7 Ways to Save the World

[typingrandomstuff]

Myanmar and the Protest
Somehow, the image of oil is still the symbol of wealth. One, monks are not suppose to care about wealth. They are suppose to be isolated people who search for the path of enlightment and knowledge. Two, the monks do not understand the markets. What they do want is a better government.

Myanmar jade is quite a name in Asia. If you don't believe me, search. Taxation on the oil discourages other oil companies. I agree to that it does save the environment, but it do destroy the people's wealth to only certain extent.

What the government should have done is to invite the green buisness in and tax the oil instead of giving such strict regulations. This creates a balance in the country and the ruler can show directly the positive effects of green business. With the oil companies way and the green businesses way, people can compare and contrast. They can choose the appropriate companies. I trust they will choose the green companies because green companies is better for their health and still give them money. The petroleum industry do not have the health component.

As for their governance, the only way to overcome an iron fist is to kill or override an iron fist with another iron fist. (If they actually rule with an iron fist at all).

Climate Change & Poor Countries' Dreams
Many people believe that to be rich, you have to get oil into the place. That is not so. Below is a list of possible talents for countries other than pure oil:

U.S.-technology, aerospace, electronics, telecomunications, hydrogen rockets, satellites
Japan-animation, sugar beets, motors for cars, washers,
China-electric airplanes, satellites
Germany-potatoes, engineering,
Korea-electronics, root crops, barley,
France-beauty products, some wine, tourism, clothing
Italy-pasta, pizza, cermatics, clothing, tourism
Spain-some wine, sugar beets, olives, spanish food, machine tools, clay and refactory products, pharamaceuticals, medical equipment
India-neem sticks, jute, software, transpo equipment, oilseed
Russia-consumer durables, electric power generators,
Britain-railroad, electronics, cereals, oilseed, potatoes, fish
Brazil-machine building, some lumber
Equatorial Guinea-Cassava(tapioca), methanol, cocoa,
Taj-aluminum, cotton, grapes,
Lybya-olives, dates,
Mexico-tequila,
Venezuela-hydro lessons, hydro building to the world
Nigeria-cocoa
Algeria-farming
Colombia-emeralds, cut flowers, apparel
Angola-manioc tapioca, tobacco
Kuwait-fish, shipbuilding, basic marine training
Ecuador-manioc topioca, plaintains, balsa wood
Middle East-mud and brick houses.

For more info, go to the world fact book.

In order for the primary industries to benefit, I come up with a new and improved market plan as follows. It can prevent credit crunches and ensures long economical benefits to everyone. Please read carefully and do not reword the following into something awful or the people who heard you will get mad at you.

New Market

Items
1. Count the number of the items. More items, less cost. Less items, more cost. This goes with the quality. For example, if a diamond have a hardness of 15.0, then the diamond should cost a bit more than the usual because it is rare.

2. Extraction method, packaging.
i) Extraction method will use other tools such as ax for cutting trees. Ax price follow the 1. and 2.
ii) to determine the cost of electricity, the easier and better for the envrionment, the less costly the electricity. This means, the cost of electricity is based on the amount of electricity used. More electricity cost more.

3. Deliver cost and ability to deliver.
>)Fewer delivers in war or protest, cost more.
>)More delivers in war or protest, cost less.
>)Less distance travelled cost less.
>)More distance travelled cost more.
>)optional extra fees for safety of the delivery of items. The extra fees is based on the companies' decision as long as the company follows 1. and 2.

4. Add. total cost of 1.-3. together to get the total price of the items.

>)Avoid lending money or using Accounts Payable and Accounts Recievable and see lending money as some backup.

Over lending without paying back causes debt. It is better to avoid lending money in general.

>) Avoid therotical repricing and abstraction values such as government's rule on certain prices.

Government has done repricing and screwed a lot of the prices.

>)Do not print money at all. Instead, use products to trade with products or services.

The coins and paper can be reused for other items like furniture, toys and paper. Without the coins and paper money, it also saves energy and materials. Plus it can reduce the need to mine for items and let the miners mine on appropriate items.

>)An emergency notice slip can replace emergency loans.

>)Fair trade
1)The traders agrees it is fair
2)Value of the service is equal to a service
or
*Value of the service is equal to goods
or
value of the goods is equal to the service
A fair trade must be made by 1) and 2).
*you can determine the quality of goods through scales, applied math, and quality identifier.
*you can determine the price by checking a chart or known abstract value from a vendor. The price follows the requirements from items of 1.-4.
*services price depend on the person who gives it out.

