Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over
-
Climate change – the other terrorism facing Singapore
Wednesday, 14 February 2007, 8:29 pm | 2,464 views
By Eddie ChooWhat are the chances of an act of terrorism – 9-11 style, occurring? And what are the chances of major climate change occurring? How does America prepare for the former, and how does America prepare for the latter?
The study of America is typical of the response of many other nations. Today, many nations still appropriate a certain percentage of their GDP to defence against ‘potential aggressors’ – ranging from conventional warfare to terrorist attacks, or even as a measure of paranoia against revolutionary coups and other forms of domestic strife. Governments all around the world rate defence as a high priority as a measure of their commitment for their ‘existence and sovereignty’.
All of this makes sense, given that human nature and its aggressive aspect is still very much with us, and the tendencies for megalomania and ‘war on a whim’ are still very much possible. The lessons of previous wars are still with us, and the armed forces that governments keep is a reminder of that legacy, and it is also a legacy of the violent nature inherent in all of us.
The other terrorismHowever, all nations are currently under threat, not by terrorist attacks, not by wars by rogue countries started by rogue leaders, but by something more powerful, much more powerful than chemical or biological weapons, something that can compete with the world’s arsenal of nuclear weapons in terms of civilisation-destruction power.
Just what, you might be thinking, can match the sheer force and mushroom clouds of nuclear weapons?
Think of the planet Venus. It is a planet about the size of the Earth, yet the planet surface is obscured due to the thick cloud of carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid. The surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead. So, what can match the force of nuclear weapons?
It’s the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide
Venus is the way it is because of the greenhouse effect, of the special spectral properties of carbon dioxide, which retains some of the heat from the sun that would otherwise be re-radiated to space. The current levels of carbon dioxide are sufficient to maintain a clement temperature on the planet surface; any higher, and the results are unpredictable. We could either get Venus, or a snowball, and computer models are still unclear about which, though many simulations indicate similar trends of increased temperatures. Increased temperatures might also lead to a new ice age, as water vapour might get released
Compared to nuclear weapons and terrorism, how does the threat of Venus look like? If countries are genuinely concerned about their security, existence, and sustainability, shouldn’t governments think about the environment and climate in a more serious way, or is there simply no urgency to do so?
Governments need to spend more to protect the environmentGovernments can spend outrageous sums of money preparing ‘deterrents’, to convince other nations not to attack them. Why can’t governments spend equally outrageous sums of money to prepare against any possible environmental changes? It just doesn’t make sense, does it?
Ok. So what if it all turns out to be wrong, that there might not be anthropic climate change in the near future? What if everything turns out to be all hot air? Well, given the amount of environmental damage that we have done, it still pays to spend for the environment, simply because we have to. We can stop and reverse deforestation and halt the loss of ecological diversity, thus ensuring the continuity of natural selection and the ready stock of nature’s formulation for pharmaceutical companies and farmer’s crops. And by pursuing environmental policies, we could reduce the human cost of environmental damage and allow our descendants to live in a better world.
Viewed in these terms, there is no harm in committing ourselves to this Pascal’s Wager. There is no harm for us if we commit ourselves to the environment, and it surely is no harm for us if environmental and climate hell does exist.
SingaporeSingapore has much to gain from following an environment-friendly mindset and policies. A substantial amount of land has been claimed from the sea, and these areas are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. We cannot wait for Changi Airport to be flooded before we become environmentally conscious. We cannot wait for East Coast Park to be flooded and lament the loss our beaches before we begin to think seriously about alternative energy.
And rising sea levels is merely a portion of the whole set of problems that we’ll have to face should our worst fears materialise. We are a global city, and our economic growth will depend on the global situation as well. Should climate change become fully manifest, economic costs will be substantial as countries divert economic production to recovery programmes. Climate change will result in massive slowdowns in the global economy, and we will bear the brunt of the slowdowns, as global demands for manufacture wane.
Beyond economics
All these are just the beginning. The impact of global warming goes beyond the economic. Climate change is slated to cause rainfall patterns to vary, and in the local region of Southeast Asia, where people depend on rice agriculture for their livelihood, changes in rainfall patterns will cause massive food disruptions and shortages. Our supermarkets will not be able to stock rice. In the face of all these potential calamities, what has our government done?
Instead we are bombarded daily on the transportation systems about the danger of a man carrying a backpack, and how we should all be good citizens in being vigilant about the people next to you who carries a bag.
I believe that no one likes to be accused for a wrongdoing we didn’t intend to do. Yet we are doing it everyday. We are denying our children, and our children’s children of a better future, and as every moment passes us by, we might be committing them to an environmental gloom that they never did.
We are also, with our inaction, denying the better future for Singapore.
About the author: The writer is currently a NSmen.
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
Some climatogists and social scientists think that the general world population is understated and some also mention that if India and Africa continues its current exponential rate of population growth, it is possible to hit 9 Billion by 2018/2020.
