Why yes, I do know that. But since the theory says temps have been rising since the 18th century, then obviously that has to be the limit, and we must return to those levels or else.
Well, you know that that's the only salvation if the theory is correct, and damned little time available to do it too, but none of the serious players (or fear mongers) are saying that because they know it's impossible and they'll lose all public support if they do. Or (more likely) they know it's all a crock and they're just being political.
Hmm...now isn't that what we're supposed to be avoiding, those drastic consequences that are inevitable if we don't stop global warming? That's what they tell us, and since 19th century levels were enough to cause global warming (they say) then we must get lower, because the earth obviously can't buffer them enough to save our asses. Or perhaps you're saying the same as George Carlin, the planet is fine, people are f'cked. Which is true if the calamity is upon us, but then the idea isn't really to save the planet but rather to save our existence on it.
Well, since we're nowhere near as warm as the temps were 7000 years ago and the planet didn't reach any tipping points then, we have nothing to worry about for a century or two, lots of time for technology to make fossil fuels obsolete without all the ridiculous efforts being tried now. "The stone age came to an end, but not because of a lack of stones. The oil age will also come to an end, but not for a lack of oil" - Saudi oil minister Sheik Yammani.
Hunting not sustainable either. 'Bout time we switched to farming.
Some isn't, most is, and getting better. Run out of food lately?
Yes it is, it falls from the sky, never stops cycling. Some over use of aquifers isn't sustainable, but we'll adapt, we always have.
Snot???8O Oh, that's a typo. Made me look twice.:lol: Yeah that's what sustainable means.
Sounds like you figure to be sustainable means we revert to pre-industrial agriculture. Then there would be a disaster, because we couldn't produce enough to feed the world that way. Don't need water treatment? That would be pre-agricultural.
Yeah, I heard of that before. In fact, people have been warning of that for a century and a half. Just like Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome. Funny though, we never seem to run out.
Increasing complexity is the only reason we're able to sustain such a large population on the planet. Go back to basics and billions will die, and they won't die quietly, they'll go down fighting. It would be the most awful calamity ever faced by humanity.
Glad to hear it. But just how would you get the rest of the world to come on board when they've said they have no intention of doing so?
Oh please!!!:lol: China is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world and is increasing emissions at an exponential rate. That's help???
Hopefully we will, that may take a while though.
Of course it's impossible. No one asked for it to happen overnight. All the time that was spent debating whether it was happening, whether it was a problem, and whether we can do anything, was all delaying tactics. Steady reductions could have been made. Industry lobbyists did their darnedest to conflate the issue, quite successfully. The tides are changing now.
The globe will continue to increase in temperature, even after we stop. That's how feedback loops work, and why temperature rise in the proxies always leads carbon dioxide. We have to claw back emissions before the warming stops. Those feedbacks are the tipping points.
We already switched to farming.
Because I'm a good model for the 6.5 billion humans....:roll: You're delusional if you think our soil use is sustainable.
There's that faulty logic, we're so advanced we can overcome anything nature throws at us. The stored water above ground, what many cities rely on, runs dry. Check out what the situation in Georgia is like. Not to mention polluted water bodies...
A snotty retort.
Nope. Not at all what I figure. You keep responding like I think corporations are bad. Like I think everything humans touch turns to crap. Like I have some vendetta against civilization. All I said was that if we were sustainable, we wouldn't need those things. Our population can only grow so much, there is a carrying capacity, and we will go past, and then crash below. No organism can outstrip the resources.
Most of the world is committed to solving the problem. There are a few standouts. Those standouts are sitting at the edge of the pool, waiting for someone else to jmup in first. Test the waters if you will.
Unless there's some imminent breakthrough, like cold fusion, in the near future, it will take centuries.
No-one on your side of the debate has ever admitted that that's the only way to"save the planet", and they still won't.
"Delaying tactics" implies that everyone knew that the supposed approaching global warming catastrophe is real. That's not so. The debate had nothing to do with delaying. It was a demand for truth and science by the "denier" side.
With great sacrifice and absolutely no effect on climate.
