Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WIP

Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Highest Ever in Earth History

Recommended Posts

That is one of the reasons why I am libertarian (as opposed to conservative or a republican). I figure that the safest approach given the various competing agendas is to take power to impose agenda driven solutions away from government and just let the chips fall where they may. That includes staying out foreign military entanglements as well as staying away from climate regulation.

"Climate regulation" Woooh that's a new spin...what you mean is that those seeking to become even more rich though industry should not have a regulation that states to the child - clean up your room! Climate distruction is caused by one thing...when a person or a persons....behaves like a dog that refuses to be house broken...that it intentionally shits on the floor because taking the time to pick up the crap cuts into profit margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bad us humans are bio machines and not angels. We injest fuel and because we are inefficient we expell waste...you would imagine that God slighted the dignity of mankind by making them a little less than the angels...There is no getting around polluting the earth - the best we can do is at least contain the waste in a secure location...which even with that viable option we fail to do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the reasons why I am libertarian (as opposed to conservative or a republican). I figure that the safest approach given the various competing agendas is to take power to impose agenda driven solutions away from government and just let the chips fall where they may. That includes staying out foreign military entanglements as well as staying away from climate regulation.

And, you have just explained why libertarians are the show ponies for the corporate globalists: it never occurred to you that there are other forces besides political organizations at work, and taking the power to impose an agenda away from government, just puts that power in the hands of the people with the capital and the money.

So, instead of a powerful international body that could impose carbon taxes and trade penalties on high carbon emitters, we instead have an amalgamation of oil and coal companies that want no costs added to emitting carbon vs. a few investment banks like Goldman Sachs - who see a money-making opportunity in the setup of a carbon credit-trading market.

Libertarian thinking has left the world stuck between corporations who want to consume more fossil fuels, and other corporations who want to create a fake green market that will do little or nothing to solve the crisis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, instead of a powerful international body that could impose carbon taxes and trade penalties on high carbon emitters, we instead have an amalgamation of oil and coal companies that want no costs added to emitting carbon vs. a few investment banks like Goldman Sachs - who see a money-making opportunity in the setup of a carbon credit-trading market.

And even that initiative is fought against, tool and nail. To say nothing of the lobbyings against environmental regulation that happens at local, regional and national levels all the time.

The environmental disaster that business continues to mismanage is a great argument for world government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, instead of a powerful international body that could impose carbon taxes and trade penalties on high carbon emitters, we instead have an amalgamation of oil and coal companies that want no costs added to emitting carbon vs. a few investment banks like Goldman Sachs - who see a money-making opportunity in the setup of a carbon credit-trading market.
What makes you think that the people who would be in charge of this international body would be any less venal than the politicians we have now? If we go by the current track record of the UN such a body would be nest of corruption and insider deals that accomplishes nothing.

More government is never the solution. All it does in increase the benefits that accue from corruption and rent seeking. A smaller government with a much smaller mandate becomes less of a target because the rewards are smaller.

All doctors swear an oath: "first do no harm". I think that applies here.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that the people who would be in charge of this international body would be any less venal than the politicians we have now? If we go by the current track record of the UN such a body would be nest of corruption and insider deals that accomplishes nothing.

I was thinking about this very question - especially since the carbon credits trading scheme seems to already be under suspicion.

I think a new system of openness has to be part of it, and the fact that several countries will be watching for their own interests may help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a new system of openness has to be part of it, and the fact that several countries will be watching for their own interests may help.
Sorry. Not interested. We have enought problems we don't need another. The status quo for all of its warts will have to do. i.e. I don't need to have an alternative. The onus in on you to show that your alternative is likely to be better than the status quo. All you have offered is some rhetorical sops about "open government". If it can't be done at the national level it is not going to be done for some world government body. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that YOU hate CO2 so much.

Then you should tape your mouth and nose completely shut.

:lol:

Humans breathing does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. Not interested. We have enought problems we don't need another.

The status quo isn't an acceptable solution. You yourself posted an example of the Air Canada person who demanded the status quo for himself. If companies can't improve the environment, then they have to give up control.

The status quo for all of its warts will have to do. i.e. I don't need to have an alternative. The onus in on you to show that your alternative is likely to be better than the status quo.

I disagree. The given solution isn't working. Those who support it can improve it, or step aside.

All you have offered is some rhetorical sops about "open government". If it can't be done at the national level it is not going to be done for some world government body.

Maybe, but as I said the status quo isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The status quo isn't an acceptable solution.
In your opinion.
If companies can't improve the environment, then they have to give up control.
The biggest pollution problem on the planet right now is in places like China and Russia where companies face no regulations from the national governments. The chances of this changing because of some world government is exactly ZERO. So what is the point?
I disagree. The given solution isn't working. Those who support it can improve it, or step aside.
Sorry, I don't buy into the argument that every problem must be "solved". Most problems work themselves out on their own. "Solutions" that expand government powers create more problems than are solved. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion.

