years between 2030-2045. The east coast, meanwhile, has already been hit by several devastating cyclones between 2005 and 2012.
European Union
The EU aims at a goal of zero net emissions, but several Member States are reluctant. In 2017, in fact, the EU produced 3.5 gigatons of CO2.
In general, Europe is less exposed to the risks of rising sea levels, although the IPCC report mentions a danger of flooding in the Rhine River Delta, a large commercial artery. An increase in temperature, due to emissions, could also slow down the meteorological phenomenon called Southern Atlantic Return Circulation, causing more powerful winter storms on the continent.
India
Some 260 million people, that is, one fifth of the population of India, live in coastal regions that, in recent years, have suffered an increase in storms due to climate change. While the country is developing solar energy, it still continues to build coal plants.
Harjeet Singh of the NGO ActionAid said that India is the country most vulnerable to rising sea levels and said millions of people would be displaced in the coming decades. "The question is where they will go," he reflected. "We are talking about one of the most populous countries in the world, which means that conflicts will eventually erupt between resident and displaced populations. We are on a time bomb," he warned.
La amenaza de los oceanos, entre la contaminacion y... | Pagina12
Attachments
Luckily there are young people who think about the world they will have left and make their contribution !
Greta Thunberg llego a Nueva York en su cruzada con... | Pagina12
The Swedish teenager traveled by sailboat from Europe
Greta Thunberg arrived in New York in his crusade against climate change
The 16-year-old girl sailed refused to travel the United States by plane for the emission of CO2. He will participate in the UN Climate Action Assembly and several marches against global warming.
Greta Thunberg arrived in New York after sailing 14 days on a sailboat across the Atlantic Ocean.
Greta Thunberg arrived in New York after sailing 14 days on a sailboat across the Atlantic Ocean.
The young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg arrived in New York, having crossed the Atlantic for 14 days on the Malizia II sailboat. Thumberg had left the port of Plymouth (United Kingdom) and anchored in Coney Island (United States).
Before arriving, Thunberg spread on his social networks a photo with the distant lights of New York with the message: "Earth! The lights of Long Island and New York ahead," he said.
The young woman refused to travel by plane because of the CO2 emission. Therefore, he decided to sail from the port of Plymouth on August 14. Greta's intention is to join the two great global marches against climate change, organized for the next 20 and 27 September and attend the UN Climate Action Assembly in New York organized by the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, the September 23, where he will deliver a speech on climate change.
His fight began on August 20, 2018, in which he was absent from school every Friday to protest in front of the Swedish Parliament for the environmental struggle. During the next months the young woman will travel through America with her message.
Given its refusal to reach America by plane due to the high impact on greenhouse gas emissions, Greta chose to embark on the Malizia II sailboat, powered by solar energy and underwater turbines that do not emit CO2.
At present, Greta is taking a sabbatical school year and will try to participate in numerous events in North America, where she will meet with some of the populations that are most affected by climate change and ecological emergency, with political activists and decision makers. Also, the Swedish teenager intends to travel to Canada and Mexico.
Subsequently, he will travel to Chile to participate in the UN Conference of the Parties against Climate Change (COP25), which will be held this year from December 2 to 13 in Santiago, Chile. He also plans to visit other cities in South America that are also important to address the climate crisis.
Greta does not travel by plane because of the "tremendous" amount of CO2 emissions caused by air navigation and that are emitted directly into the atmosphere. Thus, it has opted for less CO2-intensive modes of transport for its travels throughout the Americas.
Together with Greta, his father, Svante Thunberg and film director Nathan Grossman of B-Reel Films, will document the crossing. The ship will be captained by the Boris Herrmann corridor and Malizia team founder Pierre Casiraghi, who will donate their time and knowledge for the crossing of Greta across the Atlantic. The trip has been jointly organized by Greta, Team Malizia and B-Reel Films.
Thunberg said before leaving that in his opinion the events in New York and Santiago de Chile will show if during all these months world leaders have listened to science and young people around the world who have raised their voices against climate change and The weather emergency.
