UN says greenhouse gas concentrations hit record levels

[thaibeachlovers]

This is the first I've heard of rationing re; energy/power. We sometimes hear of rationing during times of war or extreme hardship. That's not the case for most of us now.

Rationing implies enforcement, and I'm not in favor of that. However, I do like the idea of everyone getting educated and (if you will) sensitized to where their electric power comes from, and its ramifications for the environment. It's somewhat like people getting educated on 'what democracy is.' Then hopefully, some or perhaps all those more aware people will voluntarily use less power. Example: drive or ride in combustion engine drive vehicles less, take less plane rides, buy locally produced items if given a choice, and use less air-con, etc. I have 5 houses I maintain in Thailand, and none have air-con, mainly because they're shaded (by trees) and also because the people who reside in them don't mind adjusting to hotter than average temperatures. In contrast, most businesses, public transport, and gov't offices seem to be fixated on having air-con turned up to ridiculously frigid levels, sometimes 24 hours/day! Not flying in jets unless it's necessary would help the environment. However, the #1 best thing a person can do to help the environment and lessen pollution, is not have babies.

Militaries are notorious for wasting resources. If the US or Thai army could get a good dependable vehicle for $50,000, they would go and contract to spend $250,000 for the same thing from a costlier supplier. It's as if they have a fixation for spending as much as possible (it's other peoples' money, so hey, why should they care?). Plus it allows for kickbacks, but I'm getting off-topic, sorry.

<However, the #1 best thing a person can do to help the environment and lessen pollution, is not have babies.>

Absolutely correct, but what's the chance of that happening- ZERO!

Anyway, it's not in the developed world that the growth is happening. As we all know, it's in the undeveloped world where they are having 7 or 8 children that things need to change.

Also, it's not us walking to the shops that is going to rectify the problem, it's the push by countries like China to allow everyone to have a car that is adding to excessive greenhouse gas emmisions. Of course it would help if countries like the UK had a decent public transport system so people didn't choose to drive in the cities.

[Gers1873]

Sadly, we may well have passed the tipping point on this issue. Very sad when we have 7 Billion people on the earth. That's a lot of people to affected by the problem.

Not so long ago it was 5 billion and therein lies the real problem. How to stop people over-breeding. The Chinese may not have the ideal solution, 1 kid per family, but at least they are trying. As a race we are likely to breed ourselves out of existence unless the problem is addressed.

WOA === World Overpopulation Awareness http://www.overpopulation.org/

[thaibeachlovers]

@maidu

"Personal carbon rationing" is a policy being seriously considered in some of the major bedwetting countries of the world:

UK climate targets impossible without individual carbon budgets

Royal Society reports warns personal carbon allowances will be needed to meet emission targets

Targets set out in the climate change bill will not be met without the introduction of personal carbon allowances, according to a new report for the The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA).

If someone controls your energy expenditure, they effectively control your entire life, in a much more detailed and restrictive way than even the Soviets managed.

This is the kind of strangulation of personal liberty which many people of the Left/Green persuasion want to force on everybody.

So you'd rather all life as we know it ceases, than restrict your "freedom"! Not that it makes any difference anyway, when there are volcanic eruptions that spew out gazillions of tons of greenhouse gases

I don't particularly care either way, as hopefully I'll be dead before the end comes, and I don't have children, but I'd like to think that people that do have kids cared enough not to want them all to die in a methane storm. Sadly, I see no evidence anywhere that parents give a monkey's about the planet's future as a host for humanity.

[thaibeachlovers]

Carbon credits are just one aspect of the non-science politicization of climate variation, Methane is actually far more important than CO2 as a cause of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Getting rid of landfill sites is one way to address this, but far more effective would be to encourage vegetarianism and reduce the number of flatulent cows we farm. The one track focus on CO2 emissions is potentially ruinous to the economy and doesn't even make sense according to it's own terms, if these are truly to reduce man-made contributions to the so called greenhouse effect.

http://www.earthsave...obalwarming.htm

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Now who is prepared to give up on the odd steak and hamburger to save the planet?