Hrm alright. That's quite possible, i have heard there are a lot of unrecorded births in India.But given what i've read of the resource problems they're having there, i think India could quite likely implode before it hits that number. Can't imagine Africa having the infrastructure to support that many people too.
-
Originally posted by I'm back:
Ok. So what if it all turns out to be wrong, that there might not be anthropic climate change in the near future? What if everything turns out to be all hot air? Well, given the amount of environmental damage that we have done, it still pays to spend for the environment, simply because we have to. We can stop and reverse deforestation and halt the loss of ecological diversity, thus ensuring the continuity of natural selection and the ready stock of nature’s formulation for pharmaceutical companies and farmer’s crops. And by pursuing environmental policies, we could reduce the human cost of environmental damage and allow our descendants to live in a better world
I think this is the most important part of the whole whether there's global warming or not.We can afford to be wrong but we can't tolerate the possibility that we could be right.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Hrm alright. That's quite possible, i have heard there are a lot of unrecorded births in India.But given what i've read of the resource problems they're having there, i think India could quite likely implode before it hits that number. Can't imagine Africa having the infrastructure to support that many people too.
The states of Andhra and Udar Pradesh are overpopulated, yes.
But the others, not really. India has huge landmass.
But their infrastructure is seriously lacking, prolly even worse than PRC. -
ECO’s Adaptation Policy Focus
Wednesday, 9 December 2009, 7:16 am | 18 views
Amira
Amira is a member of the Youth for Climate Change, a group under ECO Singapore, hoping to bring forward the gravity of the climate change issue. The group is part of the Youth NGO delegation at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15).
Announcement: The Adaptation working group has been allocated a slot to deliver an intervention at the COP session on 10 December 2009.
I am really excited about the working on policy issues at COP15. I’ve been working with youths from the International Youth Climate Movement (IYCM) in a policy working group on climate change adaptation issues.We are looking at the Adaptation policies being debated at COP15 with a view to propose amendments and improvements to the adaptation text, and hopefully contributing positively to debates on funding structures for adaptation financing.
Working with the most dedicated, insightful, knowledgeable young people I ever met, it has been an exhilarating experience to not just talk about adaptation issues, but also discuss solution to improve adaptation around the globe. As some of you may already know, climate change has had a severe impact on least developed nations and small island states in many ways.
Climate Change not only threatens food and water security, but also exacerbates the effects of natural disasters, displacing communities. This further entrenches poverty cycles and reverses progress already made on economic development. Even in the developed world, adaptation to climate change leaves much to be desired, as evidenced by the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans.
To start off, we are currently examining the various texts and papers related to the Adaptation policy. This includes delving into the massive text of the Ad-Hoc Working Group Long Term Cooperative Agreement (AWG-LCA), acquainting ourselves with the suggestions and positions of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the African bloc, as well as the positions of the Annex I countries. We will also be coming up with our own positions and suggestions to the language of the text.
We fear that our efforts will fall on deaf ears, so we have planned several deliverables for ourselves. We aim to forward our ideas at the official level by delivering a short intervention at a COP session or a working group session on the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI). We are also coming up with a lobbying strategy to promote policy solutions that take in account of the concerns of Least Developing Countries (LDCs) and other non-Annex-I countries and hopefully persuade the Annex I countries to adopt our suggestions.
We will also be writing an article for COP15’s daily publication Outreach, to discuss youth-led solutions for Climate Change Adaptation. We will also put up a video discussing adaptation from the perspective of an Annex I and a non-Annex I parties, made by our talented and technologically-inclined team mates!
While it is tall order to influence the outcome of adaptation policy, we are aware that this effort needs to be a long-term contribution. Our idealism is tempered not only with the ingenuity of purposeful solutions, but is buoyed by the possibility of youth. Invoking Martin Luther King’s call for the “fierce urgency of now”and Kumi Naidoo’s advice not to “wait for leadership”, my new colleagues and are bringing our vision to the table. And hoping those at the table listen.
In other words, watch this space for more adaptation policy contributions.
This article was originally published at http://unfcccecosingapore.wordpress.com/
-
Global rise in infectious diseases due to population growth, urbanisation
By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY
Posted: 09 December 2009 0000 hrs
SINGAPORE - Factors such as population growth, urbanisation and globalisation - more so than climate change - are the principal drivers of infectious diseases re-emerging worldwide, an infectious diseases expert said on Tuesday.
A Japanese family wears protective masks
Although experts agree that climate change affects how infectious diseases such as dengue are transmitted, the extent of its impact is actively debated.
Professor Duane Gubler, director of Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School's emerging infectious diseases programme, said: "Climate change is important, no doubt about that.
"We need to do everything we can to stop the changes that are influenced by human activity, but it's not climate change that's the main driver of this global emergence of infectious diseases (EID)."