Honest scientists did their darndest to expose the truth of the matter, to little effect.
Yes, politicians are realizing that the public has been brainwashed and they have no choice but to make token efforts. The public wouldn't stand for anything that would be effective (total elimination of emissions).
The warming has already stopped. Which way it will head next is still unknown, but scientists who study the sun say we're in for a long cooling.
I've been hearing predictions of immediate soil doomsday for 40 years now and it still isn't imminent. Personally I prefer organics, but the world can't be fed that way. I love gardening with rich organic soil, and I believe that bolstering organic content in soil would be beneficial to agriculture. But I'm no longer all that concerned by the way it's done. I'm much more concerned by the corporate concentration of farms (agribusiness) in such giants as Cargil and Monsanto.
You think so? I certainly don't. Nature triumphs in the end. But we'll adapt, we always have and always will, unless there's another asteroid aimed at us.....
Droughts have always occurred, always will. Remember hearing about the dirty thirties? We haven't experienced anything like that since. Yet that was nothing compared to the 70 year drought on the prairies back in the 17th century. And we have a bad record for polluting water, but also an improving record for un-polluting it. Check out what they've done with the Thames. We'll manage.
Not quite what I was trying to convey (although I have met people who do think exactly like that). I was saying that it sounds like your idea of sustainable means no human enhancement or intervention.
No soil enhancement? What's unsustainable with that? I enhance the soil of my garden every year with organic matter.
Modern societies are in demographic collapse. Replacement birthrate is 2.1 children per woman. Canada sits at 1.5, Italy at 1.25. Unless that trend is reversed very soon, the Italian people will likely go extinct before the Vancouver Island Marmot. They are an endangered species, so to speak. Canada only increases its population by immigration. China, with its one child policy, is about to encounter its own demographic implosion.In the developing world, the birthrate is less than half what is was and falling. The recent world population explosion isn't a result of us breeding like rabits, it's just that with modern medicines, refrigeration and all the good things that come with energy, we stopped dying like flies. The population will level out long before we reach the limits of growth.
Absolute rubbish. (but at least we're back on topic - how to save the planet) Most of the world isn't even required to do anything under Kyoto, and they like it that way. Their "commitment" extends only to governments "taking action" just so long as they personally don't have to give up anything. Just as Al Gore what he's willing to sacrifice.
Does this sound like a part of the world that's committed?
Imminent breakthrough is not at all something to count on. Look at how long it's been since the hydrogen fuel cell was first invented. Whether or not it can be done is not a question of technological breakthrough's, it is political will. I'm assuming you still haven't found the stabilization wedges? Maybe I'll post them after this.
Of course they haven't. The precise tipping point is not even known, how could they even claim tht is the only way. Theres a plethora of opinions out there, as varied as the opinions for/against AGW.
I said delaying is what it has turned into. Yes, originally it was as you said, debating the supporting science. Now the tune has changed from that to a delaying. Technology is the new buzz word, and you proved that when you bring up imminent technological breakthroughs. That is not likely at all. It's flawed, we have technology right now that can be deployed. Again, do we have the political will, that is the question.
Based on what cycle? The same cycles that had to be mathematically manipulated to falsely show they matched the warming? Hah.
I said nothing of doomsday. I'm not arguing someone else's words here. I said our soil use is not sustainable. Do you know what the definition of sustainable is? Organic wouldn't work because the soil needs amendments to be productive. Organic amendments are not enough to mitigate the nutrient losses from intensive farming. That is why we rely on petrochemical fertilizers. Interestingly it's those evil companies that have found ways to remain productive in sub-optimal growing conditions.
That is the definition of sustainable. It means that we don't take out more than the ecosystem can put back. That is what has contributed to ecosystem degradation. Including pollutants. Water courses can deal with certain levels of nutrients, beyond that, they're toxic. Sustainability does not include replacing natural systems with man made management. Sustainability can include cycling nutrients on a farm, such as mixed farm operations. Use that manure, it's the same nutrients being cycled.
But you aren't the standard model are you?