My guess would be less than 1% of the western population. Better odds if a plague eliminates 50% or more of the human population. Gaia is working on it!

[thaibeachlovers]

Nope, we both agree we will do nothing. You think that is morally justified. I think very much not so. But we agree about what actually will be done -- nothing. I hope you're right but I sincerely think you are probably wrong about believing the denial propaganda. Which is carefully selected to influence people who want to believe there is no problem.

I agree that we will do nothing, but my opinion is that there is nothing to be done that would make any difference to the outcome. All human activity would have to cease to make any difference.

The dinosaurs had no more choice in their extinction than we humans have. Gaia wins every time, and humans have become a parasite killing the host.

[teatree]

@maidu

"Personal carbon rationing" is a policy being seriously considered in some of the major bedwetting countries of the world:

UK climate targets impossible without individual carbon budgets

Royal Society reports warns personal carbon allowances will be needed to meet emission targets

Targets set out in the climate change bill will not be met without the introduction of personal carbon allowances, according to a new report for the The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA).

If someone controls your energy expenditure, they effectively control your entire life, in a much more detailed and restrictive way than even the Soviets managed.

This is the kind of strangulation of personal liberty which many people of the Left/Green persuasion want to force on everybody.

So you'd rather all life as we know it ceases, than restrict your "freedom"! Not that it makes any difference anyway, when there are volcanic eruptions that spew out gazillions of tons of greenhouse gases

I don't particularly care either way, as hopefully I'll be dead before the end comes, and I don't have children, but I'd like to think that people that do have kids cared enough not to want them all to die in a methane storm. Sadly, I see no evidence anywhere that parents give a monkey's about the planet's future as a host for humanity.

Indeed, man's effect on the climate is tiny compared to natural forces. The IPPC said themselves in a recent report that over the next 30 years natural variability will be greater than any influence by humans. (sounds like a convenient get out clause when the Earth starts to cool as part of the 30 year warming/cooling phase)

As for overpopulation, there is a rapidly decreasing population right across developed nations. Places like the UK would see population reductions if it wasn't for mass immigration. The answer to any potential overpopulation crisis in future generatiojns is to simply develop every country in the world.

[koheesti]

I just watched a tv article about the huge V8 cars coming onto the American market- if warming is caused by humans, with that sort of attitude by the biggest polluter in the world, we are all doomed!

China surpassed America as the world's top polluter 2 years ago.

[RickBradford]

The answer to any potential overpopulation crisis in future generatiojns is to simply develop every country in the world.

It can be done quicker and cheaper than that.

There is an extraordinarily clear (inverse) correlation between the amount of education a girl receives and the number of children she is likely to have. Every 2 years of education a woman receives, reduces the number of children she will bear by about 1. This is real data-driven science, not like the pie-in-the-sky climate fantasies.

Zero education equates to about 7 or 8 children per woman -- anything above 10-12 years of education means 2 or less children. Of course, the equation eventually breaks down for women with 15+ years of education, but the key point is that it is the women's education that matters, not the men's.

Of course, there are many countries which, for their own reasons, see fit to deny girls an education, and so, fertility rates remain high.

See this link.

Edited November 30, 2011 by RickBradford

[chuckd]

I just watched a tv article about the huge V8 cars coming onto the American market- if warming is caused by humans, with that sort of attitude by the biggest polluter in the world, we are all doomed!

China surpassed America as the world's top polluter 2 years ago.

A previous poster didn't seem to know that.

[Pedzie]

I just watched a tv article about the huge V8 cars coming onto the American market- if warming is caused by humans, with that sort of attitude by the biggest polluter in the world, we are all doomed!

China surpassed America as the world's top polluter 2 years ago.

Also I'm sure China doesn't allow the importation of cars made in the US, the reason! US cars are too polluting .

Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott
formatting

[maidu]

Also interesting: bit by bit, some of the naysayers, who insisted human abetted global warming was a hoax, are coming around to reason. I don't know their individual reasons, but it's been clear to me, ever since (years ago) I started hearing stories of retreating glaciers and less ice cover in the Arctic and Antarctic - much of which is not recovering when their winters roll around. Similar stories keep gaining light. I don't think it's a conspiracy of thousands of scientists and observers. I think it's real. Closer to home, it's yet another reason why Bangkok should cut its losses and relocate as much as possible to higher ground. This year's flood, as bad as it is, will pale in comparison to floods coming in the not-too-distant future.

Global warming is real, but what are humans doing to stop it? NOTHING that will work. Building a few windmills is just pointless.

The only thing that might work is to replace fossil fuel electricity generation with nuclear, but of course they re trying to get rid of it everywhere.

The only long term solution is to reduce the human population to at least half of what it currently is. If that doesn't happen then kiss the world as we know it goodbye.

Pointless to relocate Bkk. Once the world is sufficiently warm, the methane release from the tundra will cause fire storms that will destroy life as we know it.

If governments were serious about it, which they aren't, they would-

replace all fossil fuel electricity generation with nuclear

mandate sterilisation of people after 1 child

stop air travel for holidays

replace diesel powered trains with electrical powered ones

stop private car ownership

ban unnecessary fossil fuel use for such things as motor sport and travelling to stadiums for sporting activities

replace animal farming with horticulture food production

make people live next to their work place to eliminate travel to work

only allow human powered transportation ( bicycles ) in cities, plus electrical powered trams and buses

etc

etc.

I don't think there is any chance that any western government could do what is necessary, so it's pointless to even bother trying.

Some interesting points being made. These are they types of discussions that politicians will be having in 20 to 50 years. Currently, politicians are too fixated on the little pictures of things. I agree wholeheartedly with the item Bradford brought up re; 'the more education a woman gets, the less children she will have.' I've heard it before, but it always rings true. African and Middle Eastern countries are probably the biggest problems in that regard (denying education for females).

I agree with thaibeachlovers' list - though with a few adjustments. I don't agree with nuclear, instead I go with 'new clear' energy sources. I've built several solar hw systems (for showers) in Thailand, each costing under $50 and using mostly recyclables. There are several very viable ways to produce energy (on small or large scale) which don't involve fossil fuels or nuclear. Thermal has immense possibilities. I agree with sterilization, but it should be voluntary. I got my tubes tied 20 years ago. I gave up eating beef in my early 20's. I did it for several reasons: health, environmental, sentiment. Beef farming is ridiculous from an environmentalists' perspective.

ve

[Ulysses G.]

Beef farming is ridiculous from an environmentalists' perspective.

Maybe, but it sure tastes a lot better than tofu.

[JohnL]

Militaries are notorious for wasting resources. If the US or Thai army could get a good dependable vehicle for $50,000, they would go and contract to spend $250,000 for the same thing from a costlier supplier. It's as if they have a fixation for spending as much as possible (it's other peoples' money, so hey, why should they care?). Plus it allows for kickbacks, but I'm getting off-topic, sorry.

If you think they are notorious, what do you think Big Government is capable of squandering?

Well, what do you think of Big Government, especially the Big Government that wishes to 'invest'(whatever that really means) the citizen's money? Be honest here with yourself, and the rest of us, ok? Tell us if you favour one Huge Waster of the citizen's money, over the other, but lesser evil you mention above. And do you favour efficient use of resources, or are you paying lip service to a pet ideology?

Just curious here, because I find that most believers in Global Warming(or its latest name change) really want to use the issue to promote more Big Government, which is itself the biggest waste of resources.

Edited December 1, 2011 by JohnL

[JohnL]

The answer to any potential overpopulation crisis in future generatiojns is to simply develop every country in the world.

