Global Warming: Not Man Made

[Lusipher]

shut up, Nick. What has your little speck of a country ever done?

[Grand Fromage]

I'd have to say the Lord of the Rings movies are better than Vietnam was. Also, sheep are delicious.

[MorbidKate]

Kate:

Let's stick to what I'm actually saying. Humans emit CO2. The human population is increasing. As our population increases, we displace the environment, minimally to make room for our civilization and food supply.

Therefore, taking what Mulu said to its logical conclusion, it's only a matter of time until we outpace our planet's ability to deal with our presence.

Right?

This is almost funny. The natural CO2 emissions of humans are nothing compared to the environmental footprint we make just sustaining ourselves. Heck, just the methane produced just by the animals we raise for food is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases. It's the impact of our byproducts on the environment that's going to be our undoing if we don't change our ways, not just sitting and breathing butt naked on a rock somewhere

Kate

[MorbidKate]

shut up, Nick. What has your little speck of a country ever done?

My word, it's just way too easy to get you going Dan. Chill and make some crude comment about the dating habits of sheep among the Kiwis

Kate

[NickD]

shut up, Nick. What has your little speck of a country ever done?

According to Harvey Keitel we invented nuclear energy, gave women the vote and climbed Mt. Everest first! And we were the first to see the new millenium and Richard Pearse flew almost 2 years before the Wright Brothers flew and we invented criminal forensic science and plastic surgery! And we have the best rugby team in the world!

Hoo-ha!

[ç i p h é r]

The natural CO2 emissions of humans are nothing compared to the environmental footprint we make just sustaining ourselves. Heck, just the methane produced just by the animals we raise for food is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases. It's the impact of our byproducts on the environment that's going to be our undoing if we don't change our ways, not just sitting and breathing butt naked on a rock somewhere

That's exactly the point I'm making. Our existence has a growing impact, unless you suppose eating meat is also just a lifestyle choice.

NickD: I didn't say we shouldn't try, I said we should be thinking about how to live with/survive climate change. And I admit that maybe part of that solution is to try and slow things down. Enough devil's advocacy for today.

[Mulu]

Do scientists even know for certain what triggers the cooling cycle?

Does it matter?

I should think so, since you're advocating policy and life style change based on scientific facts.

I think you reanswered the "does it matter" part here.

No it's not a coincidence, but I think you're also ignoring other factors that have been influenced directly/indirectly by the industrial age. For instance, the population of the planet has more than tripled over the last century and took only a dozen years to grow from 5 to 6 billion. That's an exponential rate of growth. This is significant because not only are we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but the stinky truth is that we're generating gases like methane through our food supply and sanitation systems.

So it doesn't matter why the planet was previously cooling, all that matters now is that we are heating it up, quickly. Since it is the activities of humans that are directly responsible for the heating, then changing the activites of humans can reduce and eventually reverse that heating. As for how, there are books on the topic, it's not just doing a couple things. But it is about doing things that are possible. According to the UN, it would only take a 4% hit on global economic growth to reverse global warming, a fair trade by any standard especially considering that the long term effects of global warming will almost certainly have a *much* larger impact if left unchecked. This isn't a choice between doing with loss and not doing, it's a choice between acting sooner with less loss, or later with a lot more loss. Like cities succumbing to the ocean scale of loss.

According to atmospheric data, concentrations of methane in our atmosphere have increased by 150% over preindustrial levels, more than 3 times the percentage increase of CO2. Methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 over a 100 year span, which means that it has a much larger relative impact on global warming than CO2. What's particularly interesting is that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the Livestock industry contributes more to green house gas emissions than the transportation industry. Clearly, as our population increases, so too must our food supply. So climate change is not just a big coal/big oil problem.

Vegetarians agree with you. Methane management is part of the overall issue to be sure, and it can also be reduced. Beef prices may go up.

So coming back to my original point, the greenhouse effect taken to it's logical conclusion means we simply cannot escape global warming.

Well, I think taken to its logical conclusion it means we need to adapt our lifestyles to reduce global warming, or we'll have a big price to pay. Bigger than increasing the price of steaks. That lifestyle choice probably includes reducing human reproduction, something that biologists have been warning about for decades. Our natural reproductive abilities assumes a world where most of our children die.

[Mulu]

Mulu, what are the changes you're suggesting?

Try to get China and India, two rapidly growing economies, to change energy policies. The US is changing it's policies, slowly, but it is changing as more technologies come into play and become economic to use/produce. It's the up and coming economies that have to be forced to change faster.

I haven't seen any policy changes in the US yet at the federal level. Governor Schwarzenegger has made some significant strides, but that's about it.

As for India and China, they are both reliant on the US for trade, so providing them with incentives would go a long way. China actually "gets" global warming and considers it an imminent threat. I suspect it would only take showing them what to do.

Is it just me, or is advocacy for environmentalism eerily reminiscent of Catholicism?

You reap what you sow, the world will end, we must repent our sins and atone. Preferably in a self-chastizing manner.

And anyone who doesn't agree with us is a heathen/moron or has sold their soul to/been paid out by the devil/energy companies.

I take it you don't believe in using condoms either? All warnings go unheeded? Don't bother washing your hands or wearing a seatbelt, it's all too preachy.

Realize what environmental advocacy means: It's people asking you, Please do not destroy our planet's ability to sustain human life. The biggest question is "why do we have to ask?" Why is this so hard to understand? Vintners get it. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets it. And let's face it, if *he* gets it as a stalwart cigar smoking Republican, what's *your* problem?

[Zakharra]

Mulu, what are the changes you're suggesting?

Try to get China and India, two rapidly growing economies, to change energy policies. The US is changing it's policies, slowly, but it is changing as more technologies come into play and become economic to use/produce. It's the up and coming economies that have to be forced to change faster.

