Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2023, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 18,992,973 times
Reputation: 21725

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by moguldreamer View Post
Emission Cuts Will Fail to Stop Climate Change. What to Do Then?
Nothing.

Even if vehicles never existed average global temperatures are going to increase another 7.5° to 15.2° and there ain't nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it and sea levels are going to rise another 3 meters to 14 meters and there ain't nothing you can do to stop that, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2023, 02:44 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,102 posts, read 4,915,886 times
Reputation: 17421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Nothing.

Even if vehicles never existed average global temperatures are going to increase another 7.5° to 15.2° and there ain't nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it and sea levels are going to rise another 3 meters to 14 meters and there ain't nothing you can do to stop that, either.
Your conclusion is correct but your stated data is probably exaggerated.

Anybody forming an opinion and taking part in a discussion on this topic should be aware of this classic graph of co2 levels vs temps throughout geologic history: https://www.researchgate.net/profile...-from-HIEB.png

We can see that temps never go beyond the limits of ~10deg and 25degC (we should all familiarize ourselves with the concept of "limit cycles" in dynamic systems). It's a negative feedback system, all things considered.

We are currently at ~15degC average global temps (pretty cool as historical temps go) and [co2] now 420ppm-- awfully low and near the 180ppm level that would stop all photosynthesis.

Technically speaking, because we still have permanent ice caps, we still aren't completely out of the last Ice Age. We're not sure if this is as warm as it gets before heading back into a glaciation or not.

It makes more sense to build a boat to deal with rising tides than a puny wall to hold the water back.

Adaptation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2023, 03:42 PM
 
Location: In Little Ping's Maple Dictatorship
323 posts, read 123,282 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina View Post
Emission cuts alone won't stop climate change, but every step counts. We have to take the first step so the next steps can follow.
Saving forests is a great next step. Goals for a sustainable development should be set. Reducing waste and recycling. Investing in renewable energy. Switching to sustainable transport.
Etc...
When I was in school, they called the Amazon river basin and its immense rainforest "the lungs of the earth". We were taught it was the most important way that C02 was converted into oxygen in nature.

Forty something years later, the rainforest is being chopped down at an unprecedented rate for agriculture and harvesting of exotic woods. Rainforests in other parts of the world are also being cut down for similar reasons. At the same time, countries like China are pumping out C02 and other pollutants with complete disregard to the consequences to the environment to the point where the air will literally make you sick from exposure.

My personal belief is that planting trees, forcing so-called developing economies to adhere to modern pollution standards, and providing economic incentives for impoverished nations to stop clear cutting would be much more effective than driving inflation through the roof with useless carbon taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2023, 03:53 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 553,278 times
Reputation: 3356
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickIlhenney View Post
When I was in school, they called the Amazon river basin and its immense rainforest "the lungs of the earth". We were taught it was the most important way that C02 was converted into oxygen in nature.

Forty something years later, the rainforest is being chopped down at an unprecedented rate for agriculture and harvesting of exotic woods. Rainforests in other parts of the world are also being cut down for similar reasons. At the same time, countries like China are pumping out C02 and other pollutants with complete disregard to the consequences to the environment to the point where the air will literally make you sick from exposure.

My personal belief is that planting trees, forcing so-called developing economies to adhere to modern pollution standards, and providing economic incentives for impoverished nations to stop clear cutting would be much more effective than driving inflation through the roof with useless carbon taxes.
You have a very valid point concerning developing countries like China and India, etc overpolluting.

But the question is... who are we to "force" another country to "stop" their rampant capitalism? We in N America have been overconsuming and overpolluting in the name of progress for how many decades?

We have zero rights to tell these countries that they can't pursue the all mighty dollar like we have so many years. It's hypocritical. It's like listening to some big star in Hollywood living in a huge mansion, jet setting all over the world criticize others about not being environmentally responsible.

What you stated about providing economic incentives for developing countries is the right way to go. They need an alternative to their current profitable polluting ways or else they will just go on doing it because they have no choice. They have to pay the bills just the same as we do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2023, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Four Oaks
686 posts, read 364,405 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by HodgePodge View Post
Dark humour :P

I figure ... and this is even darker, that we are overpopulating the earth and thus nature has a way of fixing that through plagues, pandemics and various other mechanisms to reduce our population in substantial amounts.

Kinda like how an overpopulation of say ... deer, leads to less foilage / food, starvation, more sickly deer, a crash in their population to more sustainable numbers.

The difference between us and deer are that we are (supposedly) advanced creatures with critical thought. Even though there is disease, starvation (in many parts of the world), continual war with constant deaths... our population still grows because with our technology we are able to overcome.

The only way us "parasites of earth" will reduce our population is through something cataclysmic... super volcano, meteor, nuclear war, etc.

Just waiting for population correction due to natural selection will not happen for centuries, leading to much agony of the masses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2023, 09:22 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,102 posts, read 4,915,886 times
Reputation: 17421
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickIlhenney View Post
When I was in school, they called the Amazon river basin and its immense rainforest "the lungs of the earth". We were taught it was the most important way that C02 was converted into oxygen in nature.

Forty something years later, the rainforest is being chopped down at an unprecedented rate for agriculture and harvesting of exotic woods. Rainforests in other parts of the world are also being cut down for similar reasons. At the same time, countries like China are pumping out C02 and other pollutants with complete disregard to the consequences to the environment to the point where the air will literally make you sick from exposure.