"I will be there, even if the trip is too long and difficult. We will make our voices heard. This is the line of our future and we should at least be able to have something to say there. Science is clear and all of us young and children we are communicating and acting like that united science. And our demand is for the world to be united behind that science, "he said.
Greta Thunberg llego a Nueva York en su cruzada con... | Pagina12
The Swedish teenager traveled by sailboat from Europe
Greta Thunberg arrived in New York in his crusade against climate change
The 16-year-old girl sailed refused to travel the United States by plane for the emission of CO2. He will participate in the UN Climate Action Assembly and several marches against global warming.
Greta Thunberg arrived in New York after sailing 14 days on a sailboat across the Atlantic Ocean.
Greta Thunberg arrived in New York after sailing 14 days on a sailboat across the Atlantic Ocean.
The young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg arrived in New York, having crossed the Atlantic for 14 days on the Malizia II sailboat. Thumberg had left the port of Plymouth (United Kingdom) and anchored in Coney Island (United States).
Before arriving, Thunberg spread on his social networks a photo with the distant lights of New York with the message: "Earth! The lights of Long Island and New York ahead," he said.
The young woman refused to travel by plane because of the CO2 emission. Therefore, he decided to sail from the port of Plymouth on August 14. Greta's intention is to join the two great global marches against climate change, organized for the next 20 and 27 September and attend the UN Climate Action Assembly in New York organized by the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, the September 23, where he will deliver a speech on climate change.
His fight began on August 20, 2018, in which he was absent from school every Friday to protest in front of the Swedish Parliament for the environmental struggle. During the next months the young woman will travel through America with her message.
Given its refusal to reach America by plane due to the high impact on greenhouse gas emissions, Greta chose to embark on the Malizia II sailboat, powered by solar energy and underwater turbines that do not emit CO2.
At present, Greta is taking a sabbatical school year and will try to participate in numerous events in North America, where she will meet with some of the populations that are most affected by climate change and ecological emergency, with political activists and decision makers. Also, the Swedish teenager intends to travel to Canada and Mexico.
Subsequently, he will travel to Chile to participate in the UN Conference of the Parties against Climate Change (COP25), which will be held this year from December 2 to 13 in Santiago, Chile. He also plans to visit other cities in South America that are also important to address the climate crisis.
Greta does not travel by plane because of the "tremendous" amount of CO2 emissions caused by air navigation and that are emitted directly into the atmosphere. Thus, it has opted for less CO2-intensive modes of transport for its travels throughout the Americas.
Together with Greta, his father, Svante Thunberg and film director Nathan Grossman of B-Reel Films, will document the crossing. The ship will be captained by the Boris Herrmann corridor and Malizia team founder Pierre Casiraghi, who will donate their time and knowledge for the crossing of Greta across the Atlantic. The trip has been jointly organized by Greta, Team Malizia and B-Reel Films.
Thunberg said before leaving that in his opinion the events in New York and Santiago de Chile will show if during all these months world leaders have listened to science and young people around the world who have raised their voices against climate change and The weather emergency.
"I will be there, even if the trip is too long and difficult. We will make our voices heard. This is the line of our future and we should at least be able to have something to say there. Science is clear and all of us young and children we are communicating and acting like that united science. And our demand is for the world to be united behind that science, "he said.
Attachments
If we can't figure out what the best amplifier is, how will we figure out the climate? Really.
Today it is the climate change issue, as a young lad in the late 60's I was reading about pollution and the forthcoming disaster and was wondering if I will make it through the end of the world.
Like Jan, I might have a dozen more years.
What I do know is that during the time I have been on earth, I have mostly respected and used as little energy as I needed to for economic reasons and being a technical person preferred the more efficient way of getting things done. I have repurposed as much as I can and try to extend the equipment I use by choosing carefully as I know that it is easier on the environment to keep using rather than dumping just to get new.
Having done all those things, I think I was a responsible citizen of the world I lived in.
While GW might be real, and man has definitely contributed in some part, is it fair to myself to run around in alarm. During my lifetime so far many things have changed. vinyl,CD, laserdiscs, VHS , beta Streaming. One wondered how the world would continue once the hippies became adults and surely what a mess it would be. Or was it?