I haven't seen any policy changes in the US yet at the federal level. Governor Schwarzenegger has made some significant strides, but that's about it.

As for India and China, they are both reliant on the US for trade, so providing them with incentives would go a long way. China actually "gets" global warming and considers it an imminent threat. I suspect it would only take showing them what to do.

Concidering China's dependancy on coal fired electrical plants, I'm seriously doubting that. They are slated to build many more in the next decade.

According to the UN, it would only take a 4% hit on global economic growth to reverse global warming, a fair trade by any standard especially considering that the long term effects of global warming will almost certainly have a *much* larger impact if left unchecked. This isn't a choice between doing with loss and not doing, it's a choice between acting sooner with less loss, or later with a lot more loss. Like cities succumbing to the ocean scale of loss.

Only a 4% cut? Where would that cut be? Where would it take place? In what nation(s)? How would it be done? By laws or trade restrictions?

ç i p h é r wrote:
According to atmospheric data, concentrations of methane in our atmosphere have increased by 150% over preindustrial levels, more than 3 times the percentage increase of CO2. Methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 over a 100 year span, which means that it has a much larger relative impact on global warming than CO2. What's particularly interesting is that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the Livestock industry contributes more to green house gas emissions than the transportation industry. Clearly, as our population increases, so too must our food supply. So climate change is not just a big coal/big oil problem.

Mulu wroteVegetarians agree with you. Methane management is part of the overall issue to be sure, and it can also be reduced. Beef prices may go up.

And what will replace beef? Unless our eating habits change, by eating less, beef would be replaced with something else. Less meat means more vegetables and plants are eaten, which means more farming, not less, and/or more fishing. Given the rise of ethenol(sp) and land to grow them, that means even more land under cultivation to grow everything. Modern agricultural practices would mandate the heavy use of fertilizers and herbicides for the largest yields.

[Mayhem]

And what will replace beef? Unless our eating habits change, by eating less, beef would be replaced with something else. Less meat means more vegetables and plants are eaten, which means more farming, not less

Surely we would just turn over the fields that are currently used to grow cattle-feed to grow human-feed. Getting nutrition directly from (eg) grain is actually more efficient than using the growth processes of a cow to turn that grain into meat.

Either that, or we fall back on Soylent Green.

[Mulu]

Well, and Soylent Green would have the added benefit of reducing the overall human population as well.

Ethanol is a non-starter. Though it is better than fossil fuels, the water requirments are too high.

As for how to reduce global warming, try googling "how to reduce global warming." There's a lot out there.

[ç i p h é r]

Well, I think taken to its logical conclusion it means we need to adapt our lifestyles to reduce global warming, or we'll have a big price to pay. Bigger than increasing the price of steaks. That lifestyle choice probably includes reducing human reproduction, something that biologists have been warning about for decades. Our natural reproductive abilities assumes a world where most of our children die.

I know, but it's a real long shot. Can you imagine a day when families only get to have one child, or worse, a lottery system is setup to grant procreation permits to a lucky few? Reminds me in some ways of Gattaca.

If the system doesn't somehow right itself on its own, we had better have a plan B. The planet cannot sustain infinite life, and it's just not in our nature to sacrifice ourselves.

[Zakharra]

I know, but it's a real long shot. Can you imagine a day when families only get to have one child, or worse, a lottery system is setup to grant procreation permits to a lucky few? Reminds me in some ways of Gattaca.

I can see that going over well in a deomocratic society

Surely we would just turn over the fields that are currently used to grow cattle-feed to grow human-feed. Getting nutrition directly from (eg) grain is actually more efficient than using the growth processes of a cow to turn that grain into meat.

Not everyone wants to give up eating meat, me included. Beef tastes good... Mmmmm.. beef.. Anyways, that would make the vegetarians happy, but many others unhappy.

Ethanol is a non-starter. Though it is better than fossil fuels, the water requirments are too high.

I've heard ethanol is more polluting than gas, dirtier and less efficient. To grow enough to replace gas in the USA alone would remove a huge amount of land from food production, unless of forest are cut down, and require intensive farming to grow the crops. Which would not make enviromentalists happy.

[Mayhem]

Surely we would just turn over the fields that are currently used to grow cattle-feed to grow human-feed. Getting nutrition directly from (eg) grain is actually more efficient than using the growth processes of a cow to turn that grain into meat.

Not everyone wants to give up eating meat, me included. Beef tastes good... Mmmmm.. beef.. Anyways, that would make the vegetarians happy, but many others unhappy.

I was answering your assertion that it would require additional farming - in fact it is likely to require less. Personal preference for meat is another thing entirely.

Of course, if global warming continues and the fresh-water situation continues to deteriorate, we won't have enough spare water to keep cows anyway. Or grow crops. Not for everybody.

[Zakharra]

Surely we would just turn over the fields that are currently used to grow cattle-feed to grow human-feed. Getting nutrition directly from (eg) grain is actually more efficient than using the growth processes of a cow to turn that grain into meat.

Not everyone wants to give up eating meat, me included. Beef tastes good... Mmmmm.. beef.. Anyways, that would make the vegetarians happy, but many others unhappy.

I was answering your assertion that it would require additional farming - in fact it is likely to require less. Personal preference for meat is another thing entirely.

Of course, if global warming continues and the fresh-water situation continues to deteriorate, we won't have enough spare water to keep cows anyway. Or grow crops. Not for everybody.

Not if we are growing fuel as well. Both food and fuel will take massive amounts of farming to produce. Cattle also can graze on land that is minimal for farming(and would get the envoiromentalists in a tizzy). The high plains and pastures for example.