Other factors include changes in animal husbandry and the boom in air travel, he said on the sidelines of an international conference on EID held here.
Since 1980, a new human pathogen has been identified every seven months. 60 per cent of emerging infections can be transmitted between animals and humans.
A public health event occurs when all its risk factors align, said Dr David Heymann of the Centre on Global Health Security, Chatham House, in the United Kingdom.
For instance, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 was stoked by animal-human infection, the spread by health care workers to the community and cross-border air travel.
To detect and identify viruses as they emerge, Duke-NUS is working with research institutes and health authorities in Vietnam and Sri Lanka to develop early warning surveillance systems.
Indonesia and Myanmar have also invited Prof Gubler to set up such programmes, and he hopes to work with other countries in the region.
The EID research programme has 43 staff on board, including 29 doctoral-level staff.
Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...023485/1/.html -
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
The states of Andhra and Udar Pradesh are overpopulated, yes.
But the others, not really. India has huge landmass.
But their infrastructure is seriously lacking, prolly even worse than PRC.
I can agree with the huge landmass part. But the main issue is still going to come down to water. It's pretty pointless to have land if you can't get any significant water source.I recently read a book called Planet India by Mira Kamdar. A common issue that India seemed to be facing now is the emptying/contamination of its ground waters and their rivers are heavily polluted.
-
What does China’s Climate Change target mean?
Thursday, 10 December 2009, 5:00 pm | 30 views
Feng Wang
Feng Wang is a Chinese student who is enrolled in graduate study on environmental economics and carbon management at the Illinois Institute of Technology. As part of the coverage on COP15, TOC will be featuring opinions from all over the world on Climate Change.
On mitigating Climate Change, the Chinese government has offered a reduction of CO2 intensity per unit GDP by 40-45% from the 2005 level by 2020.Although many climate experts are unhappy with this “soft” effort, the promised reduction is actually a realistic goal for China and other developing countries in similar situations. Why?
I think the answer lies on the growth characteristics of Chinese economy. No matter how big the national economy, China is a developing country; it has to develop its economy in order to meet the demand of their people’s pursuit on lifting living standards at least for fifty years.
In terms of ethics, the pursuit for a better living standard is moral but not a sin. As Adam Smith points in his book The Wealth of Nations:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
Hence, it is for the best interest of Chinese people to prioritise economic growth in the nation’s development strategy. This pursuit is not so-called growth mania. On the contrary, it is for the amenity of the 1.3 billion strong population in China.
However, as China is not the only country in this world, the Chinese pursuit of prosperity and happiness cannot be done at the expense of other people and other nations. China has to follow a principle of development which is accepted by the majority of nations and races in this globe.
The Chinese government is constrained by the limited supply of natural resources while it has to address the growing demand on these resources due to population boom. The most urgent problem is thus how to improve the efficiency of utilising these natural resources in order to reach the equilibrium between meeting people’s demand on the lift of living standards and making our living environment as sustainable as we could.
The reduction on CO2 intensity per GDP unit is exactly an effective approach to address this problem. The following chart depicts past trajectories of China’s GDP, CO2 intensity, and CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2006, and also projects their trends up to 2020. As projected in the chart, China’s CO2 emissions will reach 13,718 million tons in 2020 if the goal of CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan[1] is achieved.
As a result, this effort on reducing CO2 emissions in China will avoid roughly 9,000 million tons of CO2 emitted into atmosphere in 2020 when compared to the emission under the scenario of keep Status Quo. Detailed information and reasoning can be found in the following explanation and assumptions.
Explanation on the source of data: All data for Chinese carbon dioxide emissions are retrieved from Energy Information Administration (EIA) of Department of Energy (DOE), United States of America. The data on Chinese GDP from 2000 to 2006 is retrieved from China Statistical Yearbook 2007. The Chinese reduction target on Climate Change is published on China Climate Change Info-net, which is directly under the supervision of National Leading Committee on Climate Change, China.
Those data for CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan from 2000 to 2006 are calculated based on the formula of the definition[2]. For all projected trends on Chinese GDP, CO2 emissions and CO2 intensity up to 2020, following assumptions are made:
-
Chinese GDP figure in 2007 and 2008 actually are not assumed since they can be found on website of National Statistical Bureau, China;
-
The assumed annual growth rate of Chinese GDP in 2009 is 9%;
-
The assumed annual growth rate of Chinese GDP in 2010, 2011, and 2012 is 9%, 8%, 7% respectively. From 2013 to 2020, the average rate is assumed at 6%. According to this assumption, the Chinese GDP in 2020 will be 63,985 billion RMB Yuan[3];
-
According to the reduction target on CO2 intensity by 2020 on 2005 level, there will be a 40 to 45 percent decrease on CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan in 2020. Therefore, take the lower end at 40 percent reduction, the CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan in 2020 will be 60 percent of that in 2005.
The CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan in 2005 is 0.2963 (plug in the current official exchange rate of USD to RMB Yuan, the number is close to CO2 intensity per GDP US dollar as published on website of EIA), thus we got 0.1778 as the CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan in 2020, again plug this number into the formula of CO2 intensity calculation, the projected Chinese CO2 emissions in 2020 will be 13,718 million tons, roughly twice than that of 2006;
-
The projected Business-As-Usual (BAU) Chinese emissions in 2020 will be 22,864 million tons, roughly 3.5 times than that of 2006. However, due to the advancement on technology and economic structure, the actual CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan might be lower than that of 2005 in a range somewhere between 13,718 million tons and 22,864 million tons.
-
The GDP calculation of this projection is based on RMB Yuan since there was an exchange rate adjustment between US dollar and RMB Yuan in period of 2005 to 2008. In addition, it is rather complicated if there is a further exchange rate movement up to 2020. Therefore, the method by using per GDP US dollar to measure CO2 intensity may not be effective one under this situation.
In a nut shell, as a result of China’s solution on Climate Change, China might avoid to emit at most 9,000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2020 if Chinese economy can keep the annual average of GDP growth at 6 percent from 2013 to 2020.
Unfortunately, the result of this projection is seemed not very promising on our human’s collective effort to reduce the aggregate CO2 emissions worldwide. In any case, this is likely the best realistic approach to address the dilemma between economic growth and Climate Change for developing countries.
As Rome is not built on one day, the accumulation of CO2 concentration in atmosphere has start almost a century ago, we certainly cannot expect we could solve the problem within a decade or two, the time scale we might need is probably half a century or even longer.
—-
[1] Yuan is the China’s official currency, also known as RMB Yuan. According to Yahoo Finance, the official exchange rate of USD to Chinese Yuan is 1 to 6.83 in December 4, 2009.
[2] CO2 intensity per GDP Yuan = the amount of CO2 emission/ GDP Yuan
[3] It is roughly equal to US $ 9,368 billion, two thirds of the U.S. GDP in 2008 according to the official exchange rate in December 4 of 2009 from Yahoo Finance.
-
-
So... who screwed whom? Everyone's tomorrow is looking bleak.
How China wrecked Copenhagen deal - a fly-on-the-wall report
-
The West has enjoyed the most benefits from global carbon dioxide emissions, suddenly China has to pay the biggest share?
Way i see it, China has offered something pretty significant. But the West has insisted it cut more despite the fact that it is still a developing nation. China has already declared it is not going to touch the 30 billion fund offered to developing nations, and the West keeps insisting that China make deeper cuts without offering anything in return how much more fair would that be?
I find it very convenient that UK's Gordon Brown was so fast in blaming China for the failure of Coperhagen. I am also very suspicious of why China, India and Brazil chose to have a meeting without involving Obama. Were they trying to strike a deal to swindle the West, or were the USA really the ones that held the cards for Copenhagen?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
The West has enjoyed the most benefits from global carbon dioxide emissions, suddenly China has to pay the biggest share?
Way i see it, China has offered something pretty significant. But the West has insisted it cut more despite the fact that it is still a developing nation. China has already declared it is not going to touch the 30 billion fund offered to developing nations, and the West keeps insisting that China make deeper cuts without offering anything in return how much more fair would that be?
I find it very convenient that UK's Gordon Brown was so fast in blaming China for the failure of Coperhagen. I am also very suspicious of why China, India and Brazil chose to have a meeting without involving Obama. Were they trying to strike a deal to swindle the West, or were the USA really the ones that held the cards for Copenhagen?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
another perspective to the detailed happenings in the summit
-
eh
kyoto protocol oso no usa right
how come this one cannot do the same with china?
-
WISHING ALL A MERRY CHRISTMAS!
!!
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
another perspective to the detailed happenings in the summit
I have read that, and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests as well
That's why i believe while we like to think the Western free press is a neutral and critical observer it is no longer the case. I have also read and watch the videos by HongKong and China observers as well.
They brought up the most important point that if you calculate the emissions of the Western World since just after the Second World War, it pales besides anything that China is capable of.
I am not surprised at this outcome however, the recent Financial Crisis has hurt the Western World(USA and UK really) a great deal and they frankly have no desire to commit to anything that would hurt their interest. Far better it be that they impose unreasonable demands on China then blame China for sabotaging Coperhagen.
80% emissions cut by 2050 but no similar demands on the USA which is stil the biggest emitter per capita?
Do not forget that the very system of the USA means that one man don't get to call the shots. Obama can commit to all the cuts he wants but as long as the Senate does not agree Obama's not going to do jack. They can easily drag their feet to 2012 and back a President that's more obedient.
The Americans have built their vaulted freedom off the backs of the developing world, now that the developing world has started to bite back they are now complaining it is a global conspiracy to rob them of their freedom. Well, that's a laugh.
