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.
Funny, in the past whenever I brought up Obama being a hypocrite by using an armada of aircraft to go halfway around the globe to sit that special beach each year, practically every AGW character on CD that addresses it says either "should he use a bicycle to go everywhere?" or "Obama's Hawaii flights are inconsequential ".
When I've asked if personal air travel should be restricted, those same people say it's ridiculous.
Whenever I bring up personal change, it's always dismissed because those people don't want to change their lives.
And how about we address immigration? Shouldn't immigration be restricted to reduce the problem? If you don't understand the correlation between immigration, population and first world lifestyles, I'd be happy to break that down for you.
When it comes to AGW, it essentially comes down to taxing business in the US. Oh, nad internet rants.
How CO2 does an airplane give off? How much CO2 would be saved by stoping immigration?
Are the more or less than other options? Doesn't logic say to start with the biggest sources first? If you want to tackle transportation, why not start with biofuels? Or raising fuel efficiency standards? Why is your first thought to stop all air traffic? Are you going to stop all importation of goods too?
The greater number of humans you have, the greater the human footprint will be.
We have billions of people living below first world standards who don't have air conditioners, refrigerators, televisions, cars, etc. These people will continue the drive toward western lifestyles. You can't tell stop them.
If it weren't for immigration, the US would be losing population. With our lifestyles, don't you think us losing population essentially accommodates others moving towards a western lifestyle?
Did I clarify this to you better?
Those people have to live somewhere - and they're on this planet regardless.
Again, are you suggesting that they are living better/larger lifestyles here? I don't know if that's true or not. If it is, sure, that could help.
I think China and India are the biggest population centers we have to worry about - a few billion people going from riding bikes everywhere and living simply to driving cars and consuming like our wasteful country (we are...) is a huge issue - and it does kind of make a couple million people living slightly better lifestyles a smaller issue, don't you think?
The greater number of humans you have, the greater the human footprint will be.
ACC is a global problem. You think moving people from part of the globe to another significantly changes their carbon footprint? And that the sum of all of those immigrants is a larger source than other things like electrical generation?
You need to provide some numbers for that. Otherwise why the obsession with immigration?
Quote:
We have billions of people living below first world standards who don't have air conditioners, refrigerators, televisions, cars, etc. These people will continue the drive toward western lifestyles. You can't tell stop them.
If it weren't for immigration, the US would be losing population. With our lifestyles, don't you think us losing population essentially accommodates others moving towards a western lifestyle?
Did I clarify this to you better?
Air conditioners are becoming the norm n third world countries like the Philippines, and Mexico more and more often. If you want to support this premise, you need to do so with some actual data. Otherwise you appear to be fixated in this issue despite the fact that it isn't even a significant source of CO2 compared to things like energy generation or manufacturing.
A sample of air has some CO2 in it. The CO2 is made of carbon and oxygen which each have different isotopes which are favored under certain conditions. Put the two elements together in this different combinations , as well as the ratio of those different combinations and you get patterns. CO2 from different sources, and different parts in th ecarbon cycle has different patterns. Different fossil fuels have different patterns. As of 2015, the last time I read reesearch on this, the one anthropogenic source that was still hard to pinpoint was from cement manufacture. Cement manufacture is actually an enormous part of the human caused CO2 pipe, and never seems to get much attention. Anyway, yes, we can "figure out" how much of the atmospheric CO2 came from a bunch of sources. Well, "figure it out" with a high probability to be most accurate.
So to answer more simply, pretty much yes.
Thanks again for that. Then the next line of argument, given how clear this is, is that perhaps the recorded atmospheric levels are considered inconsequential and green house gasses don't do as much as we think? I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
ACC is a global problem. You think moving people from part of the globe to another significantly changes their carbon footprint? And that the sum of all of those immigrants is a larger source than other things like electrical generation?
You need to provide some numbers for that. Otherwise why the obsession with immigration?
Air conditioners are becoming the norm n third world countries like the Philippines, and Mexico more and more often. If you want to support this premise, you need to do so with some actual data. Otherwise you appear to be fixated in this issue despite the fact that it isn't even a significant source of CO2 compared to things like energy generation or manufacturing.
Does anyone know what, if any, role methane plays (thinking about waste from animals (factory farms, regular farming, humans, etc).
How CO2 does an airplane give off? How much CO2 would be saved by stoping immigration?
Are the more or less than other options? Doesn't logic say to start with the biggest sources first? If you want to tackle transportation, why not start with biofuels? Or raising fuel efficiency standards? Why is your first thought to stop all air traffic? Are you going to stop all importation of goods too?
Aircraft produce a huge amount of emissions.
Stopping immigration will slow the increase of emissions in places like the US.
Those people have to live somewhere - and they're on this planet regardless.
Again, are you suggesting that they are living better/larger lifestyles here? I don't know if that's true or not. If it is, sure, that could help.
I think China and India are the biggest population centers we have to worry about - a few billion people going from riding bikes everywhere and living simply to driving cars and consuming like our wasteful country (we are...) is a huge issue - and it does kind of make a couple million people living slightly better lifestyles a smaller issue, don't you think?
Can any country accommodate an unlimited number of people?
Whether or not it is climate change....don't we want to be 'good stewards' of the Earth.
It is absolutely ridiculous to fight measures to keep our air, water, land clean because YOU don't believe in climate change.
I don't know about climate change but I know I want to have clean air, water and soil. That means adopting many of the measures that gives you the climate change shakes.
Can any country accommodate an unlimited number of people?
What does that have to do with reducing emissions/consumption on a global level? And did I ever say that we need to accommodate an unlimited number of people in the US?
So does making cement, and transportation by ship, you have yet to show why stopping aircraft flight is the place to start. Where is the data to support this is the logical first step?
Don't you think policy should be driven by data?
Quote:
Stopping immigration will slow the increase of emissions in places like the US.
Do you disagree with either of these?
You have yet to show this one at all. Please provide some data. For example, it can also be argued that people who come here with our energy efficiency standards may have a lower carbon footprint (ignoring the governmental one) than in their home country. Right now we do not know which assertion is correct. Please provide some sort of data to support this claim.
So yes, i disagree with any policy that does not take into account actual data.
So does making cement, and transportation by ship, you have yet to show why stopping aircraft flight is the place to start. Where is the data to support this is the logical first step?
Don't you think policy should be driven by data?
You have yet to show this one at all. Please provide some data. For example, it can also be argued that people who come here with our energy efficiency standards may have a lower carbon footprint (ignoring the governmental one) than in their home country. Right now we do not know which assertion is correct. Please provide some sort of data to support this claim.
So yes, i disagree with any policy that does not take into account actual data.
This was my point, too. I have no idea if immigration is a significant issue we need to address in regards to mitigation efforts. It could be? I don't know. I haven't seen any data on that.
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.