This allows people to focus more on the solid ideas. It eliminates market confusions and it works even if you are trying to trick or is corrupted. It is a market, which will not fall no matter what. (If everyone want the money at all).

Lending Money Rules
1. The person's net income allows them to pay back.
2. they will do something to get the money repaid. This is usually in the business sections when a businessperson lend money, they are most likely to give money back.
3. If accidents happen and they cannot repay money, let the person work in the place without wages until the money payed. These jobs must be part time. MUST. This is to ensure the person can pay back the loan and still have the chance to search other jobs. Other jobs allows the person to live.
>)1. can be ignored, but 2. and 3. must be in the new market.

For accounting, just erase the dollar signs each time you do a checkup. As long the bottom and final values equal to each other, you are okay.


People
Wages is set by the companies and so is the benefits. To get the people pay for the benefits, take the values of goods or other services. A policewoman can use her police skills to protect a civilian if the civilian give her eye benefits at work.

Kyoto and Beyond
Mr. Harper wants to have fame like the Australian people. He did nothing though. The better plan is Kyoto for the poorer countries. Beyond plans for the major polluters. There, everyone is happy.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Canada's plan to green
Just import more electric goods with renewable resources will do the trick. In truth, just put a trend about it.

Oil's hole
Oil is diminishing. Cost to the oil companies. Say you are a major player in the oil industries.

Say the oil used to be $1. a litre. Then it changed to $0.70 a litre. Say you sold 12 billion litres a day for a small company. That's 12 billion dollars a day if the oil price remained unchanged. Now, if it is $0.70 a litre, you would earn $84 00 000 000. You will lost 36 00 000 000 dollars per day.

Say the oil rised its cost, then you would earn money. However, if it rises, then the oil is harder to get. Say you want to mine in Saskatchewan. The time it takes for a person to go into saskatchewan to get a deal may be around $1000-$50 0000 of convicing the government. After you convinced the government or the local residents, you would need minning equipment, which will cost a lot more. If you damaged the a person with the dynamites or mining, you would have to go to jail, pay for the $20 0000 to $1 billion dollar of loss. These are all going to be there when the oil price rises. Plus the delivery cost, which will require you to use the oil you just mined. And you have to give extra benefits to the people or else they will complain that their health is at risk and give a strike. Plus, you need to use money to get your oponents down. If I add that together, it will cost about at least $21 000 of expenses excluding the money you need to use to knock your opponents down, machine costs, the benefits and delivery expenses.

The oil hole of petroleum industries.

 

[Sal]

All wonderful conscientious ideas. Now if just one of those Hollywood stars would just leave his lear jet on the ground for a day, that covers me driving my SUV for the rest of my life. Works for me.

 

[Extrafire]

Still no suggestions on how to save the world. I'm beginning to forget how long ago I asked for the answer to the impending calamity. Was it 3 weeks ago? Yet no-one will talk.

Come on, all you who are so concerned, all you who say we must take action immediately to avoid calamity. #juan, cobalt_kid, Niflmir, Karrie, Avro, Tonington, Karlin, s_lone, Zzarchov, surely you must have some idea of what is necessary.

You're all so certain of the disaster about to befall us. You all want action NOW. Tell me, what action?

 

[Tonington]

For starters, no new coal plants that will not be compatible with capture and storage technology. Locking into a 50 year dirty old plant is completely the wrong direction to go. Indeed the dirty old coal plants should be phased out.

There are many American states which have introduced mandatory renewable programs which are seeing real results. It basically says that a companies generating portfolio must contain a certain percentage of renewable energy generation. That is likely to be a moving target as we move forward. Not only are these states leading in energy efficiency now, they're creating jobs while they're at it.

Instead of giving so much of the energy subsidies to existing dirty technology, we should be focussing on making renewables more of a priority. Wind generation costs are on the way down, as the favoured renewable. Thermal solar is looking decent right now. If the new design by Ausra proves to be successful. That is the type of thing we ought to be investing subsidy dollars in.

New transportation spending should include more light rail and rapid transit. Adding new lanes to suburban highways systems has been shown to be an ineffective way of dealing with heavy flows of traffic. Our transit is woefully inadequate. Europe moved in the right direction long ago, maybe because they don't have as much space as the N.American continent has...

Canada should revive the incentives programs. Purchasing more efficient appliances reduces the strain on the electrical grid as well as emissions. Also, increased purchasing in efficient appliances only helps to drive down the cost of efficient appliances.

