Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 7, 2011 - 01:46pm PT
|
1. stop using the internet.
A solution that is not very well thought out. The internet allows us to communicate in ways that
make it easier to reduce traveling. For example, working from home, online shopping. The list goes on.
2. stop eating beef.
Actually not a bad idea. At least greatly reduce eating higher on the food chain. This will go a long
ways towards helping the environment, in many ways.
3. stop traveling
Another good idea, reduce traveling to the absolute necessary trips. Of course, our mobile
society will rebel against being mobile. However, as fuel costs escalate, many will do just this.
4. stop breathing
I'm with you bookie. You first.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
(is it true that the Constitution protects our rights to buy a incandescent light bulb? I missed that language in the original document...)
So Ed is a con law "orignalist," who woulda thunk it?! (Or perhaps he knows nothing about con law, but c'mon, Ed, not being an expert on something? Impossible!)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Well does it say that?
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
what's your take after reading that Dropline?
The title of the article is misleading in that it implies the food supply is strained because of a warming planet while the body of the article instead emphasizes a lack of funding for agronomic research as the primary threat to the food supply.
So my take is funding for agronomic research, which was dramatically cut in the 90's and 2000's, should be restored so that the world's food supply can be doubled again, as has been done several times before, so we can feed an expected 10 billion people in 2100.
Technological advances will very likely lead to crops which are more CO2 responsive, and flood, drought, and heat tolerant.
The planet is warming. If the current scientific consensus is right, it will keep warming as human fossil fuel consumption continues and increases. Best to plan to deal with it. The wealthier countries of the world should spend many billions of dollars on agronomic research and on geo-engineering carbon sink research projects. In my opinion, these two research areas would yield far greater benefits than a carbon tax or a carbon emissions cap and trade system.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Man CAN'T hurt the environment. Break out the CFCs, leave your wag bags on the hill, grid bolt everything, set off those nukes, pour your motor oil down the drain. It's all out of our control, and foolish to think we have any power over it. Anyone who tells you different it just trying to scam you.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
How's my driving? Call 1-800-Eat-Polar-Bear-Burgers
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Lightning!! You're so stupid not afraid of it. Where's that old thread with all the posts about our close calls.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
A quote from a recently published book, that will sell a lot of books by a long dead Frenchman.
Short slogans endlessly repeated create a "current of opinion" allowing "the powerful mechanism of contagion" to operate. Ideas spread through the crowd as easily as microbes, Le Bon says, which explains the mass panics common to rock concerts, financial markets, street protests, and Dennis Kucinich rallies. "A panic that has seized only a few sheep," he observes, "will soon extend to the whole flock."
Applies here.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
malemute - perhaps its only failure not to be fast enough to get up and off
before the bolts zip zap. Route finding problems, a slow partner, stuck
rope, deep snow, etc.
|
|
nature
climber
WTF?
|
|
Tami has rat's?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
There is some level of pounds of co2 per person per year (carbon footprint) that the Earth can handle without a significant negative impact on the environment for people. There is some level that will significantly change the climate by increasing the greenhouse effect.
Humans have increased the level of co2 in the atmosphere from 280 to 380 parts per million in the last 100 years, which far exceeds the natural range of 180 to 300 over the last 650,000 years.
If you can't accept those facts and can't debate within those parameters you are fooling yourself.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
It negates any rules or laws that may intervene in the mechanism which propels the agenda that it seeks. It also creates new ones that will in fact substantiate that agenda. Amazing how the human mind works isn't it. Just like a pathological liar, extremist religious and political beliefs etc, the dogmatic fantatic will justify themselves in their actions, behaviors and beliefs by removing any "common sense" governing and long standing rules of integrity that may get in the way of their agenda.
No one wants climate change. Quite the opposite. It's the deniers that don't want to admit it may be a problem. What people want is to believe things will be fine and they won't have to change. Your statement above is projection, YOUR agenda is driving your words and actions far more than other posters here, do you have the courage to see that? Pretty much everyone posting here who is concerned with climate change is not a dogmatic fanatic. They are just people concerned about polluting the environment... and here is the key... TOO MUCH.
There is some level of pounds of co2 per person per year (carbon footprint) that the Earth can handle without a significant negative impact on the environment for people.
What is this "assumption" based on? Are you going to sit here and tell us what and how the planet is limited in how it can and can't function in order for humans to continue their existence?
You can't even see that simple statement for what it is and must spin it to me saying I know how the planet works and somehow AGAIN spin "negative impact" to humans existence. Why is that? You can't debate my/our true position so you blow it out of proportion so you can easily dimiss it. It's because of YOUR agenda.
If you were honest in your skepticism you could come up with all kinds of justifiable and logic based reasons why we don't need to do anything about carbon emissions. I know I've thought through them as well. But when you resort to bunk arguments you have to wonder why.
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
Yes... but it is important to know which peers are involved in that review. Not all peers are what they appear...
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
Ed, responding to your earlier post about where the funding would come from for the agronomic and geo-engineering research I suggest, neither a carbon tax nor cap and trade is necessary to fund such research. How about we spend less on wars? Impoverished regions of the world are often hotbeds of extremism, incubatories for future terrorists. One would think that keeping everyone fed would be in the best interest of the national security of the USA. Maybe in addition to the pentagon funding bio-fuel research, as they do now for strategic reasons, they could also fund agronomic research with their $671 billion budget (2012).
The problem with either a carbon tax or a carbon emissions cap and trade system, as I see it, is both will systemically raise the cost of energy and consequently the cost of food.
From this link I posted way upthread:
http://catholicexchange.com/2011/01/18/146211/
I quote:
The point of it all is this: The world food supply is tight and volatile. Increasing world population, combined with efforts to diversify the diets of people in developing nations (and their demands for life improvements) promise a higher future demand, not a surplus. The prospect of rising food costs precipitated by soaring production costs from taxes or limits on fossil fuels, or a shortage of nitrogen fertilizer or other vital agricultural inputs would place adequate food beyond the means of many in the poorest nations.
You previously dismissed this article because it's on a Catholic website and accordingly doesn't address population control. Neither of those things invalidate the insight above however.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
I'm skeptical of human caused global warming and even more so of quantifying it's impact. So I'm not going to eat only raw food, never drive, etc.
Maybe those wacky left winger vegan, bicycling, patchouli smelling hippies are the mysterious AGWers the chief is talking about.
However I'm not a denier. Cherry picking information that fits some agenda. So I can make no effort to reduce my impact and feel no guilt about possibly making the planet worse for everyone else.
What's the greater motivation? Some AGW agenda (I fail to see what this gets you) or selfishness?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!