good for the planet to purge itself of our wretched species ... personally i think humans will extinct themselves within 200years anyway
Printable View
good for the planet to purge itself of our wretched species ... personally i think humans will extinct themselves within 200years anyway
that's good because we will all be dust by that time so who caresQuote:
Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness
death is a path we all will take :) why fear it ... when your dead your dead so it wont matter lol :)
just enjoy the shit in the middle :)
Ahh.. but thats where you are mistaken.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness
have you been dead yet ? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
If we agree that the issues involved in climate change and global warming have been deepened and accelerated by human activity, then coal, oil and gas, historically are only a part of the cause; deforestation is another cause.
Among contemporary actors, the major independent oil companies -I don't consider Koch Industries in your link to be one of them- have reduced emissions with greater success than other industries; power companies are not doing so well, by comparison.
I would rather move this whole debate from an arid cycle of exchanges that lead nowhere to find out how people see their future, whether it is the pessimistic 200 years to go of Ms Harkness; or Faldur's What's the problem, dude?
I think as a general rule, all of us want to live in a clean and safe environment -which means, for example, that we don't want to live in the vicinity of a chemicals plant that spews strange-smelling clouds over the garden and pollutes the river running through town. Environmental legislation exists for a purpose, but one of the reasons why, in the USA, the EPA was set up in 1970 was to meet the public's anxiety at the impact that modern industry was having on the quality of life in cities towns and villages.
Many countries have followed the USA by creating responsible legislation and monitoring agencies, and in general terms the environment we live in in the western world is cleaner today than it was when I was born. The descent of smog in those days often meant that we left school early in groups of six with a teacher leading us home through streets where visibility was barely 12 inches. The coal we used for domestic heating, and industrial pollutants belching from chimney stacks were a primary cause -the Clean Air Act, smokeless fuels, and changes to industrial production mean smog is a phenomenon of the past. Motor vehicles contain virtually no lead now whereas it was common until the 1970s when the campaigns to remove lead from petrol succeeded in spite of the oil companies saying it would be financially destructive (it wasn't of course).
My point is that we have the technological means to live in a cleaner world, a safer world, and a world in which we enjoy the benefits of a fuel-mix that includes conventional oil and gas, as well as solar, wind and wave power, and biofuels; and that as prosperity rises in poorer countries, people will no longer have to build wood fires to cook and keep warm, or tear down precious forests.
The long term future of hydrocarbons is doomed, because it is a finite source of energy -hydraulic fracturing has only become viable because the price of oil is unlikely to dip below $50 a barrel in the future; but while there are billions of barrels of unconventional oil and gas on the planet, it doesn't mean that existing technology and capital can unlock them: we are still unsure of the environmental consequendes of 'fracking' and if society decides it is too much to risk, it will not go ahead. I don't see this as a problem, as long as the conventional sources of oil are maintained, peak oil -globally- is not due for another 50 years; but that gives society time to develop the alternatives.
With one exception, the solutions to the impact of climate change and global warming are here, be they political, technological, or financial: they work, and in the long term they are cost-effective -even if you don't believe in climate change or global warming, it makes sense to diversify the sources of energy; it makes sense to halt deforestation; it makes sense to regulate indsutrial production and protect local and national environments; it is a win-win situation to diversify energy sources, but it does require the kind of international co-operation that has made disease control since the 19th centuty one of history's great success stories.
If there is one exception that gives me the greatest anxiety, it is the threat to water supplies. Two third of the planet is covered in water, but only 1% is good enough for humans to drink; Lima, in Peru is facing a future without water in the next 10 years if emergency measures are not taken. The Inca never settled there because there was no water, the Conquistadores did so because the Inca were not there. Bad move. The Yemen -the most densely populated state on the Arabian Peninsula- will run out of water in the next 10-20 years -it was a combination of drought and famine that drove the inhabitants of Arabia Felix north several thousand years ago; the prospects for social chaos consquence upon water shortages in some parts of the world are real.
These issues are bigger than taxes on carbon, bigger than childish debates about selective emails that prove a, b and c as you wish to prove it -but all of these problems can be solved, we have the money, we have the technology; all that is lacking is the political will.
Indeed, deforestation is a serious contributor to global warming. My post focused on the release of long sequestered (on the order of geological time) carbon dioxide. But living forests play a key role in annual carbon cycle by “scrubbing” carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen. Even without the addition of fossil carbon dioxide, our climate would be responding to the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to deforestation.
Stavros seems to be pointing to two, not unrelated problems. One is the problem of finding a future source of energy that won’t destabilize the climatic energy balance or push us towards an equilibrium that proves disastrous to civilized life. The other problem is how to adopt industrial and economic practices that are not harmful to the quality of human life. The toxins produced by fracking, the rancid atmospheric pollutants output by factory farms that drive their neighbors indoors and renders their homes unsellable, the giant oil spills that ruin hundreds of miles of pristine beaches may or may have measurable effect on climate, but they do sadly diminish the quality of life.
The climate is the commons. Underground water aquifers are the commons. (Because of the extended drought, Texas is now metering private wells that draw water from large underground aquifers). We have a collective interest in the health of the oceans, the bayou, the beaches etc. We have an interest in protecting the commons from private exploitation through enforced regulation.
I agree with Liberty Harkness, that “when you’re dead, you’re dead.” Only a few talented bubbleheads can disagree with a tautology. But it doesn’t follow that when you’re dead quality of life will no longer be of any concern to the humans who survive you. We've been here for around 400, 000 years. It doesn’t seem to me that extinction is only 200 years away. But given the rate of cultural change we’ve witnessed over the last 4000 years it is very likely that human culture 200 years from now may look radically different from how it appears today. Though I won’t be around to see it, I sincerely hope our knowledge survives and expands, that we do not revert to the barbarities of the past and it remains possible for an average family to thrive and be happy. I don’t think this is an impossible wish. But, as always, the future will depend upon the contingencies of today.
you people with this carbonQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
The problem is there is to many people per square mile on parts of this planet which is causing a strain on its resources .Carbon is one is one of the results of this as well as other forms of pollution, but its not going to wipe out life on this planet.The problem of clean drinking water is a far worse problem
LOL:smhQuote:
you people with this carbon
We may just all have to live in a venusian desert. Then water will be even a greater problem.Quote:
but its not going to wipe out life on this planet.