Are we doomed? Global warming????

[whipped guy]

Um, I recycle and use wind energy for my electricity? Even though my truck is a gas hog, it does actually emit less hydrocarbons, etc than most other small engine vehicles including hybrids.

 

I remember there being a few studies done ( too lazy to Google them right now ) stating Toyota Priuses need to be driven over 125,000 miles in their lifetime in order to meet a Ford or Chevy compact car driven 0 miles in pollution created. The manufacturing process is very pollution heavy and Toyota is a horrible offender ( shipping parts all over the world, back and forth several times over ). Small engines found in most landscaping equipment are horrible when it comes to pollution as well.

 

When it comes to pollution you have to consider all the variables rather than just how much the engine consumes in fuel.

Yes, I heard that about hybrids as well. Hybrids make the owner feel good about themselves, plus it sends a signal that "they care" and are acting in a responsible fashion. However, not much else! Unfortunately...

[+ purplekow]

50 Bucks....It does. I cant say how I KNOW this(Without sounding Crazy)....but It will

 

 

The only way you could KNOW it, is if the election result is predetermined and if that is the case and you know it, advertising it on an escort review site is probably pretty dumb. Which begs the question, how did someone so dumb as to do that, learn the result of an election that is 9 months off? It is one of those things that make you Hmmmm.

[AndreFuture]

Hey, thanks for the responses but what I was looking for, is not that you recycle, or save water or electricity, etc. but how do you add to global warming everyday of your life.

 

How do I contribute? I live in the US, which disproportionately produces GHGs and disproportionately consumes the world's resources. I don't eat animals or their secretions, so my impact is substantially smaller than the average American. If even a third of the world's population lived like the US, the planet would have been a Venus-like wasteland ages ago.

 

I'm a bit of a nihilist, so I think it's fitting that we destroy ourselves. Too bad the ones who suffer the most will be the poorest people who are the least to blame, and animals who really didn't have a say, but that's how human history has always been. Hopefully I won't be around to see any of the carnage.

[Jock123]

The only way you could KNOW it, is if the election result is predetermined and if that is the case and you know it, advertising on an escort review site is probably pretty dumb. Which begs the question, how did someone so dumb to do that, learn the result of an election that is 9 months off? It is one of those things that make you Hmmmm.

 

 

[+ bigjoey]

We are doomed because of massive over population.

 

If we fail to control the population....we are doomed.

 

It's as simple as that....but no one wants to address the problem.

 

It's not a popular answer...big business hates it...religious institutions hate it....governments hate it....individuals hate it.

 

Unfortunately our perceived "prosperity" is tied to and dependant on a growing population.

 

It's not the SIZE of my carbon footprint that's the problem....it's that there are 7 BILLION footprints!

 

In summary....it's the POPULATION STUPID!

 

 

Yes, an increased population is part of the reason just due to our body's functions like breathing and our need for food and water which use resources. We can cut down on our use of resources by using less "things" and recycling what we do use. However, part of the reason for climate change is natural due to things like the sun and solar flares; I do not know the percentages of what is natural and what is man made but both contribute. We can eliminate some but not all of the man made part but our increasing numbers do limit that.

 

What I find interesting is that over millions of years, the earth has warmed and cooled naturally with no contribution from man; that natural process will continue no matter what we do so there will always be some "climate change." What we are wanting to do is freeze the climate as it is now. If our science and our behavior could eliminate the human contribution to climate change, that would not be enough to stop the natural part of climate change. To freeze the climate as it currently exists and maintain the status quo, our science will need to figure out the natural contribution to climate change, how it functions and where it is taking us and how to counter act the natural contribution. While i read a lot about changing the human contribution to climate change, I read very little about the natural impact and what we can do about that.

 

I think we need to accept that there will be some climate change no matter what we do and some resources should be directed on how man kind can adapt and survive the changes.

[Kenny]

Another troll heard from! This time pushing the hilarious conservative bullsh*t that "breathing" contributes to climate change. Here in the real world, however, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" by the plants we consume. Net contribution of breathing to climate changing carbon: roughly zero.

 

This is taught in elementary school science class, but trolls were apparently in hall detention on that day and missed the lesson. Duh.

[+ bigjoey]

Another troll heard from! This time pushing the hilarious conservative bullsh*t that "breathing" contributes to climate change. Here in the real world, however, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" by the plants we consume. Net contribution of breathing to climate changing carbon: roughly zero.

 

This is taught in elementary school science class, but trolls were apparently in hall detention on that day and missed the lesson. Duh.

 

 

I said "like breathing" but more people definitely contributes to climate change. Think of our human waste and the energy consumed to process it. Think of our food and how for example cows add to climate change. Think of our increased need for water and how that effects climate change. To argue that increased human population does not effect climate change is beyond stupid, even for you.