Yes, promote wealth all around. Without the need for huge families, and the high cost of their upkeep, rich nations will automatically cut back on their populations. Its been proven all over, for those wishing to open their eyes.

Of course, another way is to promote the swift return of the next round of the Pleistocene. All we had to do was nudge this little puppy further into our gravity well, and all our 'so called' problems would be immediately solved.

Edited December 1, 2011 by JohnL

[Scott]

The problem is that with development comes the use of more resources. Instead of 20 people hanging out of the back of a pickup truck, you have 20 people riding in cars.

[thaibeachlovers]

The problem is that with development comes the use of more resources. Instead of 20 people hanging out of the back of a pickup truck, you have 20 people riding in cars.

That is what happens now, but it doesn't have to be like that. Development without excessive consumption is possible. While I don't want to see 20 people hanging out of a pickup, there is no reason they shouldn't all sit in a hydrogen powered bus.

However, as long as people think it's their "right" to all use one occupant cars to get to work, and have huge tvs etc our way of life is doomed.

For 10 years in London I lived next door to my place of work, and did not have a car or mo'bike. If the public transport is good enough, there is no need to have an expensive fossil fuel waster.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Scott
formatting

[teatree]

This is the first I've heard of rationing re; energy/power. We sometimes hear of rationing during times of war or extreme hardship. That's not the case for most of us now.

Rationing implies enforcement, and I'm not in favor of that. However, I do like the idea of everyone getting educated and (if you will) sensitized to where their electric power comes from, and its ramifications for the environment. It's somewhat like people getting educated on 'what democracy is.' Then hopefully, some or perhaps all those more aware people will voluntarily use less power. Example: drive or ride in combustion engine drive vehicles less, take less plane rides, buy locally produced items if given a choice, and use less air-con, etc. I have 5 houses I maintain in Thailand, and none have air-con, mainly because they're shaded (by trees) and also because the people who reside in them don't mind adjusting to hotter than average temperatures. In contrast, most businesses, public transport, and gov't offices seem to be fixated on having air-con turned up to ridiculously frigid levels, sometimes 24 hours/day! Not flying in jets unless it's necessary would help the environment. However, the #1 best thing a person can do to help the environment and lessen pollution, is not have babies.

Militaries are notorious for wasting resources. If the US or Thai army could get a good dependable vehicle for $50,000, they would go and contract to spend $250,000 for the same thing from a costlier supplier. It's as if they have a fixation for spending as much as possible (it's other peoples' money, so hey, why should they care?). Plus it allows for kickbacks, but I'm getting off-topic, sorry.

You may not be thinking about carbon rationing but government funded organisations most certainly are.

Have a look at the scary scenarios commisioned by 'Forum For The Future', a government/corporate funded global warming activist think tank. This sceanario is one of four potential visions of the future:

[Scott]

Quote:

That is what happens now, but it doesn't have to be like that. Development without excessive consumption is possible. While I don't want to see 20 people hanging out of a pickup, there is no reason they shouldn't all sit in a hydrogen powered bus.

However, as long as people think it's their "right" to all use one occupant cars to get to work, and have huge tvs etc our way of life is doomed.

For 10 years in London I lived next door to my place of work, and did not have a car or mo'bike. If the public transport is good enough, there is no need to have an expensive fossil fuel waster.

I think as long as people can, they will over-consume. It will take some genetic engineering to change human nature.

But I am veering off topic....

[maidu]

Militaries are notorious for wasting resources. If the US or Thai army could get a good dependable vehicle for $50,000, they would go and contract to spend $250,000 for the same thing from a costlier supplier. It's as if they have a fixation for spending as much as possible (it's other peoples' money, so hey, why should they care?). Plus it allows for kickbacks, but I'm getting off-topic, sorry.

If you think they are notorious, what do you think Big Government is capable of squandering?