What is clear though is that, people in underdeveloped areas want to partake in the quality of life enjoyed by those in developed areas. If we say we cannot allow that to happen, it is not fair to them. At the same time, would we want to trade places with those in underdeveloped areas? I don't think so. I surely do not want to live out the rest of my life in an impoverished state. Given that situation, the world and its warming will continue to move forward. Species will disappear, new species will evolve, we can try and slow down the process, but it is unstoppable. Calling others fools and being angry at them because they don't share the same alarming nature is not right.
Everybody belongs on this planet and each can have their own opinion. Even if everything presented is a fact and a proven fact, does anyone really believe that we can reverse GW given the "real" world? Just do what you can but understand that there are some people who must work at a job and put food on the table for their family and their job might entail producing lots of CO2. Can we deny them the right to feed their family because of the CO2 that they are causing? What about a person who cannot withstand heat, should we ask them to shut off the AC unit because of the energy consumption?
Scientists who do research are generally not worried about how they will put food on the table for tonight's meal. Their job is to provide facts or data. That is the easy part. The hard and really hard part is translating those facts into something that makes sense for people in a country. By sense, I mean the right to earn a living and filling bellies of children every day. When someone is poor, long term thinking is at odds with survival and we must understand that. Elitist thinking about caring for the planet , there is nothing wrong about that, but I think people having a decent living and getting out of poverty is a more crucial thing. But that is my opinion and indeed I can be wrong.
Take the Amazon for example, some burning is to clear forest so that some can farm. The farming is not for fun. Indeed, I was informed that some of the forest was cleared to grow soybeans for sale as that produced more profit than cattle. So who consumes the friendly soybean. Well, now that China is not buying soybeans from the USA, they are purchasing them from someone else, Canada can provide some but South America is a growing supplier of that friendly plant based food. Look at all the players in this situation now. The US President and the trade war, China and the farmer in Brazil who now can sell China soybeans. And we are all for soy based foods! Very complex world. I recently purchased some avocados from Brazil, was that produced from cleared forests? It is so complex.
We recycle electronic parts but do we really know what happens with all those trashed circuit boards? What about the records that so many are purchasing today? What's really going to happen to those in the end? Would it not be better for the world that those are outlawed and only streaming is allowed for music? Makes sense. Less waste, less energy consumed to melt those discs and less energy consumed with each play. Better yet, that little AM radio, let us hang wires and make a crystal set. Remember those, no batteries required. These are things we can really do to help but will we? If we don't do these things ourselves but castigate the non believers who's in the wrong?
Today it is the climate change issue, as a young lad in the late 60's I was reading about pollution and the forthcoming disaster and was wondering if I will make it through the end of the world.
Like Jan, I might have a dozen more years.
What I do know is that during the time I have been on earth, I have mostly respected and used as little energy as I needed to for economic reasons and being a technical person preferred the more efficient way of getting things done. I have repurposed as much as I can and try to extend the equipment I use by choosing carefully as I know that it is easier on the environment to keep using rather than dumping just to get new.
Having done all those things, I think I was a responsible citizen of the world I lived in.
While GW might be real, and man has definitely contributed in some part, is it fair to myself to run around in alarm. During my lifetime so far many things have changed. vinyl,CD, laserdiscs, VHS , beta Streaming. One wondered how the world would continue once the hippies became adults and surely what a mess it would be. Or was it?
What is clear though is that, people in underdeveloped areas want to partake in the quality of life enjoyed by those in developed areas. If we say we cannot allow that to happen, it is not fair to them. At the same time, would we want to trade places with those in underdeveloped areas? I don't think so. I surely do not want to live out the rest of my life in an impoverished state. Given that situation, the world and its warming will continue to move forward. Species will disappear, new species will evolve, we can try and slow down the process, but it is unstoppable. Calling others fools and being angry at them because they don't share the same alarming nature is not right.