The irritating part of this whole global warming fiasco is that the cuts would only affect the world of 2050 and beyond. It is happening on a timescale that the average human brain is just not trained or equipped to handle. Global warming also isn't a blanket warming of the entire world, it's far more complex than that
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I have read that, and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests as well
That's why i believe while we like to think the Western free press is a neutral and critical observer it is no longer the case. I have also read and watch the videos by HongKong and China observers as well.
They brought up the most important point that if you calculate the emissions of the Western World since just after the Second World War, it pales besides anything that China is capable of.
I am not surprised at this outcome however, the recent Financial Crisis has hurt the Western World(USA and UK really) a great deal and they frankly have no desire to commit to anything that would hurt their interest. Far better it be that they impose unreasonable demands on China then blame China for sabotaging Coperhagen.
80% emissions cut by 2050 but no similar demands on the USA which is stil the biggest emitter per capita?
Do not forget that the very system of the USA means that one man don't get to call the shots. Obama can commit to all the cuts he wants but as long as the Senate does not agree Obama's not going to do jack. They can easily drag their feet to 2012 and back a President that's more obedient.
The Americans have built their vaulted freedom off the backs of the developing world, now that the developing world has started to bite back they are now complaining it is a global conspiracy to rob them of their freedom. Well, that's a laugh.
The irritating part of this whole global warming fiasco is that the cuts would only affect the world of 2050 and beyond. It is happening on a timescale that the average human brain is just not trained or equipped to handle. Global warming also isn't a blanket warming of the entire world, it's far more complex than that
In the end, everyone who gives a damn is unhappy that the finger-pointing among nations continued, although no-one is surprised. We're just screwing ourselves by not rising above that and making a concerted effort.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
In the end, everyone who gives a damn is unhappy that the finger-pointing among nations continued, although no-one is surprised. We're just screwing ourselves by not rising above that and making a concerted effort.
The problem is that the people that needs the most rising above are the ones that benefits the most from status quo.
It's just like us wanting the PAP ministers to understand the difficulties of a family who earns in a month what they earn in a bloody day.
It's not helping the rumours flying around that the scientists are trying to scare us, the socialist attempt to take over the world , domination by the world government..etc
-
I guess you are asking if you come late for the buffet and the food are gone does it means that the early birds got to pay for those being late?
I think the failure in Copen reflect more on the flaws in these negociation and the disconnection between the scientific community on the un-correlation between political Economies vs Climate Change. Rather than the correlation between Economics development thru Human activities that resulted in Climate Change.
There are plenty of chart and peak projections going around and Carbon coeficient on Oil,Gas and Coal. plus coeficient varies from countries to countries. Nevertheless it is difficult to pin point at what level will attain what level of desirable outcome vs undesirable outcome....
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
I guess you are asking if you come late for the buffet and the food are gone does it means that the early birds got to pay for those being late?
I think the failure in Copen reflect more on the flaws in these negociation and the disconnection between the scientific community on the un-correlation between political Economies vs Climate Change. Rather than the correlation between Economics development thru Human activities that resulted in Climate Change.
There are plenty of chart and peak projections going around and Carbon coeficient on Oil,Gas and Coal. plus coeficient varies from countries to countries. Nevertheless it is difficult to pin point at what level will attain what level of desirable outcome vs undesirable outcome....
The state of global climate did not just happen today because some countries started developing. It began when the developed countries started their development years ago.
I guess the more appropriate anology is to say that the elder sons of the family used up all the fortune of their father, and expect the younger sons who have just started to work to prevent the family from going bankrupt.
or, the early birds ate up the buffet and expect the late comers to pay the bill.
or, some have to pay the arrears, while others have to pay in advance.
may be the biggest realization in copen is that the US and other developed nations are not calling the shot anymore.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
The state of global climate did not just happen today because some countries started developing. It began when the developed countries started their development years ago.
I guess the more appropriate anology is to say that the elder sons of the family used up all the fortune of their father, and expect the younger sons who have just started to work to prevent the family from going bankrupt.
or, the early birds ate up the buffet and expect the late comers to pay the bill.
or, some have to pay the arrears, while others have to pay in advance.
may be the biggest realization in copen is that the US and other developed nations are not calling the shot anymore.
I think the global community have no illusion about Chinese equation in Copen. I just think that if the negociator bring about this mentality of Early Birds vs Late comers. The self defeating being bully by the West is not going to work together to solve world solution.
As such i said the scientific community is disconnected to the political process particularly with China that is obssesed with growth for the objective of retaining power.
To put carbon emmission on the frontline is probably not going to be achieving any result. Is almost as good as saying you EAT but Cut down the Farting.
I think the focus should be expanding Forest growth and reduce population. While provide incentive for alternative or renewal energy compare to fosil fuel of course this would tick off the Arabs but someone got to give in....
