Krugman writes an excellent update to his previous global warming post:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/gradual-trends-and-extreme-events/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/gradual-trends-and-extreme-events/
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
You're a bad tease...
corduroygt
Banned
How do you spin more resources for the rest of us as a bad thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
corduroygt
Banned
That's very unlikely compared to dying in an accident or of natural causes for me, so I'm not worrying about it. Also, if dogs got their wishes, it'd be raining bones.
Last edited by a moderator:
How many times do I have to repeat mysel here, i your button doesn't work how can you tell people to uck o?
OT: Can anyone actually tell me i AGW is correctly orecasted, that alongside the increase in the overall population, that we can avert mass starvation, the collapse o sane governance and the decline o marginal populations in Arica and Asia?
OT: Can anyone actually tell me i AGW is correctly orecasted, that alongside the increase in the overall population, that we can avert mass starvation, the collapse o sane governance and the decline o marginal populations in Arica and Asia?
Bad shrooms?
Here and there the sentences have casual similarities with the english language, but as a whole I'm unable to make sense of any of it.
He left out the f's
I think the main issue here is that we can mitigate how bad it gets. But it's going to get pretty bad no matter what we do. We can just hope that we don't manage to hit a tipping point that pushes the Earth into an entirely different climate.
What the fuck? This doesn't even make any sense. We hardly compete for resources against other life on this planet. Nearly all vertebrate life on land works for us!
Blazkowicz
Legend
ope his seteces are perfectly fie.
I do believe energy/resource use and amount of population are almost tangential issues.
we did use to support populations and large cities in pre industrial time, for instance France had half the current population in year 1800 and no or little fossil fuel use, ancient Rome was pretty huge.
old world stuff is actually damn unbeatably efficient! you feed your horse with some plants, then exploit it for mechanical work and travel, feed some other plants with horseshit and when you're done with it you eat the horse. you make paper from hemp - less resource use, good crop rotation or land use, no pollution and higher quality. you feed hen with grain and get eggs and shit back. then the hen itself.
"green fuels" and "bio-engineering" are laughable in comparison.
I do believe energy/resource use and amount of population are almost tangential issues.
we did use to support populations and large cities in pre industrial time, for instance France had half the current population in year 1800 and no or little fossil fuel use, ancient Rome was pretty huge.
old world stuff is actually damn unbeatably efficient! you feed your horse with some plants, then exploit it for mechanical work and travel, feed some other plants with horseshit and when you're done with it you eat the horse. you make paper from hemp - less resource use, good crop rotation or land use, no pollution and higher quality. you feed hen with grain and get eggs and shit back. then the hen itself.
"green fuels" and "bio-engineering" are laughable in comparison.
He left out the f's
Actually the F button was broken.
But we can't mitigate what happens over the next 20 years and we've already started having problems. All we can do is mitigate what happens beyond the generational mark. Still I have a sneaking suspicion that the #1 priority is fucking stopping people from fucking and making babies. If we have 8B people and no way to feed a quarter of them then we have a recipe for war. unrest and general chaos. Then after that people will stop trying to mitigate global climate chance and start just trying to survive.
corduroygt
Banned
I don't think you quite understood what I meant there by "the rest of us."
Don't worry I'm pretty sure he was excluding you from the vertebrates that work for human kind.
corduroygt
Banned
How do you suppose we do that? By government forced sterilization like jvd suggested?
Humans are just another species of animals, animal population decreases when there isn't enough food to support them all. The same will also apply to us and that's how mother Earth takes care of herself. Same with AGW.
When the Ozone layer was threatened, people didn't stop using deodorant, they just changed the propellant. Same thing has to happen with cars and petroleum will have to be replaced by something that's just as convenient to see any reduction in carbon emissions. People aren't going to stop driving their cars and start using public transport. The closest target for this is biofuels for now, because battery technology hasn't really been progressing after li-ion and li-po batteries that are at least 10 year old technologies.
Just changing fuels in cars to keep things just as convenient won't cut it I'm afraid, because there's not enough resources to build one or more cars for every human being on the planet even if we could run the cars on plain untreated seawater, along with all the other stuff people expect in a convenient soceity. Simply the need for raw materials and the stress the processes of extracting and refining them into products puts on the biosphere will become prohibitive quite quickly.
We're gonna have to make sacrifices, just accept and get used to the idea now and it won't be so bothersome for oyu when the day comes.
We're gonna have to make sacrifices, just accept and get used to the idea now and it won't be so bothersome for oyu when the day comes.
corduroygt
Banned
I am not the one with an animal in my nickname, so I never worried about that unlike some people here who might have been.
Last edited by a moderator:
Difference between humans and other animals is we can greatly affect Earth and we are adaptable. Before we are "taken care of" we've destroyed big part of the ecosystem.
Problem is there is absolutely no viable replacement for petrol that would be working in next few years. Biofuels seem to work just because they are greatly subsidized and in most of the processing they are still using fossil fuels. If they'd switch over to biofuel in every part where liquid fuel is needed they won't be able to make enough of it even for themselves.corduroygt said:
Well, overpopulation is another important issue, but it is mostly an economic and religious one. On the one hand, developed countries with good access to medical care and contraceptives tend to have very low population growth, sometimes even negative population growth. So the answer, really, is to improve medical care around the world, including getting condoms and birth control readily available everywhere.
The major obstacle to overcome, besides the economic one, is a religious one: many religions are vehemently against any form of birth control, such as Catholicism. Other religions push the idea that it is peoples' duty to reproduce as much as possible.
There's no reason, to my mind, why we can't fight global warming at the same time as helping improve world health and fighting stupid religious nonsense. The first part is just being humanitarian. The second goes hand-in-hand with fighting global warming, because a lot of that fight involves convincing people that stupid religious nonsense is, indeed, stupid religious nonsense.
See above. You've just demonstrated how ignorant you are. Again.
Really. So that's what you think we should do? Wait until everybody is in such abject poverty that we can't even afford to feed ourselves well? You think that is a good solution to overpopulation? Let it continue until everybody is suffering horribly?
If we get a decent public transportation system going in more places, a lot of people will significantly reduce the amount of time they spend driving. Believe it or not, peoples' behaviors do change when they are presented with new opportunities. Yes, going for biofuels will be an important step along the way. But this won't stop our coal dependency. Basically, combating global warming requires a broad, multi-faceted approach that includes a wide variety of technologies. It requires significant investment in new technologies, as well as some method of applying a cost to sticking with technologies that pollute more.
- Status
Similar threads