My personal belief is that planting trees, forcing so-called developing economies to adhere to modern pollution standards, and providing economic incentives for impoverished nations to stop clear cutting would be much more effective than driving inflation through the roof with useless carbon taxes.

Amazon "the lungs of the planet"-- erroneus hype. Grassland conducts 5-10x more photosynthesis per ac than forest, ie- 5-10x more co2 in and o2 out...As I said above, trees just hang on to co2 in the form of wood for 100 yrs before decaying away and returning the co2 to the atm, whereas for grass, it's a yr or two... but it's a CYCLE. No net dfference over the long haul. "Planting trees" as a way to reduce co2 is a waste of effort advocated only by the naive.

In so far as deforestation in order to farm-- That's exactly what Europeans did to their forests over the last 1000 yrs and Americans over the last 300....Who are we now to tell others that they can't do it too to boost their own wealth and standard of living like we did?

https://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP-60.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-story-...-marsh-evt7wb/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2023, 11:21 AM
 
Location: In Little Ping's Maple Dictatorship
323 posts, read 123,282 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HodgePodge View Post
But the question is... who are we to "force" another country to "stop" their rampant capitalism? We in N America have been overconsuming and overpolluting in the name of progress for how many decades?
Back when North America was going about polluting the environment without care we didn't know any better. However, all governments know the consequences of doing so now. Big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
In so far as deforestation in order to farm-- That's exactly what Europeans did to their forests over the last 1000 yrs and Americans over the last 300....Who are we now to tell others that they can't do it too to boost their own wealth and standard of living like we did?
Both of you are putting forth the idea that its OK for so-called "developing nations" to destroy the planet because to tell them not to would be hypocritical. While that may seem to be the case, leading by example will do less to stop emissions than carbon taxes will. More to the point, if the entire country of Canada reduced all its carbon emissions to zero, it wouldn't make an iota of difference as China's total carbon emissions would increase by more than that the following year.

Stop thinking in terms of per capita and think in terms of total carbon produced. China may be one of the lowest carbon producers on the planet per capita due to its population, but it is easily the worst polluter on the planet by total carbon emissions. Imagine the environment as a 100 gallon aquarium and carbon emissions being water. Now assume that if the water level ever hits 100 gallons, it would trigger an environmental doomsday scenario on par with Venus. Per capita statistics do nothing to stop China from producing a gallon and a half of water a year toward filling the tank, nor does it make them one of the least polluting countries on the planet on anything else but paper.

TBH, this is why I don't think that the so-called climate crisis is anywhere as bad as these so-called experts claim it is. Nobody is doing anything to stop the worst polluters on the planet to stop producing carbon emissions, they seem only interested is making the western taxpayer pay more for pollution via taxes, tariffs and carbon credits. Taxing pollution to stop climate change is as shortsighted as thinking taxing poppies would put an end to the opioid crisis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2023, 09:35 AM
 
14,277 posts, read 14,034,525 times
Reputation: 45299
Quote:
Originally Posted by moguldreamer View Post
Emission Cuts Will Fail to Stop Climate Change. What to Do Then?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/emissio...hare_permalink


The above is a discussion with famed polymath Nathan Myhrvold, founder of Intellectual Ventures.

Mankind isn’t capable of reducing emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising unacceptably, according to Myhrvold. Myhrvold is a bright guy. He went to college at 14, graduating from UCLA four years later with both a bachelor’s degree in math and a master’s in geophysics and space physics. He went on to earn a master’s in mathematical economics and a doctorate in applied mathematics from Princeton.

Myhrvold is a big proponent of geoengineering to address climate change, and Intellectual Ventures owns many patents on methods to combat global warming. A couple of their inventions include a method to mimic the effect of Mt. Pinatubo's eruption, which injected reflective particles into the stratosphere, reflecting some sunlight back into outer space, thereby cooling Earth for several years in the process. Another invention is for ocean-going vessels to spray sea water into the air; the salt would act to increase marine cloud formation to reflect solar energy back into outer space, cooling the planet in the process.

Myhrvold recently spent time with a startup that has a clever idea for direct air capture of CO2.
You realize the conflict of interest here don't you? If Myhrvold can persuade people that limiting emissions is insufficient he stands to make a lot more money. Of course, he is going to say that. Whether it is true or not.

He may turn out to be correct, but if he does it won't be for the right reasons. It will be because its self-serving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2023, 09:40 AM
 
4,077 posts, read 2,356,758 times
Reputation: 6394
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke View Post
Actually, killing each other is a very important component of reducing global warming. It reduces the human population and fewer humans pollute less.
That nails it, too many people and folks aren't willing to face that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2023, 05:25 PM
 
13,249 posts, read 8,291,209 times
Reputation: 31404
The word ' stop' is where folks are either playing the sky is falling or there is nothing to see here!.
How about being able to slow down the climate change impact. ? We can't stop the past antics that is and has effected the land and atmosphere. We can change course and slow it down. I'm all for the drop of water effect.
I recall back in the 70's , we started banning aerosol cans. It had an effect on the ozone.
I'm no college versed person on science and land. Only can be aware of cause and effect.

Once you know the cause , you can create a positive slow down .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top