A comprehensive cap and trade system. Companies making real reductions can be awarded for their ingenuity. That ingenuity later gets adopted wholesale through market incentives. Every CEO likes to improve the bottom line.

Commercial properties utilizing rooftop space for thermal capture. Grey water retained for irrigation. Green rooftops which lower albedo. A 25% reduction in energy consumption is nothing to sneeze at.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/221169_green22.html.
Also, buildings like Ford's truck plant in Dearborn serve as a useful example.

All municipalities and regions should be moving towards better waste management. Less land used for landfill, more organic collection, and better recycling programs. All this amounts to better land use and less energy. Energy from waste is also a viable option, provided the emissions can be captured and stored. Incinerating the rubbish is currently working well for the Swedes.

In short, politicians should be pro-market, as opposed to the current pro-business model. The pursuit of profits is a good thing, the pursuit of profits for a specific business is not. Profits for a specific industry or business are meaningless, making all business fight for every dollar, utilizing the best and most efficient means of producing and marketing said good are a good thing. The energy industry has for too long been insulated by this model. They don't have to provide efficient energy to make a buck, in fact electrical companies make money by producing expensive energy. That cost is forced on the consumer, not the producer.

 

[Extrafire]

For starters, no new coal plants that will not be compatible with capture and storage technology. Locking into a 50 year dirty old plant is completely the wrong direction to go. Indeed the dirty old coal plants should be phased out.

That's a good idea. Lots of nasty stuff gets emitted from them besides CO2. It's a huge, multi-century energy source that could be beneficial if cleaned up.

There are many American states which have introduced mandatory renewable programs which are seeing real results. It basically says that a companies generating portfolio must contain a certain percentage of renewable energy generation. That is likely to be a moving target as we move forward. Not only are these states leading in energy efficiency now, they're creating jobs while they're at it.

Good

Instead of giving so much of the energy subsidies to existing dirty technology, we should be focussing on making renewables more of a priority. Wind generation costs are on the way down, as the favoured renewable. Thermal solar is looking decent right now. If the new design by Ausra proves to be successful. That is the type of thing we ought to be investing subsidy dollars in.

Good.

New transportation spending should include more light rail and rapid transit. Adding new lanes to suburban highways systems has been shown to be an ineffective way of dealing with heavy flows of traffic. Our transit is woefully inadequate. Europe moved in the right direction long ago, maybe because they don't have as much space as the N.American continent has...

I think Europe happened to develop before the auto, so it was basically in place. N. America happened to develop wide open spaces into cities just as the car was coming into its own. I'm not so sure that this would work, but OK, I'll go along with it.

Canada should revive the incentives programs. Purchasing more efficient appliances reduces the strain on the electrical grid as well as emissions. Also, increased purchasing in efficient appliances only helps to drive down the cost of efficient appliances.

Might help, but I doubt it. The fridge we got 7 years ago is doing just fine. Can't justify the cost of replacing it. A couple years ago our washer and dryer died, so we got new ones. All of the new stuff is always better than what came before, but most people will only buy when the old stuff wears out. I don't think the incentives help that much. My gas furnace is 40 years old and I'm in no hurry to replace it. Incentive would have to be to replace it for free. (Mind you, I almost never use it, I burn wood.) But OK, I'll go along with this too.

A comprehensive cap and trade system. Companies making real reductions can be awarded for their ingenuity. That ingenuity later gets adopted wholesale through market incentives. Every CEO likes to improve the bottom line.

Improving the bottom line is incentive. However, some industries won't be able to get under the cap, no matter what. Oil sands come to mind. It's just a wealth transfer in the final analysis. This won't help other than by transferring industry overseas or shutting it down, which is counterproductive.

Commercial properties utilizing rooftop space for thermal capture.

OK if it's economically viable.

Grey water retained for irrigation.

Don't see how this affects CO2 output. It would require a separate collection system (sewers) very expensive to install and lots of emissions during the development. Extra energy needed as well for distribution. Unless you're referring to individual homeowners doing their own grey water irrigation. In that case, I can't see any advantage, although there's no disadvantage.

Green rooftops which lower albedo. A 25% reduction in energy consumption is nothing to sneeze at.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/221169_green22.html.
Also, buildings like Ford's truck plant in Dearborn serve as a useful example.

Looks expensive, but I like it.