Everybody belongs on this planet and each can have their own opinion. Even if everything presented is a fact and a proven fact, does anyone really believe that we can reverse GW given the "real" world? Just do what you can but understand that there are some people who must work at a job and put food on the table for their family and their job might entail producing lots of CO2. Can we deny them the right to feed their family because of the CO2 that they are causing? What about a person who cannot withstand heat, should we ask them to shut off the AC unit because of the energy consumption?
Scientists who do research are generally not worried about how they will put food on the table for tonight's meal. Their job is to provide facts or data. That is the easy part. The hard and really hard part is translating those facts into something that makes sense for people in a country. By sense, I mean the right to earn a living and filling bellies of children every day. When someone is poor, long term thinking is at odds with survival and we must understand that. Elitist thinking about caring for the planet , there is nothing wrong about that, but I think people having a decent living and getting out of poverty is a more crucial thing. But that is my opinion and indeed I can be wrong.
Take the Amazon for example, some burning is to clear forest so that some can farm. The farming is not for fun. Indeed, I was informed that some of the forest was cleared to grow soybeans for sale as that produced more profit than cattle. So who consumes the friendly soybean. Well, now that China is not buying soybeans from the USA, they are purchasing them from someone else, Canada can provide some but South America is a growing supplier of that friendly plant based food. Look at all the players in this situation now. The US President and the trade war, China and the farmer in Brazil who now can sell China soybeans. And we are all for soy based foods! Very complex world. I recently purchased some avocados from Brazil, was that produced from cleared forests? It is so complex.
We recycle electronic parts but do we really know what happens with all those trashed circuit boards? What about the records that so many are purchasing today? What's really going to happen to those in the end? Would it not be better for the world that those are outlawed and only streaming is allowed for music? Makes sense. Less waste, less energy consumed to melt those discs and less energy consumed with each play. Better yet, that little AM radio, let us hang wires and make a crystal set. Remember those, no batteries required. These are things we can really do to help but will we? If we don't do these things ourselves but castigate the non believers who's in the wrong?
Last edited:
@Mikett: which is why this debate cannot only be a question of personal choices but must be one of political decisions.
That's also why it doesn't really make sense to criticize Greta publicity stunt on direct CO2 emissions, it has to be judged on its potential political effects.
Btw who said soy is "friendly" ? If it is in high demand, it is as animal feed, because of the rise in meat consumption all over the world, not as a source of plant based food.
That's also why it doesn't really make sense to criticize Greta publicity stunt on direct CO2 emissions, it has to be judged on its potential political effects.
Btw who said soy is "friendly" ? If it is in high demand, it is as animal feed, because of the rise in meat consumption all over the world, not as a source of plant based food.
Political decisions cannot solve everything. Whether it is communism, socialism or capitalism. Each has its benefits and detractions.
At the end of the day our personal and not political choices are what it more important. We cannot look to the politician to solve GW. It is what we do ourselves. We can choose to ride, walk, drive etc. We can choose to turn off the AC. There is no magical switch or political solution to this. It is what WE do, not what TRUMP says or Merkel does etc. Even in China, someone has the choice to turn the light off or on, or cook with wood or charcoal or leaves ( which my wife did do in her youth). I can tell you I also grew up in a third world country and I suspect the monies given to the poor countries will line the pockets of the some of the few who live better more carbon intensive lives that most of us here. So forget that solution, I've seen reality.
Again at the end of the day no matter what the politician decides, people who live in developed areas will NOT want lives as if they live in poor countries. That is what it will take. Nothing less.
Let the scientists dish out the data, now let the engineers tell you what it takes in reality. I'm an engineer. Start to understand energy conversion units and efficiencies then report back. Understand the energy density of various fuels and the quality levels. Unfortunately many don't really grasp how much energy is wrapped in that barrel of oil and how hard it is to replace or substitute. Nuclear is a big help but most don't want that future. Even hydroelectric dams are not really that friendly, but I suppose you know this.
