Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[RidgeRunner]

Still only the mantra that GW/CC is real, and not a single solution. Says it all really.

??

[RidgeRunner]

Why don't you guys get a room.

Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.

I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

Of course there are solutions.

[thaibeachlovers]

I guess it's your right to discount that statements from the most elite scientific groups on the planet.

Maybe the industrial polluters and their political representatives are correct and these distinguished scientists have it wrong?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to their realistic solutions to the crisis they claim is about to kill us all? I have heard nothing from them, and they continue to jet about the world and drive cars.

Is this a silly late night post by someone that's been drinking?

Obviously you also know of ZERO solutions to the problem you believe in.

[RidgeRunner]

Why don't you guys get a room.

Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.

I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

Of course there are solutions. Unfortunately there are unethical and immoral right wing politicians throwing up roadblocks to protect their constituents, the polluters.

[thaibeachlovers]

Still only the mantra that GW/CC is real, and not a single solution. Says it all really.

??

Obviously you also know of ZERO solutions to the problem you believe in.

[Scott]

Continued baiting of posters will result in suspensions.

Stay on topic and address the topic, not the poster.

[up2u2]

Isoprene

Recently scientists from Germany and France found that Isoprene can be produced from an Ocean micro layer. The importance of this is that it answers the discrepancy between field measurement calculations and climate modelling. Climate modelling showed Isoprene levels should be higher but field measurements calculated lower levels. Once this source of Isoprene production is included it shows the Climate modelling is more accurate than thought.

The Climate Denier media and 'journalists' like James Dilingpole started publishing misinformation on the research. 'more Isoprene the Earth is cooling', “may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory.” "a hitherto unknown cooling process"

All absolute rubbish of course. There is not more Isoprene and Isoprene combines with Aerosols and moisture to form clouds, Currently Clouds create warming not cooling. This research doesn't threaten AGW it shows the climate modelling is accurate. It isn't a hitherto unknown cooling process it was actually more accurate knowledge than we first thought.

This is the type of drivel Congresswoman Blackburn accepts as 'science' idiot journalists intentionally undermining the science.

See post #467 for links

(Last post on this thread. Thanks for the debate guys I enjoyed the discussion. eliot, tbl canuck et al. All the best guys)

Edited October 17, 2015 by up2u2

[eliotness]

Why don't you guys get a room.
Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.
I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

Of course there are solutions. Unfortunately there are unethical and immoral right wing politicians throwing up roadblocks to protect their constituents, the polluters.


Got to laugh. You accuse fight wing politicians for blocking solutions to GW. So which "left wing or Liberal politicians are busy truly, practically implementing solutions in their own countries ? Or were you just on an anti capitalist rant ?

As for the Pope, well the fact he signed onto the propaganda says it all "a populist Pope". Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

So pray tell, what "of course there are solutions" are those that will be acceptable to the general mass of people ? Not of course applying to "the elite" be they scientists, politicians or pop stars, who will continue to jet all around the world, travel in limos, leave a huge carbon footprint whilst preaching the GW mantra.

[eliotness]

Isoprene

Recently scientists from Germany and France found that Isoprene can be produced from an Ocean micro layer. The importance of this is that it answers the discrepancy between field measurement calculations and climate modelling. Climate modelling showed Isoprene levels should be higher but field measurements calculated lower levels. Once this source of Isoprene production is included it shows the Climate modelling is more accurate than thought.

The Climate Denier media and 'journalists' like James Dilingpole started publishing misinformation on the research. 'more Isoprene the Earth is cooling', may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory. "a hitherto unknown cooling process"

All absolute rubbish of course. There is not more Isoprene and Isoprene combines with Aerosols and moisture to form clouds, Currently Clouds create warming not cooling. This research doesn't threaten AGW it shows the climate modelling is accurate. It isn't a hitherto unknown cooling process it was actually more accurate knowledge than we first thought.

This is the type of drivel Congresswoman Blackburn accepts as 'science' idiot journalists intentionally undermining the science.

See post #467 for links

(Last post on this thread. Thanks for the debate guys I enjoyed the discussion. eliot, tbl canuck et al. All the best guys)

I was wondering why you raised Isoprene, now I understand, your latest research project I guess. While Isoprene may help clarify GW models it is nothing at all to do with how can man mitigate any effects of CC or GW.

By the way, as you are butting out, how is the weather, 'cause you sure aren't living in Thailand, USA I'd guess. Have a nice day !

[lostboy]

Why don't you guys get a room.

Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.

I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

Edited October 18, 2015 by lostboy

[chuckd]

<<SNIP>>

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

So how is that cap and trade scam working out for Australia?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia Repeals Controversial Carbon Tax

AP | By KRISTEN GELINEAU

Posted: 07/17/2014 12:41 am EDT Updated: 09/15/2014 5:59 am EDT

SYDNEY (AP) — Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

Article continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in the end, this is all most of you folks have in the way of an argument...

