Well, the best way to reduce our footprint and have our cake too is not making so many babies. But that goes against millions of years of evolution, and I doubt that culture can override that.
Jan
If this carbon footprint is referring to carbon dioxide, we need it and plants need it. If it's referring to carbon as in carbon fiber or dust (which I doubt), we still need it for technological reasons. So why are some people so scared by it?
Long ago in history class I was taught that after the medieval plague epidemic in Western Europe, everything was done by the authorities to increase the population, which till then had been expanding slowly as knowledge of birth control was good (enough). IOW a change summarized as "more workers, more consumers, more soldiers, more powerful country / empire". Nowadays this globally adopted system is based on ever growing debt which requires economic growth forever aka converting the environment (and its dire consequences) to instant cash. From that perspective the present situation isn't a surprise, nor how it will develop.
What about since 1992? I'm curious why that year was picked (by whoever published the data) as a reference. Seems arbitrary or agenda driven.
That is the silliest and bizarrely paranoid thing I've read in a long time.
It's 2002 because it is limited to the 10 hottest years, if you start at 1992 you end up with the 13 or 17 hottest ones.
The only people still arguing against man-made climate change are those who drank deeply from the fossil fuel lobby's Kool Aid.
It is the same as the idiotic 'foolow the money' argument deniers use without actually researching themselves. I did at one point and it turned out that those warning of climate change had tiny budgets while every single one of those 'studies' denying it were directly and generously financed by fossil fuel companies.
If you look at population demographics, you will hear about a term called the 'demographic transition'. Once societies reach a certain level of affluence, they go from having many children to having few. This transition is largely completed in advanced countries and is well underway in China (enforced, but since the abolition of the one child policy, there has not been a boom in population and China's population has levelled off and is expected to settle down to about 900 million by 2100), Japan and to some extent in India (it will complete the transition in 2030). Africa still some decades behind, but it too will go through the transition in the next 50 years or so (Africa has historically been highly under-populated, so in a sense, they are catching up to the rest of the world). Some estimates put the total global population peaking between 2040 and 2060 at 9 billion.
So, I don't think we will ever see doomsday figures of '20 billion humans' on the planet, but would agree that 9 billion is too much and 4 or 4 billion is enough. Researchers do not know enough about what happens centuries after the demographic transition and whether in fact human population will shrink back down again to a more sustainable 3-4 billion. The most important thing here though is that because of technology, as a species we will, after Africa passes through the demographic transition, exit the 'Malthusian trap' societal developmental phase permanently.
So, I don't think we will ever see doomsday figures of '20 billion humans' on the planet, but would agree that 9 billion is too much and 4 or 4 billion is enough. Researchers do not know enough about what happens centuries after the demographic transition and whether in fact human population will shrink back down again to a more sustainable 3-4 billion. The most important thing here though is that because of technology, as a species we will, after Africa passes through the demographic transition, exit the 'Malthusian trap' societal developmental phase permanently.
Last edited:
Oh, it's mostly related to how much energy you personally use. It will combine your housing, travel and shopping habits/expenses which directly translate to the impact your lifestyle has on environment. You can understand now the critique some of the leading advocates for a "green economy" face when contradicted with their lavish lifestyles.
It's a DIY forum an significant part of participants do it for a saving purposes. I assume most in their minds are already on the border of sacrifice. How much more are they ready to give up ? I think the better question would be how much more their wives are going to give up ?
Not much if the general populace here is like most of my friends who live paycheck to paycheck with no savings whatsoever .
Note to self, by posting a plain question out of curiosity, someone may see that as a paranoia.
Mathematically speaking, top 10 can be picked out of minimum 11 so the year 2002 is arbitrary pick. It can still display top 10 out 100 or more.
Grammatically speaking, there is only 1 hottest year out of 2 to all years since they started recording temperature.
Have you researched the temperature record prior to 2002 before deciding to post that on this fourm?
With this type of discussion, its best to put aside judgement and just talk about the numbers - that's all.
That we pump 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (and have done so every year for the last 30 or 40 +- a few billion either way) should not in anyway be in dispute. Total cumulative emissions from 1870 (estimated) = 2.5 trillion tons.
That we pump 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (and have done so every year for the last 30 or 40 +- a few billion either way) should not in anyway be in dispute. Total cumulative emissions from 1870 (estimated) = 2.5 trillion tons.
Attachments
I was wondering why the particular word "carbon" was picked (not you but the one/s who came up with the movement) as the term. I thought it was the production of carbon dioxide. If not, I'm all ears to those who have accurate info on this matter.
I think you're correct.It's how much of carbon dioxide is produced in order to satisfy your personal lifestyle goals and ambitions.
While the graphs of increased Co2 emissions are pretty convincing I remember reading that human activity only accounts for 0.03 (or 0.003) in increase of all greenhouse gasses having impact on the climate. Don't quote me on that though.
I think it's a belief issue. I choose to believe that even if our own activity is the reason of a climate related future doom there is nothing we can do about it so let the orchestra play as long as we are sinking. And if not , there are will be other doomsday scenarios to face-plenty of them .
Carbon is the one component common to all fossil fuels so it’s a short/easy way to describe those fuels. Of course as you note CO2 is the real target and the subject of carbon credits when corporations are claiming tax credits for sequestering CO2. In short it’s typical English usage where context is nearly everything.
Climate Change Indicators: Weather and Climate | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA
There was an excellent graph (BBC IIRC) showing the annual temperatures over the year for the last 100 or so years (they have been recording annual temperatures across multiple sites across the UK since the late 1700's - suspect most other countries in NW Europe as well).
This kind of graph is called a 'crawl chart' since it overlays each years monthly temperatures over the previous year and it plays live.
And indeed what is shows is that over the last 15 years the highest temperatures have been recorded.
I don't think this is an issue of some folks telling others how to live. Its a global issue and I am afraid 150 years of industrial profligacy is simply going to have to come to an end one way or another. Either we do it voluntarily as the human race, or mother nature will do it her way. I really would like to avoid that route for me and my progeny.
There was an excellent graph (BBC IIRC) showing the annual temperatures over the year for the last 100 or so years (they have been recording annual temperatures across multiple sites across the UK since the late 1700's - suspect most other countries in NW Europe as well).
This kind of graph is called a 'crawl chart' since it overlays each years monthly temperatures over the previous year and it plays live.
And indeed what is shows is that over the last 15 years the highest temperatures have been recorded.
I don't think this is an issue of some folks telling others how to live. Its a global issue and I am afraid 150 years of industrial profligacy is simply going to have to come to an end one way or another. Either we do it voluntarily as the human race, or mother nature will do it her way. I really would like to avoid that route for me and my progeny.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.