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.
What if societies desire to have and consume more is ultimately stronger than our desire to ensure the world lasts 50,000 more years instead of 2,000 more years?
Could me and my family be safer in a 7 mpg 7,000 lb SUV? Why not?
There are billions of people out here that want what Americans have...
If wealth is your concern, fear not. Areas tend to get bluer as they get wealthier. In my experience, these voters align with environmental concerns.
At some point the question is moot. The planet will get the last word eventually. Humans will probably end up dying off sooner than some other things. We are simply too vulnerable and dependent. That's part of what is so ironic. Humans, with their unique ability to see how they are dooming themselves can't manage to do anything to prevent it. No will, no determination. Its always another human's fault, another human's problem, and another human's responsibility. That will end.
Last edited by Parnassia; 01-17-2020 at 12:59 PM..
Up until about 20 yrs ago, I was panicked by the prospect of depleting petroleum supplies: modern agriculture is the process of turning oil into food (ie- we need tractors. )..But then along came fracking and our supply of NG will last us 6 centuries or more.
Please name one natural resource we are danger of depleting in the next 200 yrs....One?. . ..Anyone?...Buehler?
It is easy to be altruistic when you're warm & dry and well fed. Most of the world isn't "industrialized." Are those people greedy because they want to survive and get comfortable? Who are we who have already exploited our resources to tell them they can't exploit theirs?..Aboriginals like the Am Indian weren't "living in tune with Nature." They were running as fast as they could just to break even and wished they could conquer Nature. They didn't have the technology.
The world is not in danger of over-population. Those things we need for survival like air & water are essentially limitless. We can make food to feed 12 billion and could increase that quite easily by using modern irrigation, sowing & fertilizing techniques in the Third World Nations. Even American yield would increase by 25% if all farmers used good drainage tiling techniques.
GW is a fake news story meant to subjugate the masses for political purposes. It's an average of 4deg warmer in TN than where I live in WI. Why aren't they all dead there yet if a 4deg rise in temps is gunna kill us? (BTW- the two most important GHGs are water vapor and ozone. Ozone is interesting because it serves to trap heat coming from the surface trying to get out into space, but it also traps EM radiation coming from the sun and "shades" us more than it traps from leaving. Maybe our well meaning but ignorant regulations limiting production of ozone is what's behind the current warming trend. Note that we have some regs meant to limit production of ozone, but others meant to save it. WUWT?
Fire, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts are not caused by human activity. FLOODS are-- well meaning engineers trying to prevent flooding as our cities grow have dredged out natural waterways that used to flood every spring. We stupidly develop those flood plains and then try to prevent the flooding, making the situation worse. … and even worse, by dredging the slow, shallow river beds, we destroy the natural habitat needed for small fish, amphibians, insects, birds etc that relied on that for their food, breeding grounds etc.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that most attention by "environmentalists" is mis-directed due to a poverty of knowledge but a wealth of emotion.
Up until about 20 yrs ago, I was panicked by the prospect of depleting petroleum supplies: modern agriculture is the process of turning oil into food (ie- we need tractors. )..But then along came fracking and our supply of NG will last us 6 centuries or more.
Please name one natural resource we are danger of depleting in the next 200 yrs....One?. . ..Anyone?...Buehler?
It is easy to be altruistic when you're warm & dry and well fed. Most of the world isn't "industrialized." Are those people greedy because they want to survive and get comfortable? Who are we who have already exploited our resources to tell them they can't exploit theirs?..Aboriginals like the Am Indian weren't "living in tune with Nature." They were running as fast as they could just to break even and wished they could conquer Nature. They didn't have the technology.
The world is not in danger of over-population. Those things we need for survival like air & water are essentially limitless. We can make food to feed 12 billion and could increase that quite easily by using modern irrigation, sowing & fertilizing techniques in the Third World Nations. Even American yield would increase by 25% if all farmers used good drainage tiling techniques.
GW is a fake news story meant to subjugate the masses for political purposes. It's an average of 4deg warmer in TN than where I live in WI. Why aren't they all dead there yet if a 4deg rise in temps is gunna kill us? (BTW- the two most important GHGs are water vapor and ozone. Ozone is interesting because it serves to trap heat coming from the surface trying to get out into space, but it also traps EM radiation coming from the sun and "shades" us more than it traps from leaving. Maybe our well meaning but ignorant regulations limiting production of ozone is what's behind the current warming trend. Note that we have some regs meant to limit production of ozone, but others meant to save it. WUWT?
Fire, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts are not caused by human activity. FLOODS are-- well meaning engineers trying to prevent flooding as our cities grow have dredged out natural waterways that used to flood every spring. We stupidly develop those flood plains and then try to prevent the flooding, making the situation worse. … and even worse, by dredging the slow, shallow river beds, we destroy the natural habitat needed for small fish, amphibians, insects, birds etc that relied on that for their food, breeding grounds etc.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that most attention by "environmentalists" is mis-directed due to a poverty of knowledge but a wealth of emotion.
The environment is a system. So is the economy. When you do one thing, it affects other things. We won't all die, but some will be harmed and that harm could have been avoided.
More importantly there can be serious economic consequences. E.g: rising ocean temperatures which will cause lower fish stocks, harming whatever industries depend on them and whatever people had those jobs, and raise all of our fish prices. Not to mention significantly changing the ocean ecosystem for the worse & harming that animal life.
