What are your thoughts on global warming?

[Meyer Jordan]

It is unrealistic to even consider abolishing the use of fossil fuels as a source of basic energy. It is not unrealistic to begin the process of reducing their use in order to reduce the CO2 output.
This was the express purpose of Kyoto, Montreal and, recently Paris meetings....to arrive at a way to, first, cap global CO2 emissions and then begin the process of reducing them. Nowhere in any of the documents that have resulted from these meetings is there any mention of abolishing CO2 emissions (fossil fuel use).
When automobiles were introduced, the use of beasts of burden was gradually replaced, but never eliminated. Many people were put out of work with the introduction of the automobile and had to find other employment. As the use of automation grows, people are put out of work. Computers have resulted in job loss. This is an accepted (but very unpopular) part of change. Moderating climate change by controlling man's input of CO2 will be no different. New technologies will be created to provide employment opportunities. The world will not be turned upside-down by placing a cap on CO2 and the ensuing means of CO2 reduction. Man will adjust.

 

[sissy]

But then you add in the ones who don't want to work and want to live off the system .They make babies and they add to our burden .

 

[MitchM]

As of 2011, technological advances at the oilsands facilities have reduced total CO2 output by 30% - despite an incredible increase in output.
- but you don't hear about that.
Our provincial government has introduced a carbon tax of $20/tonne starting Jan1 2017 and that tax rate will increase to $30/tonne 1 year later and stay at that level until the economy improves.
-but you don't hear about that either.

As we know from politics, fear motivates people so we hear a lot of doom and gloom from both sides of the issue.

.

 

[barryian]

I wouldn't say it's being ignored, there isn't a person on this planet who hasn't heard of the implications of global warming. But you are right that greed (in it's many forms) and ignorance rule (motivate) the planet (humans at least anyway), but it's natural for us to want to improve our lives as much as we can. As individuals living our own personal lives there is very little we can do about the larger problems of pollution and CO2 emissions. Sure we can do little things like switch from eating beef to chicken or make sure you turn off the lights in your house when you are not using them, but in reality, these things aren't gona stop the increase of greenhouse gas emissions.
The problem is there is just too many people living on this planet now, all wanting to improve their life in one way or another. The vast majority of these people live very frugal lives with lots of room for improvement. Unfortunately this is where the populations continue to increase the most. If they could all live the American lifestyle with two or three cars per family, hot running water, nice house with electricity, flying to some remote location once a year for a vacation, etc,,, they would all be doing it. It's human nature. Humans always seek to improve their lifestyle, always have, always will.
Of course, a better lifestyle goes hand in hand with lower morality rate, which means an increasing population. It's a catch 22 situation. In simple terms, our planet is not equipped to handle such a large human population, and our well meaning attempts to improve our lives and the lives of people around the world is actually exacerbating the problem. In nature when any particular species population grows too large there is usually some natural factor that kicks in to restrain or reduce the population. For example ,I use to live in a riparian area for long enough to observe the squirrel population grow from a to just a few to the point were they were everywhere. Then some owls would move in and hang around. After few months you couldn't spot a single squirrel. Once all the squirrels were decimated the owls would leave and not return for several years until the squirrel population was significantly large enough for them to bother hanging around. I watched this natural cycle play out several time while I lived in that location, but it's just one example of natural population control in one species.
Humans in all their intelligence manage have managed to interfere with this natural process in many ways, but perhaps we are just postponing the inevitable. Once we make the Earth uninhabitable enough for humans to live all these problems will resolve themselves "naturally" and we become just part of a larger natural cycle.

Here is a comedic view of this view point from the late great George Carlin, funny as it might be I think he is very close to the truth of the way things will eventually work themselves out. (Barring any sort of divine intervention)

Miss GC ... Always a great gig! I agree for most part but we have a large roll to play. I stopped eating meat and substituted chicken and I've changed
my home over to all LED lighting. Pond lighting, Christmas lighting, every bulb and even chandeliers are all LED and my house isn't tiny. This is infinitesimal when looking at the big picture though. We count very little as individuals. Glad I can't read the future but there is quite a bit of writing on the wall.