[bigvalboy]

Another troll heard from! This time pushing the hilarious conservative bullsh*t that "breathing" contributes to climate change. Here in the real world, however, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" by the plants we consume. Net contribution of breathing to climate changing carbon: roughly zero.

 

This is taught in elementary school science class, but trolls were apparently in hall detention on that day and missed the lesson. Duh.

+1...

Speechless.... It's like the guy sitting there with a cigarette, blowing smoke in your face, trying to convince you that cigarettes don't really cause that much cancer, because after all, he has an aunt who is 82 and has smoked all her life, and she just fine.

[Kenny]

"Yes, an increased population is part of the reason just due to our body's functions like breathing..."

 

lol.

[AndreFuture]

Human population in general contributes, but it's really which humans that's important. One American or one Canadian exacerbates climate change—and consumes far more resources—than one Tuvaluvian or one Lesothian, for example. To just complain of "population growth" without discerning who's actually causing harm is irresponsible and unfair.

[+ bigjoey]

Y

Human population in general contributes, but it's really which humans that's important. One American or one Canadian exacerbates climate change—and consumes far more resources—than one Tuvaluvian or one Lesothian, for example. To just complain of "population growth" without discerning who's actually causing harm is irresponsible and unfair.

 

 

Yes, it is some population more than others but everyone wants the Western lifestyle and is working to get there. We saw this with China and now India as they push for individual cars, electrical appliances, indoor plumbing, phones, a diet with more meat, etc. Add Brazil (with the destruction of the rain forests) and some African countries. In fact, these developing countries generally seem to have less environmental protections than the West in their rush to a Western lifestyle. It would not be "irresponsible and unfair" to observe that ten million more Indians will add more to pollution and global warming than ten million more Americans; a short visit to India would be evidence of that with its current lack of pollution controls and laws compared to America, Canada or Western Europe.

 

I should have made it clear that it is not only just the raw number increase but the resources that the additional population needs (and demands) that add to climate change. To think that not only an increasing population but one that wants a "higher" lifestyle that consumes more resources does not affect climate change runs against plain logic. More population uses more resources.

[AndreFuture]

 

Yes it would be because 10 million average Indians do not consume GHG-intensive resources like 10 million Americans. You admitted as much, but then argue somehow that their desire to live Western lifestyles is worse (environmentally) than actually living such lifestyles. Where did you buy that form of logic?

 

Brazil's rainforest is being destroyed for cattle ranchers (for grazing and to grow soy to feed the cattle). That destruction may slow down with the current drop in meat consumption (in the US at least; I can't remember if the trend is global).

 

I can't say anything about "some African countries" because that's not really a substantive statement; please elaborate if you care to.

 

Finally, as to your point about the lack of environmental protections in less industrialized nations like China and India:

 

1) the Green Development Mechanism (GDM) and cap & trade are intended to address this (though without having the hard numbers in front of me, I can't say they have decreased the net output of pollution that they would have produced without these in place).

 

2) many western/industrialized nations have literally outsourced their dirty industries to poorer nations with less environmental protections precisely because of these laws. For example, a bulk of US manufacturing has been shipped to China, the same industry of the comment lament, "they're outsourcing American jobs!" While it's true those jobs are part of what built up the powers/wealth of industrialized nations like the US, they are also generally quite dangerous, dirty, and exploitave to be really cost-effective; to paraphrase Obama, "these are jobs we don't want here." So, for good or for ill, they're exported to poorer people. We (Americans) are still the primary market, so we're still the driving force behind the GHGs China generates, even if it's not in our backyard.

 

3) Of course, with this increased demand to create cheap-at-all-costs products for Americans, someone is getting paid, and the rising middle class in these countries aspire to live the resource-intensive lifestyles of the market they produce for, just as you mentioned. But they're not entirely there yet. China is setting up parts of Africa, like Kenya, and I thibk Latin America to become its own "China" once it achieves western standards and needs to outsource its own pollutive industries. It's a type of ponzi scheme that'll leave those newest to the game the biggest losers, unfortunately.

 

That's what makes addressing climate change so tricky: it requires a holistic, comprehensive, and historical view of our economies, countries, consumption, and environment on such a scale that we rarely take. It involves a handful of primary actor countries, but impacts everyone. There are a lot of moving pieces that are hard to account for. Even though I studied climate change in grad school, I'm still no expert; there are scientists who have been studying it for decades, refining their data, who are far more versed than me, and it's still easy for their message to get lost in the soundbytes of political posturing from various interests.

 

At the end of the day, we as a species may be able to mitigate the most extreme conditions of climate change now and prepare to adapt to what's to come. Or we may continue to live shortsightedly and only scramble to adapt at the last minute when conditions become far too extreme. Whatever we collectively choose will demonstrate how mature we are as a species, and though I selfishly prefer we survive, I'm ok with either way.