Carbon Coeficient for Coal has the higherest among all, It is between 24 - 26 depend on the Coal process. While Fosil fuel takes about 20 and nature gas is about 17.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Okies, here comes part 2.
Wait. Ok i had a look at the link you posted. It was written on 28 Nov 2009.
I see BBC had an article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
That was published on Friday 20 Nov 2009. In the article it said the files were leaked on Thursday.
On CNN it seems their first response was 25 Nov. While i don't know why CNN would release it after 6 days, your claim that BBC delayed the release for a month don't seemed to be accurate
Fox News, it seems was actually faster than CNN.
You know the funny thing is? The man actually believed in global warming.
He disagrees with how Coperhagen is going to deal with it, but he believes in man made global warming.
So can you be consistent here? Do you disagree with the man made global warming or you disagree with how we're dealing with it?
Now, we don't know what's coming out of coperhagen. What Washington wants Washington may not neccessarily get.
In case you haven't been paying attention, the direction of the world is no longer decided by just America.
No , but i'm realistic enough to believe they would act if their own interest was going to be threatened. Not really good business if alot of your Third World labour are going to be suffering from drought/flooding/hurricanes yes?
Believing that government and corporations are inherently selfish seems to be a lot less naive than believing that they're inherently evil.
Now see here, i don't make my opinions solely based on what America's doing.
I look at what China and India are doing because they would be the worst hit if quotas on carbon dioxide emissions are implemented.
They are both developing countries and are highly dependant on cheap coal energy to power their economies. If they have to give that up, they give up the economy growth and accompanying social stability. The number of the lower classes that would be affected from the carbon cuts probably outnumber the whole of America.
And see here, unlike America and India China's leadership comprises mostly of trained engineers so they would probably understand the hard Maths of global warming personally far more than the politicans of any country. Whether they respect human rights or not is a different can of worms.
They, who are so dependant on coal fired power plants are willing to commit to 40-45 cuts on carbon intensity (based on 2005 levels).
Europe, short of the UK are also committed to emission cuts. It seems the biggest portions of global warming unbelievers reside in America and the UK. Now, i wonder why ?
Shows a lot on what they think of global warming, isn't it ?
You know, i think you would make a great journalist at Fox News.You're very good at making me mean something that i don't.
No one's stupid enough to say no to the TVP if it was evenly remotely viable or realistic. No one's going to say i don't want freedom.
However, much like everything in life everything has a price.
If the TVP's first place to build one of their fancy new society in rural Africa for the tribal Africans, with the West providing the labourers i would gladly sign up. I bet that's not what the planners had in mind with their fancy dream.
Oh sure, say no to global government.
Continue to let the USA do whatever they want, after all their citizens seemed to know what's best for the rest of the world wouldn't they ?
There's no inherently good or evil in a global government, you used that phrase as if it's supposed to imply anything by itself.
First of all, I apologise for taking such a ridiculously long time to reply.
Ok, I'm willing to assume that those involved in Climategate had no sinister motives, even if it shows a prejudice on part of AGW scientists, that may influence how the debate is being presented.
My point in bringing up James Hanson was to show that even someone who believed that human activity is causing climate change, he also realises the futility and corruption inherent in a so-called solution of "cap and trade", which is being implemented across the developed world.
As I've stated many times, I'm all for protecting the environment and promoting green technology, but that's different than being in support of another financial scam.
Right now, for the sake of not getting into more arguments, I'll state: I agree with you that human activity is causing the climate to change in negative ways. But are the methods being pushed by the corporate and national elites going to effectively solve this problem? Washington's solution wasn't any good, but Copenhagen didn't show us anything better.
If anything, Copenhagen just told us what we already knew but many didn't want to believe. Governments, international institutions etc don't really have a genuine interest in promoting the interests of the ordinary people and the environment. They're there to preserve and promote the interests of the establishment.
It'll be a similar state of affairs should global governance comes into being. Considering the how much the corporate-governmental (fascist) relationship has developed through the decades, I can only think of an increasingly large fist that epitomises Acton's warning that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By now, you should be aware of the double standards flouting around at Copenhagen after the so-called Danish text was leaked:
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
Coming back to Hanson's warning about a cap and trade system, I don't see how we can solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that created it. Already in Europe, where there are several systems of this kind, the introduction of a financial scheme where the subject is the ecological survival of our planet, corruption and profit naturally have enveloped whatever well-meaning intentions, if any, behind the plan.
Are you familiar with the Story of Stuff? I vaguely remember recommending it to you. The same people have now come up with The Story of Cap and Trade, which does a great job in explaining a supposedly complex system, and exposes it as the corporate scam as it is. I strongly hope that you as well as anyone reading this takes the time to watch their presentation.
If the elites were genuinely serious about solving "climate change", it could easily be accomplished without the creation of another bubble to burst for huge profits. After all, if we transcend this great abyss called politics, everything becomes a technical matter. From super-efficient solar cells to an array in Space that the Japanese are working on to existing renewables available from geothermal to wave, wind and current, not to mention the potential that could be developed from Thorium, the so-called new Uranium, energy could be limitless and clean.