All municipalities and regions should be moving towards better waste management. Less land used for landfill, more organic collection, and better recycling programs. All this amounts to better land use and less energy. Energy from waste is also a viable option, provided the emissions can be captured and stored. Incinerating the rubbish is currently working well for the Swedes.

Well I put all my vegetable organic waste into my garden. Yard waste that I can't use I put in the municipal compost bin. Non vegetable organics go in the garbage. Do I care? Not really, I just hate wasting good free fertilizer. Many big landfills already capture methane emissions and burn them to create electricity. That makes sense. Recycling I believe must be cost effective. If someone is willing to pay for it because it's worth something, it will happen. Forced recycling is expensive and takes more energy, and thus more emissions. I believe most of Europe incinerates its rubbish. But that still means emissions.

In short, politicians should be pro-market, as opposed to the current pro-business model. The pursuit of profits is a good thing, the pursuit of profits for a specific business is not. Profits for a specific industry or business are meaningless, making all business fight for every dollar, utilizing the best and most efficient means of producing and marketing said good are a good thing. The energy industry has for too long been insulated by this model. They don't have to provide efficient energy to make a buck, in fact electrical companies make money by producing expensive energy. That cost is forced on the consumer, not the producer.

All costs are eventually forced on the consumer. That's where all the revenue for any company comes from. Attempts to change that would likely result in shortages and higher prices.

Here in BC we have the cheapest electrical energy in the world, if I'm not mistaken. My bill for last month was $86. A bargain as far as I'm concerned. BC Hydro makes a profit, and that isn't expensive energy.

Oil companies, much as we all hate them, respond to the law of supply and demand. The efficiency of their fuels depends on the engines that use them, so that's up to the engine manufacturers. They will respond to market demand as well.

Well for the most part, those are good suggestions. But how much will they reduce emissions? I don't know, but from what I can see, they; wouldn't even be enough to meet our Kyoto target. And if the economy and population keep growing, so will energy requirements.

And it seems that you're giving suggestions for how Canadians can reduce emissions. That wasn't the question.

My request was for suggestions on how to "save the planet" which consists of considerably more than Canada.

If, as is claimed, anthropological CO2 emissions are overheating the planet, and if we need to take action now to avert certain disaster, exactly what action should be taken? You haven't come close to what is needed.

You're the only one who has responded out of all those other members here who insist we need to do something. Why haven't they contributed suggestions, since they want action so bad? Could it be that they don't really believe it's a problem? Or that they know the answer is catastrophic itself, more so than the problem they're trying to fix?

Or maybe they just don't know of any way to save the planet.

Well I know two ways, and I'm an unbeliever! Surely you guys must know as much as I.

If there are no further submissions by next weekend I will reveal both ways to you all. One of them would work but will never be implemented - politically and practically impossible.

The other just may work, and it wouldn't have disastrous costs like the suggestions being bandied about now.

 

[Tonington]

Well for the most part, those are good suggestions. But how much will they reduce emissions? I don't know, but from what I can see, they; wouldn't even be enough to meet our Kyoto target. And if the economy and population keep growing, so will energy requirements.

And it seems that you're giving suggestions for how Canadians can reduce emissions. That wasn't the question.

My request was for suggestions on how to "save the planet" which consists of considerably more than Canada.

If, as is claimed, anthropological CO2 emissions are overheating the planet, and if we need to take action now to avert certain disaster, exactly what action should be taken? You haven't come close to what is needed.

Well I know two ways, and I'm an unbeliever! Surely you guys must know as much as I.

If there are no further submissions by next weekend I will reveal both ways to you all. One of them would work but will never be implemented - politically and practically impossible.

The other just may work, and it wouldn't have disastrous costs like the suggestions being bandied about now.

I gave no metric for what this would accomplish, and this is an incomplete list. I didn't mention regulations which require better fuel efficiency from cars. In fact, there is a lot I left out.

Probably the closest to what you're looking for Extra would be the stabilization wedges.

Perhaps the best place for discussing this would be the IPCC summary for policy makers. Though all this hinges on countries sending officials who believe there is a problem.

 

[Extrafire]

Well, all the doomsday believers continue to belittle those of us who deny human cause to climate change, and warn of impending disaster. All of you, #juan, cobalt_kid, Niflmir, Karrie, Avro, Tonington, Karlin, s_lone, Zzarchov, mabudon (and others I am sure) are certain we must take action NOW to save the planet from devastation. But it's been a month now since I first asked for suggestions on just what action to take, and only Tonington has even replied. And that wasn't a recipe for saving the earth, only for a few minor Canadian actions.