At the end of the day our personal and not political choices are what it more important. We cannot look to the politician to solve GW. It is what we do ourselves. We can choose to ride, walk, drive etc. We can choose to turn off the AC. There is no magical switch or political solution to this. It is what WE do, not what TRUMP says or Merkel does etc. Even in China, someone has the choice to turn the light off or on, or cook with wood or charcoal or leaves ( which my wife did do in her youth). I can tell you I also grew up in a third world country and I suspect the monies given to the poor countries will line the pockets of the some of the few who live better more carbon intensive lives that most of us here. So forget that solution, I've seen reality.
Again at the end of the day no matter what the politician decides, people who live in developed areas will NOT want lives as if they live in poor countries. That is what it will take. Nothing less.
Let the scientists dish out the data, now let the engineers tell you what it takes in reality. I'm an engineer. Start to understand energy conversion units and efficiencies then report back. Understand the energy density of various fuels and the quality levels. Unfortunately many don't really grasp how much energy is wrapped in that barrel of oil and how hard it is to replace or substitute. Nuclear is a big help but most don't want that future. Even hydroelectric dams are not really that friendly, but I suppose you know this.
In theory you are right, but practically it is impossible for the population at large to solve such complex issues. You cannot expect 10's of millions of people in a country to agree on a way forward, let alone internationally. That is why we elected politicians to take the hard decisions for us. They should weigh all pros and cons, take interests of diverse groups into account and take a decision*. Which also means that some people will be happy, some will hurt.
Democracy doesn't mean that everyone gets what he wants, it means that everyone gets heard and the decision is taking that is the best overall. That is extremely hard often, but leaving it to the population at large means that either nothing happens or you end up in civil war.
That theoretical model is failing for some time now because financial and economical interest are so large that the political systems become powerless and/or in the pockets of those interests.
Jan
* I am for the moment assuming the politicians do what's best for the nation, even if it goes against their personal interests. Which doesn't always happen as we know.
Democracy doesn't mean that everyone gets what he wants, it means that everyone gets heard and the decision is taking that is the best overall. That is extremely hard often, but leaving it to the population at large means that either nothing happens or you end up in civil war.
That theoretical model is failing for some time now because financial and economical interest are so large that the political systems become powerless and/or in the pockets of those interests.
Jan
* I am for the moment assuming the politicians do what's best for the nation, even if it goes against their personal interests. Which doesn't always happen as we know.
Just to add on what Jan wrote. Our world is shaped by political decisions and I'm not speaking of picking an ideology but rather of :
- What we tax or not, what we subsidize or not, what we open to trade or not.
- What we submit to health, safety, environmental, land planning,... regulations (and how firmly we decide to enforce these).
- What we say in public discourse, promote in the cultural field, teach in schools.
The list is endless and you can multiply it by all the power levels, from the city council to the UN. I might not be an engineer but I did study political science. Change any of the parameters above the wrong way and you can wipe out a lot of personal efforts.
So can we change things without individual change in consumption habits ? No. But individual change alone will certainly not be sufficient. And I'm fairly realist when it comes to human nature (hearing people in confession for years will do that you): without some carrots and sticks, don't expect widespread voluntary change.
Btw, the Amazon fires are a very good indicator of what's happening when political will weakens.
- What we tax or not, what we subsidize or not, what we open to trade or not.
- What we submit to health, safety, environmental, land planning,... regulations (and how firmly we decide to enforce these).
- What we say in public discourse, promote in the cultural field, teach in schools.
The list is endless and you can multiply it by all the power levels, from the city council to the UN. I might not be an engineer but I did study political science. Change any of the parameters above the wrong way and you can wipe out a lot of personal efforts.
So can we change things without individual change in consumption habits ? No. But individual change alone will certainly not be sufficient. And I'm fairly realist when it comes to human nature (hearing people in confession for years will do that you): without some carrots and sticks, don't expect widespread voluntary change.
Btw, the Amazon fires are a very good indicator of what's happening when political will weakens.
Civil war is what is breaking out when it comes to climate change debates. There are feuds and there are battles and name calling, shaming etc.
Still I think, there is nothing stopping anyone from discarding all Class A amplifying sections and banishing tubes from their lifestyles etc. in the name of global warming.
