We're talking about reducing global emissions by 80%. Can you demonstrate what percentage global emissions would be reduced if everyone did those?
No. Although we fractionalized our impact, we didn't keep track of how much we reduced it by. Otherwise I would have told you long ago. There's nothing keeping others from doing the same and assessing their efforts to see how much they reduced, though.
Can you guarantee that it wouldn't be 80%? If you can show us how you can guarantee that claim, please.
I wonder if you're comprehending the scope of the challenge. Reducing Canadas emissions 80% would be the equivalent of shutting down all industry, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation. Except for the little automotive things you mentioned, all the rest fall into the remaining 20%. How on earth could that ever be expected to achieve an 80% reduction?
I don't think it would actually shut everything down. . I think it would take quite a bit of conversions from old practises to new ones. I think you're claiming that in hopes no-one will call you on it. Like I said before, the area around Trail used to look like a moonscape until Teck-Cominco straightened its act up. Now there's green stuff growing around the town.
You seem to have missed the analogy. The rope and hook are the only way you have of crossing. If you ignore it you do nothing, unless you try to develop some superior technology (boat). Everything we can do now in regards to replacing fossil fuels is nowhere near enought to reduce emissions by the required 80% (that would be the rope and hook). Should we waste resources trying anyway, knowing the effort is futile, or should we look for new tech (boat) that will actually work?
*shrugs* I'd get across the river any way I could, whether it'd be hitch a ride on a pteradactyl or crawl along the rope. Maybe even swim even it swept me downstream a few miles.
So you are saying we either ignore the whole issue or else wait until we have a total new set of products to replace petroleum? You don't think we can reduce as much as we can and when we can. It's either one or the other but not working on the one while we wait for the other. Like I said, your attitude sucks.
I commend you. However you still are consumers and dependant on the energy economy.
Yup, but we reduced our demand on it by a large fraction, which is the point.
Now you're reminding me of SJP and Avro. How does it benefit the atmosphere and planet if our expenditure of vast resources has no effect?
It wouldn't. But as I said before, we do have an impact on our water and land, so it seems inane that we could spew crap into the atmosphere and not expect it to have an impact. And no-one has produced quantitative and definitive proof that points to how much we've affected it that I've seen. Would the planet be better off than if we did nothing? Absolutely not.
Yes we can think of better ways to live, we do it all the time. Yes we can take a good idea and figure out how to make it work, that would be Lomborg's attitude.
Good for Lomborg. And I am glad that you finally see that making an effort at doing what we plan can be a good thing, whether we actually achieve our plan or not. Doing nothing would be just as stupid as polluting in the first place.
So when flight was considered impossible, did people try by jumping off buildings and flapping their arms, knowing all the while that it wouldn't work?
No, they ignored such useless efforts and concentrated on developing the technology that would actually work. Lomborg's attitude again.
So why are you snivelling about the goals we make efforts to achieve?
Prove my claim? It's self evident. See above.
To you maybe. But we aren't as smart as you I guess, so show us please.
Those little things don't even add up the the 20%. let alone the 80%.
How do you know? Show us. I didn't even finish the list yet you claim those things will only amount to less than 20%? And then you tell me that I sound like SJP. roflmao You're a laugh and a half.
Here's a little info for you about Teck-Cominco's smelter in Trail, where in the mid 70s they decided that lead and other contaminants were causing grief in the neighborhood:
A new lead smelter came into use at the Trail site in 1997. This KIVCET flash lead smelter resulted in reduction of lead emissions by about 80%, and a reduction in fine, mobile dust lead loadings by about 50%.
When Jesus comes, He will burn up the whole earth and the heaven: talk about global warming!!!!!!
Keep you religious nonsense in the religious forums, please. This is a science forum.
.. And you can conclusively prove that AGW is happening?
Just as much as you can prove we don't have an impact.
The same kind of mentality was in evidence when the greenies were protesting logging. Some dumb hippie said that all the displaced loggers could earn a living picking wild flowers.
Many places are trying to jump on the green bandwagon, most won't make it but they will kill off the traditional jobs. California's version is to legalize pot so they can tax it.
:roll: And when Florida, Caribbean islands, coastlines in various spots are submerged, what do you think that'll do for the economies?
The Dippers had a better idea; putting the loggers to work in service jobs:almost as ridiculous an idea.
Put a logger to work installing solar panels or something useful and he'd be doing something a little more useful that picking your flowers.