[+ bigjoey]

 

Yes it would be because 10 million average Indians do not consume GHG-intensive resources like 10 million Americans. You admitted as much, but then argue somehow that their desire to live Western lifestyles is worse (environmentally) than actually living such lifestyles. Where did you buy that form of logic?

 

Brazil's rainforest is being destroyed for cattle ranchers (for grazing and to grow soy to feed the cattle). That destruction may slow down with the current drop in meat consumption (in the US at least; I can't remember if the trend is global).

 

I can't say anything about "some African countries" because that's not really a substantive statement; please elaborate if you care to.

 

Finally, as to your point about the lack of environmental protections in less industrialized nations like China and India:

 

1) the Green Development Mechanism (GDM) and cap & trade are intended to address this (though without having the hard numbers in front of me, I can't say they have decreased the net output of pollution that they would have produced without these in place).

 

2) many western/industrialized nations have literally outsourced their dirty industries to poorer nations with less environmental protections precisely because of these laws. For example, a bulk of US manufacturing has been shipped to China, the same industry of the comment lament, "they're outsourcing American jobs!" While it's true those jobs are part of what built up the powers/wealth of industrialized nations like the US, they are also generally quite dangerous, dirty, and exploitave to be really cost-effective; to paraphrase Obama, "these are jobs we don't want here." So, for good or for ill, they're exported to poorer people. We (Americans) are still the primary market, so we're still the driving force behind the GHGs China generates, even if it's not in our backyard.

 

3) Of course, with this increased demand to create cheap-at-all-costs products for Americans, someone is getting paid, and the rising middle class in these countries aspire to live the resource-intensive lifestyles of the market they produce for, just as you mentioned. But they're not entirely there yet. China is setting up parts of Africa, like Kenya, and I thibk Latin America to become its own "China" once it achieves western standards and needs to outsource its own pollutive industries. It's a type of ponzi scheme that'll leave those newest to the game the biggest losers, unfortunately.

 

That's what makes addressing climate change so tricky: it requires a holistic, comprehensive, and historical view of our economies, countries, consumption, and environment on such a scale that we rarely take. It involves a handful of primary actor countries, but impacts everyone. There are a lot of moving pieces that are hard to account for. Even though I studied climate change in grad school, I'm still no expert; there are scientists who have been studying it for decades, refining their data, who are far more versed than me, and it's still easy for their message to get lost in the soundbytes of political posturing from various interests.

 

At the end of the day, we as a species may be able to mitigate the most extreme conditions of climate change now and prepare to adapt to what's to come. Or we may continue to live shortsightedly and only scramble to adapt at the last minute when conditions become far too extreme. Whatever we collectively choose will demonstrate how mature we are as a species, and though I selfishly prefer we survive, I'm ok with either way.

 

I do agree with you on a holistic approach and that much dirty industry has been exported because the lack of tight environmental standards in developing countries makes manufacturing cheaper there.

 

Your comments on Brazil and cattle are correct. As human population has increased, so has consumption of meat. Cows are not an efficient way to get protein from an environmental point of view. With increased human population, cow population is at an all time high. Humans like meat. This is just one way that an increased human population has harmed the environment (in addition to the rainforest shrinkage, cows are a huge generator of methane).

 

Where we differ is that it is true that in the West, we are energy intensive users. However, our energy sources are rapidly becoming less GHG-intensive per unit of energy produced where as in places like China, the energy produced is not only more reliant on carbon based fuels, but while we are closing down things like coal plants, China is opening up new ones (from the air I saw-yes, saw) these new coal plants are not high on environmental controls like scrubbers).

 

One of the main sources of human contributions to methane is the decay of organic waste in solid landfills. The more humans, the more organic waste. In the West, this waste is handled in a more environmentally friendly way than I have seen in India and China.

 

The solution is as you note, world wide. It is going to be a question of how much support is the West going to pay to the developing countries to help them bring up their environmental standards (before I get attacked, I include places like Japan as part of the West; I should say "developed countries" in place of the West).

[Kenny]

50 Bucks....It does. I cant say how I KNOW this(Without sounding Crazy)....but It will

 

 

 

If you'd like to put $25 down as an advance, now that the Dumpster is a Loser in Iowa, I would consider waiving the eventual second payment. ;-)

[Decatur Guy]

I'm not optimistic about the long-term future in this regard. There are too many people with too much power still in denial. I fear we'll be past the tipping point (if we're not there already) before it's taken seriously by the right people.

 

I think it will be a slowly evolving disaster, though, and the really bad outcomes won't come until I'm very, very old or dead and buried. It's the folks from 2050 onward who are really going to bear the brunt of this. I wonder if we should start writing our apology messages.

[LADoug1]

Donald Trump is about to be our next President(Mark my words........) So Yes we are VERY Doomed.

 

Not. Gonna. Happen.

 

God I hope you're right!