The silence is deafening. And I can only think of two reasons why you can't come up with any suggestions for action to avert what you consider the most serious threat ever to face humanity.

1. You don't really believe it. It's just a political maneuver. If you did believe it, you would all be doing what is necessary yourselves, and not one of you is.
2. You know that if it is true, there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

If it's true that warming has been the result of all those tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution, then the only possible solutions are to

1. return emissions to 18th century levels or

2. find some way to counter the effects.

Reducing emissions to 5% below 1990 levels are no use at all, after all, the theory says we were warming dangerously then. Ditto for returning to 1950 levels, or 1900 levels, or 1850 levels. If we've been warming the earth with our emissions starting with the industrial revolution, we must return to prior emission levels. There is no alternative level. So the first way to save the planet is for everyone on earth to stop using fossil fuels completely. No industry, no agriculture, no fishing, no trucks, trains, planes, automobiles, boats, ships, furnaces, electric generators, engines, no energy use at all derived from fossil fuels. And you all know this is the only way, and you all know that it can't be done, which is why you made no suggestions. You won't even do it yourselves, and you're believers. How would you expect anyone else to do it? Never gonna happen.

The only alternative to complete cessation of fossil fuel use is to counter the effect, an antidote. And someone has come up with such an idea that might actually work.

Or, stopping global warming could require sailing a fleet of 50 globe-cooling yachts on the high seas. To Stephen Salter, emeritus professor of engineering design at the University of Edinburgh and the inventor of the cool yachts, there is but one credible course to take, and informed scientists know it. Earlier this week at a climate debate sponsored by the Royal Meteorological Society, "I asked for a show of hands about whether official proposals for CO2 reductions could do enough to stop global warming in time," he explained. "Not one of 300 people with professional interest in the field raised a hand."
In contrast to the utter futility of attempting to quickly refashion the global economy into a carbon-lean machine, Prof. Salter's machine provides realistic hope. Low-level stratocumulus clouds blanket about one-quarter of the world's ocean surface, cooling the waters below by reflecting the sun's rays back into space. Brightening those clouds with sea salt to increase their reflectivity by a mere 3%, atmospheric scientists calculate, would provide sufficient additional cooling to counteract the warming effect caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea salt would be delivered via fine sprays of ocean waters from Prof. Salter's yachts.

The amount of salt water required to cool the planet is surprisingly small -- 50 ships, each pumping salt water at the rate of 10 kilograms per second to produce tiny droplets, could suffice. The tiny droplets evaporate to leave salt residues, which are then distributed by the winds to seed the clouds. In an attempt to waste not a droplet, the yachts -- unmanned and controlled by satellite -- would continually roam the oceans, positioning themselves where cloud conditions were optimal and the need for cooling was greatest.

But this is never gonna happen either, because:

Prof. Salter's cool yachts do have one major design flaw: They promise to save the planet for a pittance, and without making humans pay a dear price for their profligate ways. Fifty ships a year, built at a cost of some $400-million to $500-million, would remove the increased warming now attributed to all the fossil fuel burning. They would also provide the time required for an orderly transition to economies based on renewable fuels -- the passion of Prof. Salter's professional life.
For reasons that would be unfathomable to many, environmentalists at Greenpeace and elsewhere have emerged as critics of the cool yachts, dismissing them out of hand as wacky inventions "that in all likelihood would come to nothing" and saying: "We're looking for reductions in the use of fossil fuels rather than these technologies."

Link for full article.

If you really believe, these are the only two options currently available to save the world. The first is not plausible. Do you really think the environmental organizations will go for the second?

 

[typingrandomstuff]

They are philosophers, Extrafire. Please do not pick on them.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

They talk a lot and do very few. I think most people are like that in the higher positions. The rare people are the most successful. Besides, they support the global warming's truth just for the fun of it. That's what Al Gore did and what all the stars did. They didn't really care that much about global warming. They care a little bit.

Sorry for the leave and long time without posting. I was studying very hard lately. I thought deeply about the whole case of saving the world. I realized if there is no atmosphere, then the earth will still be fine. People, animals, and other large mammals will not be okay. So, if we help the air, we help ourselves.

The way of the Future
Extrafire, this is way overdone. Keep your opinion to your own mind. If people do not help other people, then it is simply the death of humanity. Yup. They are doing nothing much. I doubt even they are around.