The biggest pollution problem on the planet right now is in places like China and Russia where companies face no regulations from the national governments. The chances of this changing because of some world government is exactly ZERO. So what is the point?

Sorry, I don't buy into the argument that every problem must be "solved". Most problems work themselves out on their own. "Solutions" that expand government powers create more problems than are solved.

We have a lot of leverage that we could use on the Chinese... The west still accounts for a large majority of global consumption. If we wanted to we could compell whatever industrial and environmental behavior we want. We can also do a better job of sharing technology with them so that they at least build modern stuff. We could slap tarrifs on goods that made in super dirty factories powered by super dirty energy. We could even leverage our patronage to make them treat their people a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The west still accounts for a large majority of global consumption.
Not any more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aE.x_r_l9NZE#

China supplanted the U.S. as the world’s largest auto market after its 2009 vehicle sales jumped 46 percent, ending more than a century of American dominance that started with the Model T Ford.

The west is now depending on countries like China to finance their government debts.

We have no leverage to speak of unless you count the ability to threaten suicide as leverage.

If we wanted to we could compell whatever industrial and environmental behavior we want.
Just like we have done such a good job of compelling China to adopt democracy.
We can also do a better job of sharing technology with them so that they at least build modern stuff.
Which means handing over IP to the Chinese for free which they then will sell back undercutting the companies that invented it.
We could slap tarrifs on goods that made in super dirty factories powered by super dirty energy. We could even leverage our patronage to make them treat their people a little better.
And the Chinese will do the same. The EU wants to slap taxes on Chinese airlines because China does not have a CO2 regulations. The Chinese have suggested they will stop buying Airbuses. The French and Germans are not happy. The smart money would bet the EU drops those regulations by the time 2012 roles around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other carbon problem that doesn't get enough attention is ocean acidification...which is presently bleaching corals and killing many species of crustaceans...
Looks like the corals are thriving in the "acidic" seas:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml

Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress.
Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a lot of leverage that we could use on the Chinese...

Errrr...no "we" don't. Maybe "we" should demonstrate a similar commitment by shuttering the Nanticoke power plants in Ontario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are being sarcastic.

Yup. Just like that ex-girlfriend I had who, when I told her my compost pile put CO2 in the air very seriously told me that compost CO2 was good CO2, not like that burning of fossil fuels CO2. I dumped her real quick after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the only species of animals on this Earth to develop the capacity to be aware of our situation and change it; so if we can't, as a species, use those higher cognitive functions to override our basic, primal instincts and emotions, then that is a waste of what this Universe is capable of. Complex, intelligent life forms that develop self-awareness, are likely extremely rare events in this vast, empty universe.

We don't know if there have been any other places in the Universe where life has reached our present level -- why waste the chance we have to just do what comes naturally for animals? Maybe intelligent life develops until it reaches the point where it destroys itself and never makes the leap to Type Two Civilizations that physicist - Michiou Kaku writes about in his pop science books. That would explain why we have gone 40 years without finding an alien radio signal at SETI.

It's really only our own galaxy that we've searched to any reasonable extent with SETI. Even a Kardashev Type III civilization radiating its energy willy nilly would not be detectable with our present level of technology if it was in some remote region of the universe. As to why we've not found anything with SETI, given what we've searched, I think there's an argument to be made for us simply being the first to develop to this level in our galaxy, by coincidence.

Back to using our higher cognitive functions to understand and overcome the challenges posed to our survival by our environment and the changes in it, well, that's precisely what humankind has been doing since the dawn of recorded history. We've been modifying our environments to increase our chance of survival, make survival easier and free more of our time to more interesting pursuits than just assuring that we survive, etc. There is no reason to believe this will change any time soon.

The reality is even if the worst predictions of global warming alarmists come to pass, humankind will still survive, civilization will still continue, and technology will still progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dirt - plain old dird - instead of being contained on the groud we now dispose of waste in the sky ---------kind of like sitting on an up side down toilet - bound to get messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that the people who would be in charge of this international body would be any less venal than the politicians we have now? If we go by the current track record of the UN such a body would be nest of corruption and insider deals that accomplishes nothing.

I'm sure they would be every bit as corrupt and greedy as the multinational fossil fuel industry, which is why I would rather support taxing the externalized costs of fossil fuels instead creating carbon trading markets where the players can play games like planting a few extra trees and claiming them as carbon offsets. Nevertheless, any scheme that inhibits continued extraction of coal and oil, in favour of supporting non-carbon burning energy sources would be a step up.

More government is never the solution.

That is a religious dogma that cannot be backed up with facts.