 

[mgmine]

George Carlin hit it on the nose. I'll be sending it around to a few people on both sides of the fence. The thing that gets me is the hypocrisy and the absolute closed mindedness of so many people. Maybe if they led by example they would have more credence. If the world governments (elected officials) feel so strongly about the climate let them do something really big. Instead of cap and trade and more and more taxes let them start by cleaning house completely. Start by raising prices on gas to $10 dollars a gallon for the average joe that votes and ration it so that the Hollywood elites can only have so much and not just what they can afford. Or better yet ration it and price it based on how often you need your car to get to work. If you need to work three jobs then you would pay less and get more. If you made two movies a year then you would get maybe 100 gallons a year and pay maybe $1000 per gallon. For the politicians the same would apply only for them they would be allowed say 1000 gallons a year for their staff to split. I'm guessing that demand would drop and so would the concern about co2. There now the problem is solved. Maybe on top of these few ideas they could take the idea of Pat Paulson when he was running for president. Make cars longer so that you get there sooner and use less gas. Makes sense to me.

 

[MitchM]

... Make cars longer so that you get there sooner and use less gas.....

.

 

[MitchM]

I think this is more along the lines of reasoning for China signing onto the Paris agreement, rather than an altruistic reason.
http://in.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-idINKBN146032

.

 

[mgmine]

I think this is more along the lines of reasoning for China signing onto the Paris agreement, rather than an altruistic reason.
http://in.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-idINKBN146032

.

Yep when the situation gets this bad the people will demand action. If this kind of stuff gets cleaned up then the rest of the problem will be not as big of an issue in other civilized countries.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Yep when the situation gets this bad the people will demand action. If this kind of stuff gets cleaned up then the rest of the problem will be not as big of an issue in other civilized countries.

Smog is primarily a result of the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy. China has reached the unavoidable position of being forced to take action to greatly reduce those levels of the pollutants that comprise smog. Sulfur dioxide levels have already been reduced through the use of technology. Particulate matter (PM) remains the real problem ingredient as it is created by the use (burning) of Fossil Fuels.

China must therefore pursue other, cleaner sources of energy. The sale of electric vehicles has soared in China with that country now leading the way in EV use.

 

[MitchM]

Just saying....

 

[mgmine]

"China must therefore pursue other, cleaner sources of energy. The sale of electric vehicles has soared in China with that country now leading the way in EV use."

Problem is that most of it's electricity comes from coal. More EV's mean more electricity will be needed which means... you get what I'm saying.

 

[MitchM]

A new study from the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg is claiming that a mini ice age (duration of 10 years) is not far away:

http://business.financialpost.com/f...ger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared
(I'm trying to find the actual russian study and translate it)

Also, from a european study in 2015 the same prediction:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

A new study from the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg is claiming that a mini ice age (duration of 10 years) is not far away:

http://business.financialpost.com/f...ger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared
(I'm trying to find the actual russian study and translate it)

Also, from a european study in 2015 the same prediction:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/

.

Both studies rely on solar activity. Would have little effect on the 'Greenhouse' effect caused by elevated CO2.
In addition, the first study is old. According to the author of the article, the study claimed that we would be already entering into the mini ice age as of 2014-15, but global temperatures have continued to rise during and after this time span.

 

[MitchM]

The first study is from a presentation given October 14 2016.
It stands to reason that without the sun, we would have no global warming, so if the sun's activity is reduced, the effects of elevated CO2 levels would not matter.
Here is a link to the report, I'm still trying to figure out how to translate it.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/russian/publ-s/conf_2016/conf_2016.pdf

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Electric cars may or may not indirectly consume as much fossil fuels as internal combustion vehicles ????, but they certainly have their place in large cities where smog from vehicle emissions is a looming health issue. They also work well for those who use their car to travel short ranges within the city (eg; back and forth to work) and are much more efficient for travels who often have to sit in city traffic jams, because unlike gas powered vehicles electric cars don't burn fuel when sitting idle in traffic.