We already use more than 30% of what natural systems can provide. By mid century, the projected growth will put us at 9 Billion, about 50% more than we have right now. Population may indeed level out, we're about due for a pandemic.
But they are signatories, the next phase is around the corner. While federal governments might be dragging their feet, I'm more impressed by local leadership.
I said nothing about imminent breakthrough, other than that's the only alternative to immediate cessation of fossil fuel consumption for saving the planet from certain calamity that the doomsayers claim is upon us. I am not suggesting sitting back and waiting for some miraculous invention to pop onto the scene. I'm just asking for solutions to the problem spelled out so graphically by the alarmists.
Oops! Sounds like backpedaling. Guess it isn't such a serious problem after all!
I didn't suggest waiting for some mythical imminent technological breakthrough. I only mentioned that that happens to be the only (highly unlikely) alternative to immediate cessation of fossil fuel use. Don't try to make your own position sound better by misrepresenting mine. The "deniers" are saying the same thing I am, which is that eventually technology will lead to new sources of energy thus solving the (mythological) problem, and all other efforts are doomed to failure.
According to scientists who study the sun. I posted that info quite some time ago. Remember this?
No, you didn't use the word. But if it isn't sustainable, that's the eventual result. But enough on soil. The question was how to save the planet from climate change catastrophe. Let's get back on topic.
Read "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer and you'll get an idea how we'll adapt. Proactive how? That's the question I'm asking on this thread. At least you've made some effort to answer, unlike all the other doomsayers here. And as far as records are concerned, about the time we started keeping them was the beginning of the industrial revolution, the coldest period in the last 8000 years. They're only records for the short time we've been keeping track.
Yeah, I recall that conversation. Seems I agreed with you on that point. But your definition of sustainable is a new on for me. Almost sounds like stone age.
Population is expected to level out at 9 billion, and that figure keeps dropping as more and more nations become modernized (with energy use) and the demographics go into reverse.
Yeah, they signed on. Easy to do when you don't have to reduce, you can increase all you want and the wealth gets transfered to you. They're committed as long as we do all the cutbacks while they reap the benefits. Everyone knows that Kyoto is a dead end, even the European cheerleaders who won't meet their own targets. They're just not quite willing to admit it yet. The next phase will never happen.
Not your obligation, but I was asking how you suggest it can be done. After all, the salvation of the world depends on this. Germany is a leader that still won't meet its own Kyoto targets, even with the head start they had.
I like that.
If I lived in a large metro area I would use public transport as much as possible because I detest the traffic and parking problems. However, such a reduction would not be popular in many other scenarios, including the one I do happen to live in, where I drive very little.
I like that too. It's being worked on, but it takes decades for the technology to filter through the whole society.
For sure. A no-brainer.
For "saving the planet" CO2 capture might be good, but from my point of view it's unnecessary. The others are good ideas.
If you're already capturing the carbon from the coal fired plants, what's the point of switching to natural gas? And there's 500 years worth of coal. I don't believe there's that much natural gas.
They didn't think that one through. Biofuel takes more energy to produce than it delivers. The net effect is more CO2. I like the others.
Right. Deforestation is now being done mostly for bio-fuels.
Yup, that sounds good too.
:roll: How does $0.02 sound? You can pick it up in the Via Rail station in Vancouver, locker 101. Combos 06-08-02, I'll double the price if you figure out the combos relevance
Weaning is fine, and I'm all for it, but not because of climate change worries. Problem is, we're already doing that, but the overall use of energy is increasing and that means hydrocarbon use is increasing too. And we can only wean as long as there's something to replace it, and as yet, there isn't.
You're not backpeddlling? Sorry, I though you considered global warming to be a serious problem. Guess I mis-read you.
I guess you figure if you label them, that's what they are. They are not delayers, they are trying to prevent the implementation of ineffectual measures against a fictional problem. While trying to impart the truth to the public they also happen to mention that in time we will eventually get beyond the extensive use of fossil fuels. That's not delay attempts, that's merely facing the truth.