Weather something will be stopped or not, depends on the people. You can stop it. Australia already broke the Kyoto Protocol's goals. Canada did not because Canada still try to copy other poor countries. Look at Europe, and the rich countries. They already start to think about the ideas. Europe's pure natural gas plan is some sort of transition. They took care of the extra products and intermediate products. I hope they can add the return to earth part.

When will Canada be a trend starter than a follower?

China is helping with electric planes. Green business is everywhere. Solar grid just grew. Saskatchewan finally tap the wind into the power grid. That's a very great change! I feel I need to collect more information for people to make the better choices. There are tide cold water, baking soda from air wick and tide, and all the other sorts of green and efficient products possible. If you search on google, there are so many great solutions now. Noma LED lights. If you still don't know. There are also so many news, I think I can hardly keep up as a student and a watcher! Keep on going!

Anyone can. It's just the matter of your goals and dreams.

Composts and Cost
First, I need to praise the government to give a compost program. It is the biggest step they ever take to get there!
Now, I need to clarify a bit about the truth.

One, the cost of compost isn't too costly. The whole point of getting composts from the ordinary people is to use them. After the compost is healthy soil, sell it to farmers or other people.

The whole point for business to recycle their package and bottle is to reduce the production cost of their package and bottles. This reduces the expenses.

In this case, the government should give 10cents for every 70 kg of soil and sell the soil at 15cents for every 70kg of soil to farmlands. This will save the government 5cents per 70kg of soil.

It is also best that garbage be eliminated. Garbage should not exsit. The extra materials should be made into something new.

Railway and its Uses
Railway is better for longer distances such as 80 block plus. Bus for 10-80 blocks. Bike for 0-10 blocks. Rest for walking.

Wages and Recycling
If you don't like the wages and awards, talk with the company about the price.

Links
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/specials/green/default.aspx
MSN's encouragement of green pages!

www.majicwindow.com
Windows, but most famous, the bricks!

http://www.nauticexpo.com/cat/workb...-PA-849.html?gclid=COKAz4Li844CFSIRQQodCyG3KA
Nautic expo

http://www.econogics.com/ev/evboats.htm
http://www.electraboat.com/
http://www.electricboats.ca/

More electric boats.

http://www.electricmotorbike.org/
Motorbikes in electric!

http://www.zap16.com/civ fact/civ boeing 7E7.htm
Boeing 787, 7E7, the delivery jet.

Cyclonic vacuum never lose the suction. Recommended is Dyson products.

http://www.amazon.com/Millennium-Whole-Earth-Catalog/dp/0062510592
Related Nature and Future Tools

I find that I'm wasting time on this fourm. I will post a long post by the end of this month to do something to save posting parts. I will do something in the public now. For the next month and the months after, I will only post one gigantic post.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

All are ideas need to be fulfilled.
Please Pardon for the iron fist comment in Myanmar or Burma. What I mean is, if a military with iron fist rule there, take out the military with another military. I thought the another military is like the another iron fist.

 

[Extrafire]

The way of the Future
Extrafire, this is way overdone. Keep your opinion to your own mind. If people do not help other people, then it is simply the death of humanity. Yup. They are doing nothing much. I doubt even they are around.

Weather something will be stopped or not, depends on the people. You can stop it. Australia already broke the Kyoto Protocol's goals. Canada did not because Canada still try to copy other poor countries. Look at Europe, and the rich countries. They already start to think about the ideas. Europe's pure natural gas plan is some sort of transition. They took care of the extra products and intermediate products. I hope they can add the return to earth part.

Australia, like the US, has not ratified the Kyoto accord. Europe talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. They have made some efforts but only two countries might make it. The rest won't, and most of them are increasing emissions. Besides which, meeting Kyoto targets will have absolutely no effect. Remember, we're trying to save the world. That means eliminating emissions. Never gonna happen.

When will Canada be a trend starter than a follower?

With any luck, Canada will start the trend of ignoring Kyoto.

China is helping with electric planes. Green business is everywhere. Solar grid just grew. Saskatchewan finally tap the wind into the power grid. That's a very great change! I feel I need to collect more information for people to make the better choices. There are tide cold water, baking soda from air wick and tide, and all the other sorts of green and efficient products possible. If you search on google, there are so many great solutions now. Noma LED lights. If you still don't know. There are also so many news, I think I can hardly keep up as a student and a watcher! Keep on going!