Well, what do you think of Big Government, especially the Big Government that wishes to 'invest'(whatever that really means) the citizen's money? Be honest here with yourself, and the rest of us, ok? Tell us if you favour one Huge Waster of the citizen's money, over the other, but lesser evil you mention above. And do you favour efficient use of resources, or are you paying lip service to a pet ideology?

Just curious here, because I find that most believers in Global Warming(or its latest name change) really want to use the issue to promote more Big Government, which is itself the biggest waste of resources.

Military is either part of 'big gov't' or is itself 'big gov't'. Individuals and businesses can be wasteful also, particularly if they have more money than sense.

I was influenced, in my late teens / early twenties, by things like 'Whole Earth Catalog" and 'Mother Earth News" (MENews is still going, btw). They and others showed me how a whole lot can be done on a 'grass roots' level. Most innovations come from the 'little people,' not corporations or gov't. Just some of thousands of examples: I saw a segment on TV of a guy making a power generator from some pieces of plywood, some copper wire, and a few odds and ends he bought in a local hardware store. Additionally, he built a functional wind generator with similarly common items, some of which were re-cycled. Another fellow used a discarded TV satelite dish and a bunch of mirror pieces to build a functional solar oven.

A young man in Bonnie Dune, California (near Santa Cruz) has a working prototype of a power generator from wind, which with it's tether, can hover hundreds of meters up in the air, where steady strong winds blow 24/7. One challenge he's having is to get FAA approval (Federal Aviation Authority).

A Brit I met in C.Mai is working in China to encourage methane digesters on village level. One tidbit he shared with me: watery / fleshy fruits turn out more methane per kilo than pig manure.

It's that sort of 'grass roots' innovation that I admire. Imagine if millions of Thai kids changed their focus from computer games and soaps on TV - do doing innovative projects, some artistic, some also with practical applications. Trouble is, there are very few adults (in Thailand) who could supervise such things - even if the willingness, venues, funding/support existed.

[RickBradford]

@maidu

I respect your efforts to maintain a 'grass roots' environmental stance, because these kinds of small-scale local initiatives can generate instant benefits for communities.

There was even a time when organisations such as WWF and Friends of the Earth engaged in these grass-roots activities and vigorously opposed the polluting ways of big business and their government supporters.

The problem is that WWF, Greenpeace etc. have now become big business, and align themselves with willing corporates and in many ways with governments at a national and supranational level. They are now hopelessly involved in the money game, where, for example, WWF lobbies the EU for more funds, writes or advises on EU reports and uses the money it gets from the EU to lobby for even more money.

There is a very incestuous and damaging relationship between governments, NGOs and the big environmental organisations, which perpetuates a gravy train but does precisely nothing for the environment.

[JohnL]

Military is either part of 'big gov't' or is itself 'big gov't'. Individuals and businesses can be wasteful also, particularly if they have more money than sense.

Of course its part of government. That was my point. You are not looking at the Big Picture if you just concentrate on the Evil military. it is equally, or more, politicians who are more interested in power and money and are a whole lot more destructive to their own country than anything their military could possibly do. This should not even be argued by anyone with any degree of common sense.

Why do you think our Founders did their level best to present us with a small and responsible government? And why do you think they were distrustful of the State? This is not Rocket Science.

And your influence growing up may, or may not, have been great. Only you can answer that. But if you do not have a healthy distrust of ANY large entity, you are not being realistic.

But remember this: governments, run by politicians and bureaucrats, are not only interested in survival, but in success of the species. And a government is successful when it continues to grow and accumulate power. Businesses are like that, but they are almost always interested in making a profit for their owners/share-holders.

Now, which is more dangerous: pursuit of profits, or pursuit of power? And don't you think the UN to be just as interested in power too? And don't you think this entire Global Warming issue is just another avenue to travel on the road to power and money?

[teatree]

British Brainwashing Corporation

The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons... and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent

My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html#ixzz1fQFzhqhQ