Don't recall that you said exactly that. But there is no alternative to large scale use of fossil fuels, even if you combine all the alternatives and use them to the max. Won't come close. Once again, facing the facts, accepting the truth. Call it a delayer argument if you will, but that would just be avoiding reality.
Just reporting what the scientists said, and I trust them a whole lot more than the alarmists. You'll have noticed, I'm sure, that I don't consider the cooling to be a given, I use the word "if".
Mankind can buffer against those changes a whole lot better than just sitting around and letting nature buffer against itself. The concept of ecology is not new, but your concept of sustainable sure is new to me.
Public support is building because of concerted efforts by activists and politicians who see advantages to themselves. Most of the public seem to think that if Kyoto targets were met world wide, the problem would be solved, when in reality, it would have no effect. As a first step it is minuscule, considering what would be required for real effect. But none of the activists or politicians will tell them what would really be required to solve the "problem" because the public wouldn't stand for it. As I said, they'll support it as long as somebody else (government, oil industry etc) has to do what it takes and they don't have to make more than token changes to their lifestyles. If that weren't the case, they'd already be doing it on their own.
Let's use appliances for an example. 22 years ago I bought a washer and dryer set that was more efficient than the old worn out ones. 5 years ago I replaced them with new Maytags (which last even longer). 4 years ago we replaced our 35 year old fridge with a much more efficient one. Both those appliances are not as efficient as new ones today, but I'm not about to replace any of them until they wear out. The average car in Canada is 9 years old (mine is a 14 yr old SUV). I/we don't drive old cars because we like them (except for the rich folk who like real old cars) and we'd all love to have new ones. But if newer efficient models come on the market, it may take 20 to 30 years to phase out all the old ones.
'Well saving the planet is what my question was about. And we're already using carbon capture and sequestration. Zero emission tech is nice, but not feasible to replace much fossil fuel.
And most others are using environmentalism to play politics.
Depends how it's done. First it would have to be revenue neutral, no extra overall tax burden. It would benefit me personally because I don't use as much energy as most. But it would have to apply to personal taxes and consumption only, because it would devastate industry and agriculture. Farmers frequently lose money while using large volumes of fuel, and industry go for years without making a profit, and thus paying no taxes. I personally owned a company that lost money for two very bad years in a row, and then went 4 years making profits while paying no income tax because I had all those previous losses to write off. A carbon tax would have put me under. It would have to be just for individuals. Which wouldn't go over with the public at all.
I asked the question repeatedly for a month with no response, and then stated that there are only two solutions that I know of, and that I would put them forward. Which I did. I freely admit that I don't believe the problem exists, but in posing the question I stated that I would not dispute that point, I would assume you-all were correct and was asking for solutions to the problem you're all so concerned about. Arguing against your position is something I reserved for other threads.
then I suggest that you and Tonington, and Al Gore and all the rest of you guys do just that; become model global citizens and using your influence, rally me and my kind to Kyoto and its future protocols. If it would work for India and China (who have stated they have no intentions of following our example, should we decide to set one) then it would work equally well on me and the like.
Did you see that paste of mine about how England is only at 2% renewables, and is giving up? If there certainly are replacements, perhaps you should let them know.
Quite true I don't believe there is a problem, but that's irrelevant to the question I posed, wherein I said I would not argue that point, but would assume you are correct. Those wedges are nice, and would have some effect, but not enough to solve the problem. Nothing else you proposed would either.
Ah yes, very substantial inertia. And if you start implementing solutions that require enforcement that inertia will turn to hostile resistance. You're beginning to admit what you're up against.
OK. Please come up with a replacement for JetB fuel, and Diesel.
I trust scientists who rely on evidence. You trust scientists who have a history of fraud. Yup, big difference.
If a blizzard is coming at me, I buffer the effects by building an airtight house, insulating and heating it. Using nature would require me to do what the moose do, shelter in some trees and internalize my metabolism to produce more heat. I well understand ecological systems and their extreme complexity, but we're talking about sustainable activity such as agriculture. And we're getting off topic again.
I understand what you're saying, but your solutions would be ineffectual if the problem is as has been stated by the likes of David Suzuki.