I chose in the early 80s to purchase a high efficiency furnace for the home over a decade BEFORE they were mandated by government. I chose to retain a manual transmission many years ago over an automatic so that I could be more efficient. People can also now choose to not purchase an SUV and get a subcompact vehicle instead if they so wish. I don't see that happening. I see most people in my area driving a mid to larger SUV and they are the sole passenger and I hear all this talk about global warming in their discussion and what government is doing about it.
The government needs to tell people that the first step is their decision on the lifestyle and government decision will help some but a lot of effort will be on them.
Understand that most decisions to curb emissions will have a net negative impact on people's lives in the short and medium term. No politician will want to present that to people.
When I visited the USA the last time and I saw the scale of air conditioning that is used and where the population lives, I cannot see how they would cope. People are becoming larger, being larger typically means the tolerance for heat decreases. How can you ask people to stop using air conditioning. What about carbon intensive economies, are you asking politicians to kill jobs? It's easy to kill the job of the other guy until the needle points to yourself and then the opinions change quickly. I was an executive once and I am not sure I could make the same decisions again as I get older. Same for soldiers, you can only do certain things at a certain stage in life.
That is where I am coming from.
Still I think, there is nothing stopping anyone from discarding all Class A amplifying sections and banishing tubes from their lifestyles etc. in the name of global warming.
I chose in the early 80s to purchase a high efficiency furnace for the home over a decade BEFORE they were mandated by government. I chose to retain a manual transmission many years ago over an automatic so that I could be more efficient. People can also now choose to not purchase an SUV and get a subcompact vehicle instead if they so wish. I don't see that happening. I see most people in my area driving a mid to larger SUV and they are the sole passenger and I hear all this talk about global warming in their discussion and what government is doing about it.
The government needs to tell people that the first step is their decision on the lifestyle and government decision will help some but a lot of effort will be on them.
Understand that most decisions to curb emissions will have a net negative impact on people's lives in the short and medium term. No politician will want to present that to people.
When I visited the USA the last time and I saw the scale of air conditioning that is used and where the population lives, I cannot see how they would cope. People are becoming larger, being larger typically means the tolerance for heat decreases. How can you ask people to stop using air conditioning. What about carbon intensive economies, are you asking politicians to kill jobs? It's easy to kill the job of the other guy until the needle points to yourself and then the opinions change quickly. I was an executive once and I am not sure I could make the same decisions again as I get older. Same for soldiers, you can only do certain things at a certain stage in life.
That is where I am coming from.
Last edited:
I once already made a reference to a useful drawing exercise for the skeptics:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/328730-global-warming-climate-change-hoax-57.html#post5587241
The issues at the bottom i.e. at our level merely reflect the quality of people who own and run the system altogether, and I do not mean the puppets they put up front for "a democratic vote" from uninformed masses.
The interesting thing is when you see Pentagon calling out climate change the main threat to national security, while the prevailing media is entertaining masses with references to Russia and calling for flying tungsten rods up in the space as the ultimate weapon from god. (of course they do not name the price of flying 1kg of metal in space and how it compares with a much cheaper 1kg of a nuclear weapon, but then you are not supposed to have a brain to figure that out).
And yes we need more anti-ballistic and offensive missiles and invisible planes and submarines and you name it, whereas if Russia detonated their own missiles in silos at home you could kiss plannet Earth goodbuy as a livable place, it would only take a little longer. But all that stuff is worth investing into as opposed to climate which must be a waste of everybody's resources for the chosen few will always find the rare mountain peak or a valley to survive on (or at least they seem to believe so when driven by greed).
> and now going back to diyaudio as probably a healthier choice for a topic.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/328730-global-warming-climate-change-hoax-57.html#post5587241
The issues at the bottom i.e. at our level merely reflect the quality of people who own and run the system altogether, and I do not mean the puppets they put up front for "a democratic vote" from uninformed masses.
The interesting thing is when you see Pentagon calling out climate change the main threat to national security, while the prevailing media is entertaining masses with references to Russia and calling for flying tungsten rods up in the space as the ultimate weapon from god. (of course they do not name the price of flying 1kg of metal in space and how it compares with a much cheaper 1kg of a nuclear weapon, but then you are not supposed to have a brain to figure that out).