I live in a forest fire risk area, and I'm not keen on losing my house because it's hotter every year and the fuel is more easily ignited. If my town burns up, that's a lot of economic activity disrupted. I'll lose my job and become an economic dependent instead of an independent actor, and I'll be applying for taxpayer assistance on your dime. It's also a ski resort area, and the economy in winter depends on getting snow. If we don't get enough snow it hurts everyone connected to that jobs engine.
Generally speaking, we're making decisions that will make life worse for people in the long-run, when we have other options and we know we could do better. That's what's so sad about it. Look at what's happening in Australia right now. Maybe it doesn't matter for you, but it matters to the people that lost their houses, and the untold animal life that's been destroyed. People in Australia have reported being able to hear the animal life dying in agony from the fires, at the same time they are having to evacuate their homes. Maybe if you experienced that you might care? Or maybe not.
The more of that kind of disaster happens, the more we will have to pay for all the after-effects and clean-up. How much of that economic activity is simply waste that could be going to something more valuable?
What's tragic about climate change is that this is the path we have chosen. No one made anyone do this, and yet we want to pretend as if we have no responsibility for the consequences. But like drug addicts or alcoholics, we are fighting to the utmost for the right to cause more harm to ourselves, with no regard to the collateral damage.
Last edited by redguard57; 01-17-2020 at 03:43 PM..
Up until about 20 yrs ago, I was panicked by the prospect of depleting petroleum supplies: modern agriculture is the process of turning oil into food (ie- we need tractors. )..But then along came fracking and our supply of NG will last us 6 centuries or more.
Link to that claim?
Proven reserves are between 50 and 100 years for NG. People think we will go beyond proven reserves but that is speculation and cannot be counted on.
What we have to be concerned about is the "snowball" effect. 1/2 degree rise 2020-2030; 1 degree rise 2030-2040; 2 degree rise 2040-2050; 4 degree rise 2050-2060; 7 degree rise 2060-2070 and so on. Each decade sees an exponential growth in calamities compounded by growth in population, which may level off at some point, but still get to an 11 billion mark by 2100. 11 billion people on this ball will have catastrophic effects on the earth compounded by ever rising temperatures and the melting of Greenland and Antarctic.
If wealth is your concern, fear not. Areas tend to get bluer as they get wealthier. In my experience, these voters align with environmental concerns.
Even our poorest people seem to be vastly more wealthy than even rich people 150 years ago. Shouldn’t a country this wealthy be completely blue by now?
And heck, global warming is a blue issue, but I’d say most people don’t care...or just say they care to look more altruistic than the next guy.
What we have to be concerned about is the "snowball" effect. 1/2 degree rise 2020-2030; 1 degree rise 2030-2040; 2 degree rise 2040-2050; 4 degree rise 2050-2060; 7 degree rise 2060-2070 and so on. Each decade sees an exponential growth in calamities compounded by growth in population, which may level off at some point, but still get to an 11 billion mark by 2100. 11 billion people on this ball will have catastrophic effects on the earth compounded by ever rising temperatures and the melting of Greenland and Antarctic.
What do we do with our concern if billions of other people are clawing their cages looking to get a little of what we have? Africa, China, India...bunch of people out there who would just love to be where we were 100 years ago.
I doubt they will give a rat’s arse about pollution as they make their way to the table to eat. Can you blame them though?
A world catastrophe, war or even more poverty seems like the best way to combat warming as we are told it is happening.
Heck, humans are creatures that have lived ~70 year lifespans since forever. Do our brains really have the ability to process legit concern for things that might happen in 200 years? Or do we simply use warming as a political tool regardless of it happening or not.
What do we do with our concern if billions of other people are clawing their cages looking to get a little of what we have? Africa, China, India...bunch of people out there who would just love to be where we were 100 years ago.
I doubt they will give a rat’s arse about pollution as they make their way to the table to eat. Can you blame them though?
A world catastrophe, war or even more poverty seems like the best way to combat warming as we are told it is happening.
Heck, humans are creatures that have lived ~70 year lifespans since forever. Do our brains really have the ability to process legit concern for things that might happen in 200 years? Or do we simply use warming as a political tool regardless of it happening or not.
Well, the problem, eddie (loved you in Leave It To Beaver, by the way ) is that many toddlers you see today are going to be alive in 2100 wrestling with this nightmarish scenario so the problem is right at our doorstep. The "climate refugees" are going to wreak havoc on Europe which is already reeling from the influx of Middle Eastern refugees pouring over their borders. It's hard to believe that Europe, a land smaller than the US
Public domain)
has roughly 200 million people more than the US. When 200 million more climate refugees pour into Europe will come undone. The only thing that will save us is a nuclear war which wipes out 90% of the world population and then the remaining 10% start over. Failing that, earth is doomed. Maybe we should keep Trump after all.
It's hard to believe that Europe, a land smaller than the US
Hard to believe because it's not true.
Europe = 10.18 million km²
USA = 9.834 million km²
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.
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.
) is that many toddlers you see today are going to be alive in 2100 wrestling with this nightmarish scenario so the problem is right at our doorstep. The "climate refugees" are going to wreak havoc on Europe which is already reeling from the influx of Middle Eastern refugees pouring over their borders. It's hard to believe that Europe, a land smaller than the US
Public domain)