All it does in increase the benefits that accue from corruption and rent seeking. A smaller government with a much smaller mandate becomes less of a target because the rewards are smaller.

And a smaller government allows corporate profiteers to sell dangerous, even toxic products to the public...check out the recent stories about David Koch's lobbying to prevent the EPA from recognizing formaldehyde as a carcinogin for an example of how far people solely motivated by greed will go if there are no government institutions applying constraints on their desire for more riches.

In principle, there is no logical argument against government regulation of industry and commerce, nor the principle of progressive taxation -- which is the only restraint in our society preventing wealth gaps from turning into entrenched class hierarchies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the corals are thriving in the "acidic" seas:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml

And that's a strange arrow to pull out of your quiver, as evidence that everything will be fine as the World's oceans become increasingly acidic. The study is just examining recent history, and indicating that the coral producing organisms have some limited ability to adapt by moving to cooler waters. In the past, corals have become extinct, as evidenced by the fact that continued building of the reefs was continued several times by new species of reef-builders. And, there is the other problem, that we are adding more carbon into the atmosphere (there wasn't even a slowdown during the recent recession), so for all intents and purposes we have placed a brick on the gas pedal, and there is no telling when man-made carbon will start being reduced considering economic factors driving up CO2 production.

Also, the previous article I linked about a study on why the common Clown Fish (the star of Finding Nemo) is declining in numbers worldwide. The new study indicates that the changing ph of the World's oceans is screwing up their sonar abilities, which are essential for detecting approaching predators. Further research will likely show that this may be a factor besides over-fishing in the rapid decline of fish stocks worldwide.

In Peter Ward's study of the Permian-Triassic Extinction (Under A Green Sky) he theorized that the poisoning of the World's oceans during The Great Dying caused more death and extinctions than the warming effects on land from high carbon dioxide levels; and argues that more focus should be placed on ocean acidification today for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really only our own galaxy that we've searched to any reasonable extent with SETI. Even a Kardashev Type III civilization radiating its energy willy nilly would not be detectable with our present level of technology if it was in some remote region of the universe. As to why we've not found anything with SETI, given what we've searched, I think there's an argument to be made for us simply being the first to develop to this level in our galaxy, by coincidence.

And, another factor could be found in our changing technologies that rely more on satellite, and less on radio wave broadcasting, which send strong signals in all directions, including into space. Our radiowave profile is likely much less than it was 20 years ago. If an extraterrestrial signal is found, it proves that intelligent life can progress beyond primitive, self-destructive tendencies; if no signal is found, we still have that nagging possibility that intelligent life is like a stillborn child -- doomed before it leaves the womb!

Back to using our higher cognitive functions to understand and overcome the challenges posed to our survival by our environment and the changes in it, well, that's precisely what humankind has been doing since the dawn of recorded history. We've been modifying our environments to increase our chance of survival, make survival easier and free more of our time to more interesting pursuits than just assuring that we survive, etc. There is no reason to believe this will change any time soon.

Ecologists are just coming to understand now how much we have modified the Earth's environment. Many forests were turned into grasslands by early agriculture, and never recovered. But, the problem now is that our present population levels and resource use are proceeding at unsustainable levels. The World economies are at the limits of what the Earth's biosphere can accommodate, and the Biosphere's natural limits are going to overrule whatever wishes and desires economists have for continued economic growth....and that's why things will change, and are already in the process of changing...as evidenced by rising food prices, oil prices, floods droughts etc.

The reality is even if the worst predictions of global warming alarmists come to pass, humankind will still survive, civilization will still continue, and technology will still progress.

Declaring that humankind will survive, and especially that our modern civilization will survive are faith-based assumptions, as long as no strategies guaranteeing longterm survival can be produced....aside from the other unfounded faith that some future technological rabbit will be pulled out of a hat! I am more and more convinced that the unwillingness to look squarely at these problems is little more than an escape through denial. Back when I was young...in the 60's, when the space programs were giving us the impression that some people would soon be leaving Earth to begin exploring The Final Frontier, the problems of overpopulation, pollution, overconsumption of resources (global warming wasn't on the radar yet), and especially the threat of extinction through nuclear war, were considered problematic for future generations, but the assumption was that we would be building colonies on the Moon, Mars, and floating space colonies in L5 orbits before it was too late. With the space programs now bounded by the reality that it is much more difficult to build a biosphere than it is to destroy one, there is less willingness to make changes to prevent or mitigate disaster than there was 40 years ago...and that could be our ultimate downfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sky refects light differently as of late. When I was a boy it was a deep and wonderful blue. Now the sky has become pale...eventually it will be this misty white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sky refects light differently as of late. When I was a boy it was a deep and wonderful blue. Now the sky has become pale...eventually it will be this misty white.

Get off the [email protected]#$%^& drugs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...