And yes we need more anti-ballistic and offensive missiles and invisible planes and submarines and you name it, whereas if Russia detonated their own missiles in silos at home you could kiss plannet Earth goodbuy as a livable place, it would only take a little longer. But all that stuff is worth investing into as opposed to climate which must be a waste of everybody's resources for the chosen few will always find the rare mountain peak or a valley to survive on (or at least they seem to believe so when driven by greed).
> and now going back to diyaudio as probably a healthier choice for a topic.
There might be a reason why issues like "climate" don't get the response, required to start action. For that reason one has to go back to ~1965. A war was raging, look up "napalm girl". The result (publicity and much action re "agent orange", war crimes, pollution etc.) was that industry and regime leaders vowed "to never let that happen again!". So education was streamlined to the minimum required for corporations. Exams got a kind of expiration system and students no longer had the time / opportunity for social issues or to take a few years to practice a different (but useful) study and graduates no longer were competent enough to meaningfully comment on the work of scientists in different disciplines. Summarized as "divide & conquer in academia" and one reason why some are claiming that " more CO2 is good for plants" while ignoring this:
Ocean acidification | A news stream provided by the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre (OA-ICC)
Ocean acidification | A news stream provided by the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre (OA-ICC)
The solution is always political, now they want to fix the disaster they made with a decree for 60 days to stop the intentional fires ....
Seeks to put a brake on the multiplication of fires in the jungle
Bolsonaro signed a decree to ban burning for planting for 60 days
The UN convened a meeting to discuss environmental issues during the next General Assembly, on September 20 and 23 in New York.
Will any tree remain standing or any live animal by that date ?
Bolsonaro firmo un decreto para para prohibir la qu... | Pagina12
Seeks to put a brake on the multiplication of fires in the jungle
Bolsonaro signed a decree to ban burning for planting for 60 days
The UN convened a meeting to discuss environmental issues during the next General Assembly, on September 20 and 23 in New York.
Will any tree remain standing or any live animal by that date ?
Bolsonaro firmo un decreto para para prohibir la qu... | Pagina12
Last edited:
Crisis, Hope, and Permaculture
The Forested Garden: What is a Food Forest?
Learn from Mother Nature and regenerate all vital forces
The Forested Garden: What is a Food Forest?
Learn from Mother Nature and regenerate all vital forces
Greta should be exemplary, not judged by her intentions and she shouldn't be present at a science convention. She's not to speak to academics at her age. Have you looked at her when she arrived? Spasms all over her face, obviously stress related. And what's to a science convention inviting children that haven't got their brains full grown? That's the exact thing you don't want in this: politicize the science.
But really, that's all oke because she means well?
That's always the case isn't it?
Many people meaning well isn't gonna do anything for this planet. Politically it won't, scientifically it won't.
If you look at what's been done instead of what's been agreed upon, Paris, Kyoto, the only thing you ought to extract from this all is that e.g. poor countries want some piece of the pie. If someone thinks that implies you deny them access to the cheapest energy sources available, think again.
That oil and gas that we know is there is gonna go up into the atmosphere, no matter what you agree upon in Paris.
Nobody has a cheap alternative energy source so those few billion people are gonna use it, or should be compensated by the rich countries.
That ain't gonna happen.
Really, run for the hills folks, our intentions aren't nearly enough. But we all mean well don't we.
But really, that's all oke because she means well?
That's always the case isn't it?
Many people meaning well isn't gonna do anything for this planet. Politically it won't, scientifically it won't.
If you look at what's been done instead of what's been agreed upon, Paris, Kyoto, the only thing you ought to extract from this all is that e.g. poor countries want some piece of the pie. If someone thinks that implies you deny them access to the cheapest energy sources available, think again.
That oil and gas that we know is there is gonna go up into the atmosphere, no matter what you agree upon in Paris.
Nobody has a cheap alternative energy source so those few billion people are gonna use it, or should be compensated by the rich countries.
That ain't gonna happen.
Really, run for the hills folks, our intentions aren't nearly enough. But we all mean well don't we.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.