China is helping???8O China increases emissions every 18 months by the total amount of Canada's output. They open a new coal fired electric plant every week. They add 1000 new cars to the streets of Beijing every day. That's help??? Electric planes? Never heard of them. I suppose it could be possible for very short hops, but they'd have to recharge from the electricity of those filthy coal fired electric plants.

Anyone can. It's just the matter of your goals and dreams.

Composts and Cost
First, I need to praise the government to give a compost program. It is the biggest step they ever take to get there!
Now, I need to clarify a bit about the truth.

One, the cost of compost isn't too costly. The whole point of getting composts from the ordinary people is to use them. After the compost is healthy soil, sell it to farmers or other people.

Compost just recycles organic matter. Compost is decomposing material that is in the process of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It makes no difference to global warming or cooling.

As usual, all your suggestions may reduce CO2 output, but will not eliminate it, which is the only way to stop the warming if the theory is correct.

 

[Extrafire]

And still no suggestions from concerned posters at this forum. I know you're all concerned because you keep posting on the subject in other threads, but still no solution from all of you who want to take action to save the world.

You can't be serious.

You don't really believe in the approaching doomsday scenario after all, do you?

 

[Niflmir]

The silence is deafening. And I can only think of two reasons why you can't come up with any suggestions for action to avert what you consider the most serious threat ever to face humanity.

1. You don't really believe it. It's just a political maneuver. If you did believe it, you would all be doing what is necessary yourselves, and not one of you is.
2. You know that if it is true, there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
3. We have posted suggestions elsewhere and don't have the time to babysit the internet when there are more important things to do.
4. Infinite possibilities for reasons not to have read a post or responded to it.

I posted somewhere else on how to reduce our emissions to something like 50% of 1990 levels within six years. It is easy: reduce oil exports to 1990 levels in the first few years, alternatively reduce emissions due to oil exports to those levels and enforce this dichotomy. Phase out all the combustion plants in favour of nuclear, wind and solar power. Done. You can find all the information necessary to see that this strategy would be successful in reducing emissions in the 2006 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment.

 

[Tonington]

I fail to see how my post was only 'minor Canadian actions.' The first thing I mentioned was the renewable energy programs being used by states south of the border. Further, there is no one plan for all countries Extra. That's foolish. Lets say that Iceland puts more effort in geothermal and wind generation. That plan while containing elements that could be implemented here in Canada, is geographically specific. Countries will have to implement strategies that are feasible given their unique characteristics.

You never did respond to the stabilization wedges. We have the technology to do it now. Waiting for breakthrough technologies is a fools errand.

 

[Extrafire]

3. We have posted suggestions elsewhere and don't have the time to babysit the internet when there are more important things to do.
4. Infinite possibilities for reasons not to have read a post or responded to it.

3. Having read most of the posts, if not all, I have yet to find such a solution. Considering how much time is spent babysitting the internet and complaining about the approaching calamity, apparently you don't have more important things to do. It would take far less time to respond with a general answer than to continue with the other postings crying about how the sky is falling.

4. Since you all seem to cover the posts on this topic, I find it doubtful that you would skip this particular one and read all the rest. And reasons for not responding other than those I suggested? What could a few of them be, pray tell.

I posted somewhere else on how to reduce our emissions to something like 50% of 1990 levels within six years.

which isn't close to the 18th century levels required to save the planet.

It is easy: reduce oil exports to 1990 levels in the first few years, alternatively reduce emissions due to oil exports to those levels and enforce this dichotomy. Phase out all the combustion plants in favour of nuclear, wind and solar power. Done.

In six years??? more like 60, if the environmentalists would let you.

You can find all the information necessary to see that this strategy would be successful in reducing emissions in the 2006 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment.

which is still just reductions, not elimination. It's not quite as drastic as eliminating all emissions, but the people still wouldn't stand for it. Nobody is willing to give up much of their lifestyle, let alone do what is necessary to return to 18th century levels. And remember, the question is how to save the planet, not just restricted to Canada. How would you suggest we deal with India and China?

 

[Extrafire]

I fail to see how my post was only 'minor Canadian actions.' The first thing I mentioned was the renewable energy programs being used by states south of the border. Further, there is no one plan for all countries Extra. That's foolish. Lets say that Iceland puts more effort in geothermal and wind generation. That plan while containing elements that could be implemented here in Canada, is geographically specific. Countries will have to implement strategies that are feasible given their unique characteristics.

You never did respond to the stabilization wedges. We have the technology to do it now. Waiting for breakthrough technologies is a fools errand.