But wait... under existing conditions, even the above, which sounds great is going to have its negative impacts.
"Some of the greenest technologies of the age, from electric carswind turbines, are made possible by an unusual group of elements called rare earths. The world’s dependence on these substances is rising fast. to efficient light bulbs to very large
- Earth-Friendly Elements, Mined Destructively
That's just what our social structure produces. When profit takes precedence over the human and environmental concerns, when we are more concerned over politics and ideologies than a scientific approach to solving our problems, which is really what has propelled human progress, you'll get the similar problems occuring again and again. The argument that wars, poverty, corruption and human suffering in general are caused by human nature is rather narrow-minded when you consider that throughout history, we have been bound by similar established structures, most prominently, a monetary system or some other forms of exchange.
To end on a poetic note, consider this Cree Indian prophecy:
"Only after the last tree's cut, And the last river poisoned; Only after the last fish is caught, Will you find that money cannot be eaten."
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
I think the global community have no illusion about Chinese equation in Copen. I just think that if the negociator bring about this mentality of Early Birds vs Late comers. The self defeating being bully by the West is not going to work together to solve world solution.
As such i said the scientific community is disconnected to the political process particularly with China that is obssesed with growth for the objective of retaining power.
To put carbon emmission on the frontline is probably not going to be achieving any result. Is almost as good as saying you EAT but Cut down the Farting.
I think the focus should be expanding Forest growth and reduce population. While provide incentive for alternative or renewal energy compare to fosil fuel of course this would tick off the Arabs but someone got to give in....
Carbon Coeficient for Coal has the higherest among all, It is between 24 - 26 depend on the Coal process. While Fosil fuel takes about 20 and nature gas is about 17.
The problem is more of a fundamental one. When you have a society whose direction is profit, power aquisition and preserving the status quo, only solutions that contribute to the above three are considered by the establishment. In this case, for carbon trading, the solution doesn't solve the problem a bit, but aggravates it though it allows a group of people to reap millions off it.
We can either have a society whose social direction is towards profit and power or a society that is geared towards preserving and promoting the human and environmental well-being; but not both.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
The problem is more of a fundamental one. When you have a society whose direction is profit, power aquisition and preserving the status quo, only solutions that contribute to the above three are considered by the establishment. In this case, for carbon trading, the solution doesn't solve the problem a bit, but aggravates it though it allows a group of people to reap millions off it.
We can either have a society whose social direction is towards profit and power or a society that is geared towards preserving and promoting the human and environmental well-being; but not both.
Agreed carbon trading probably derive from the concept of Externalities...where one country pay off another country to stop pumping carbon. Such that human activities that leads to carbon emmission and others remains the intact.
In a way the downturn of the US may be a good sign as the slow growth lead to reduction in productions globally. But in Geology time frame is just a needle drop in the ocean.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
First of all, I apologise for taking such a ridiculously long time to reply.
Ok, I'm willing to assume that those involved in Climategate had no sinister motives, even if it shows a prejudice on part of AGW scientists, that may influence how the debate is being presented.
My point in bringing up James Hanson was to show that even someone who believed that human activity is causing climate change, he also realises the futility and corruption inherent in a so-called solution of "cap and trade", which is being implemented across the developed world.
As I've stated many times, I'm all for protecting the environment and promoting green technology, but that's different than being in support of another financial scam.
Right now, for the sake of not getting into more arguments, I'll state: I agree with you that human activity is causing the climate to change in negative ways. But are the methods being pushed by the corporate and national elites going to effectively solve this problem? Washington's solution wasn't any good, but Copenhagen didn't show us anything better.
If anything, Copenhagen just told us what we already knew but many didn't want to believe. Governments, international institutions etc don't really have a genuine interest in promoting the interests of the ordinary people and the environment. They're there to preserve and promote the interests of the establishment.
It'll be a similar state of affairs should global governance comes into being. Considering the how much the corporate-governmental (fascist) relationship has developed through the decades, I can only think of an increasingly large fist that epitomises Acton's warning that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By now, you should be aware of the double standards flouting around at Copenhagen after the so-called Danish text was leaked:
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
Coming back to Hanson's warning about a cap and trade system, I don't see how we can solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that created it. Already in Europe, where there are several systems of this kind, the introduction of a financial scheme where the subject is the ecological survival of our planet, corruption and profit naturally have enveloped whatever well-meaning intentions, if any, behind the plan.
Are you familiar with the Story of Stuff? I vaguely remember recommending it to you. The same people have now come up with The Story of Cap and Trade, which does a great job in explaining a supposedly complex system, and exposes it as the corporate scam as it is. I strongly hope that you as well as anyone reading this takes the time to watch their presentation.