Waiting for technology to do it is the only realistic option we have. None of the reductions would even come close. Besides, we are already reducing the percentage of carbon we burn; coal is proportionately high in carbon, low in hydrogen, oil is roughly even, natural gas is high in hydrogen. We're moving in that direction.

Reductions won't do it, you know that well. And the question I asked was what action to take to save the planet. Not what reductions we could make to meet Kyoto, or other countries could make. The only choices are, as I mentioned, cloud salting or total elimination of emissions, if the situation is as serious as the doomsayers claim. And we all know that reducing emissions to 18th century levels ain't a-gonna happen without a huge shift in technology over decades.

 

[Tonington]

which isn't close to the 18th century levels required to save the planet.

What on Earth is your basis for that? The issue isn't where the levels stabilize at 18th century or 1990 levels. That's poppycock. The issue is to stabilize, before nasty feedback loops get a process started that we will have no way of stopping with. Huge difference. Do you understand how the earth can buffer a percentage of what we emit? The idea is to keep it so that what ecological health we have left can deal with that.

How would you suggest we deal with India and China?

For one by leading on the issue, then bringing them in. You don't wait for poor countries to show you how it's done. You show them how it's done, as we have with the economy. Now we have to show them how we can keep an economy growing in a sustainable manner.

 

[Extrafire]

What on Earth is your basis for that?

The theory, as #juan is so fond of saying, is that human emissions have been warming the earth starting with the industrial revolution in the 18th century. Therefore, anything more than that level of emissions will still cause the temps to rise, meaning only a delay to the approaching calamity.

The issue isn't where the levels stabilize at 18th century or 1990 levels. That's poppycock. The issue is to stabilize, before nasty feedback loops get a process started that we will have no way of stopping with. Huge difference. Do you understand how the earth can buffer a percentage of what we emit? The idea is to keep it so that what ecological health we have left can deal with that.

And again, if the theory is correct, what the earth can buffer is pre-industrial revolution levels, because it hasn't buffered them enough since then. If you deny that, then you don't believe we have a very serious problem at all.

For one by leading on the issue, then bringing them in.

Bringing them in how??? China and a number of other countries have already stated they have no intention of doing what we're supposed to be doing. Although they also said that we should continue to try to meet Kyoto and do more besides. Guess they like the wealth transfers and competitive advantage.

You don't wait for poor countries to show you how it's done. You show them how it's done, as we have with the economy. Now we have to show them how we can keep an economy growing in a sustainable manner.

People have been saying we aren't practicing sustainable methods for about 140 years now, but it keeps growing, and is still sustaining itself. (Remember the Club of Rome? Oh, no you wouldn't, you're too young!)

You wouldn't be suggesting we just set a good example and they'll be inspired and copy us are you?

 

[Tonington]

The theory, as #juan is so fond of saying, is that human emissions have been warming the earth starting with the industrial revolution in the 18th century. Therefore, anything more than that level of emissions will still cause the temps to rise, meaning only a delay to the approaching calamity.

The approaching calamity is a tipping point. You know very well that a portion of our emissions are absorbed by natural components which make up the nutrient cycles. At some point the idea is to get man on a zero carbon diet, but that can't happen overnight, and none of the serious players are saying that at all. If they were, then I would actually agree in some instances with people like Lomborg.

And again, if the theory is correct, what the earth can buffer is pre-industrial revolution levels, because it hasn't buffered them enough since then. If you deny that, then you don't believe we have a very serious problem at all.

Not true. The earth can buffer much more, but that will have drastic consequences. They're already creeping up on us. The present trend will result in a pH in the ocean 0.2 lower than before the trend started by 2050. The real problem besides the damage we've already done is the tipping points, where the positive feedbacks will effectively be the extra fuel on the fire.

People have been saying we aren't practicing sustainable methods for about 140 years now, but it keeps growing, and is still sustaining itself. (Remember the Club of Rome? Oh, no you wouldn't, you're too young!)

Fishing, not sustainable. Soil use, not sustainable. Fresh water usage, not sustainable. Simply because we can continue to get production doe snot mean it is sustainable. Sustainable would mean that we don't need to have stock enhancement programs, we don't need soil amendment, and we don't need water treatment. That is not the situation, because our natural resources are being used faster than the ecosystem can accommodate. Increasing complexity does not indicate a sustainable use, it indicates a fundamental problem.

You wouldn't be suggesting we just set a good example and they'll be inspired and copy us are you?

No.