If the elites were genuinely serious about solving "climate change", it could easily be accomplished without the creation of another bubble to burst for huge profits. After all, if we transcend this great abyss called politics, everything becomes a technical matter. From super-efficient solar cells to an array in Space that the Japanese are working on to existing renewables available from geothermal to wave, wind and current, not to mention the potential that could be developed from Thorium, the so-called new Uranium, energy could be limitless and clean.
But wait... under existing conditions, even the above, which sounds great is going to have its negative impacts.
"Some of the greenest technologies of the age, from electric carswind turbines, are made possible by an unusual group of elements called rare earths. The world’s dependence on these substances is rising fast. to efficient light bulbs to very large
- Earth-Friendly Elements, Mined Destructively
That's just what our social structure produces. When profit takes precedence over the human and environmental concerns, when we are more concerned over politics and ideologies than a scientific approach to solving our problems, which is really what has propelled human progress, you'll get the similar problems occuring again and again. The argument that wars, poverty, corruption and human suffering in general are caused by human nature is rather narrow-minded when you consider that throughout history, we have been bound by similar established structures, most prominently, a monetary system or some other forms of exchange.
To end on a poetic note, consider this Cree Indian prophecy:
"Only after the last tree's cut, And the last river poisoned; Only after the last fish is caught, Will you find that money cannot be eaten."
Frankly i loathe to get involved with this discussion again. There is a massive difference in manipulating the truth to benefit yourself and taking advantage of the fact to benefit yourself.Firstly, the Medival Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are both facts that i read from wikipedia and from books that i've bought. There were no attempts to blanket these facts, something you ought to have tried yourself before blindly accepting the opinion of people you don't know personally.
- We know the Medival Warming Period has occured. But firstly it is not a global warming event, it was limited to the Northern Altantic Region. (http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/hockeystick-revisited)
- There is also little understanding to why it occurred, near as i can tell. But we know that it has to be natural since humans did not have any industrial civilization then.
- No natural causes have been found that the current warming is linked to any naturally occuring phenomenon. But the warming corresponds with rising CO2 levels.
- While the MWP has resulted in the rise of the Vikings, the Little Ice Age was one of the factors that caused the rise of the Manchus and subsequent fall of the Ming Dynasty. But we do not know whether we're going to enter another Iittle Ice Age or if the temperature would actually continue to rise beyond what we know of the MWP because of our activities.
Regarding your link, there is little information on how much that is deleted are real articles or nonsensical/repeated posts like that of knnbpcb's.
I have already knew about the Medival Warming Period and Little Ice Age, they have no connection with the current global warming and climate change. I fail to see why there must be a connection between them.
Why do you think such unreasonable terms were brought up? Because they knew that we, the minor nobility of the world refuse to give up even a portion of our comfortable lifestyles to benefit the truly improverished.
How could we be minor nobility you would think? We enjoy the natural resources that come from these improverished countries do we not ? Don't we prop up dictators in their country so we can be guranteed a steady supply? Everyone in this forum including you and me benefit from the activities of the global elites that we enjoy scraps from their tables is better than the nothing and beating the truly poor have to suffer.
Would you have given up your comfortable lifestyle if the true solution was really given? No! You would be kicking and screaming as you are dragged from the table scraps, bemoaning the global elite nobles and cursing the poor for making you give up what you have to them.
The Danish have no illusion of what the people of the developed countries really want, despite their noble protests at Coperhagen and outcry on the Internet. They figured half a solution is better than none.
Do you seriously think that if these new technologies were so easily developed and implemented that the global elites would not have abandoned their troublesome dictators in the Middle East and their annoying population?
You never bothered to research on these new technologies that you brought up. If you had you would have realised the limitations they have because you don't want reality to shatter your understanding of the world.
The Truth of it is that we would never accept downgrading on our lifestyles without protest. We would rather invent a monolithic organisation or Satan and blame it on them than think we contributed to the problem as well. We have seen the Gates of Heaven, and we would only accept forward not backwards! And screw the faceless poor under the flooring that we have to step over to go forward!
I have no disagreement with your final paragraph.But it is an emotional argument at best, ignoring the facts and reality of the matter.
Finally i would just like to ask.
Ok, what if some global elites realise that wow, global warming would really hurt profits, i might actually have to pay more for services and products if there are wide spread floods, famines and droughts occuring over the world. If there is a smaller human population, it naturally means i have to pay more for stuff and i can't threaten a country that i would outsource my factories if they don't comply with my demands.
Some of them decides to put money into green technology(for profits naturally) and decides to give funding to scientists to help better understanding global warming and educate people about it.
But their efforts are accused of attempting to scare people about global warming and there would be people like you trying to say that it isn't happening but that elites are trying to rip them off.
And your efforts would be used by the elites that want to maintain status quo and continue partying.
Your problem is that you can only see Good and Evil. There is no such thing as the lesser evil and the greater evil in your world view.