"So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years."

[lostboy]

<<SNIP>>

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

So how is that cap and trade scam working out for Australia?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia Repeals Controversial Carbon Tax

AP | By KRISTEN GELINEAU

Posted: 07/17/2014 12:41 am EDT Updated: 09/15/2014 5:59 am EDT

SYDNEY (AP) — Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

Article continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in the end, this is all most of you folks have in the way of an argument...

"So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years."

I am pleased that I have been able to provide some useful activity for your Sunday lunch time by googling articles on Australia and finding out more about my wonderful country. But come on Charles, your Texas Good ol' boy act isn't working on this one.

How is cap and trade working out in Australia? Well look at the consequences of Abbot's decisions. He is no longer leader. Carbon markets or similar or alternative strategies will be introduced in Australia, if not under the Libs then certainly when the government changes. The Mad Monk was too zealous and partisan for his own good and went the way of the dodo. Not before embarrassing many Australians however.

I have engaged through my work for Thai agencies with Australian officials working in the relevant Ministries and statutory authorities on climate change and energy issues and I am quite confident that environmentally friendly policies will resume.

Besides, I made it clear in my post that carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair - yet. As one of those pushing the edge of the right wing envelope, surely Charles you must appreciate the attempts at market based solutions to problems.

As a self confessed old white man (not sure if you're always grumpy or not), you can tell us precisely what impact you have on global environmental policy now? Sure, your career, from what I understand, contributed significantly to the American Energy Imperialist Economy but now in your Isaan village, do you have much sway over Arab princes and various Asian Generals? Or is TVF the only outlet? I use the phrase grumpy old white men to herald the emergence of the millennials who are fixing problems of long standing and of personal immediacy to me. So the old white men can keep shaking their fists at the sky.

Please let me know if you would like more primers on Australian politics and culture. Last time I was in Texas driving down to Freeport from Houston, I was surprised how much it resembled many parts of Australia where I grew up.

Edited October 18, 2015 by lostboy

[eliotness]

<<SNIP>>

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

So how is that cap and trade scam working out for Australia?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia Repeals Controversial Carbon Tax

AP | By KRISTEN GELINEAU

Posted: 07/17/2014 12:41 am EDT Updated: 09/15/2014 5:59 am EDT

SYDNEY (AP) Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

Article continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in the end, this is all most of you folks have in the way of an argument...

"So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years."

I am pleased that I have been able to provide some useful activity for your Sunday lunch time by googling articles on Australia and finding out more about my wonderful country. But come on Charles, your Texas Good ol' boy act isn't working on this one.

How is cap and trade working out in Australia? Well look at the consequences of Abbot's decisions. He is no longer leader. Carbon markets or similar or alternative strategies will be introduced in Australia, if not under the Libs then certainly when the government changes. The Mad Monk was too zealous and partisan for his own good and went the way of the dodo. Not before embarrassing many Australians however.

I have engaged through my work for Thai agencies with Australian officials working in the relevant Ministries and statutory authorities on climate change and energy issues and I am quite confident that environmentally friendly policies will resume.

Besides, I made it clear in my post that carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair - yet. As one of those pushing the edge of the right wing envelope, surely Charles you must appreciate the attempts at market based solutions to problems.

As a self confessed old white man (not sure if you're always grumpy or not), you can tell us precisely what impact you have on global environmental policy now? Sure, your career, from what I understand, contributed significantly to the American Energy Imperialist Economy but now in your Isaan village, do you have much sway over Arab princes and various Asian Generals? Or is TVF the only outlet? I use the phrase grumpy old white men to herald the emergence of the millennials who are fixing problems of long standing and of personal immediacy to me. So the old white men can keep shaking their fists at the sky.

Please let me know if you would like more primers on Australian politics and culture. Last time I was in Texas driving down to Freeport from Houston, I was surprised how much it resembled many parts of Australia where I grew up.

Looks like you've got a lot on your plate if you are working for Thai agencies because this is one of the worst countries I've lived in for pollution. I have yet to see any constantly and fairly enforced policies from this, or previously elected governments that have had significant environmental benefits.

As an aside,I bought a reusable bag from Lotus/Tesco, great !, but the only problem was it was heavy duty plastic. Not exactly a solution. As for the one day a month no plastic bag "suggestion", well you just got to laugh.

Recycling of waste has its merits if done well, but there are drawbacks and questions over markets for recycled material and the environmental damage that may occur during the recycling process. Bangladesh being just one of many examples. Much more needs needs to be done in the first place to reduce the amount of waste generated. When I was young, TVs, radios, fridges etc could be repaired, such that appliances lasted a lifetime. That is no longer the case. The huge piles of discarded fridges, supposed to be "recycled" are a prime example.

And Sir, before you attempt to bait me as you clearly tried to do with a previous poster I was and still am on several ISO EMS technical working groups, one of which has just issued the new version of ISO 14001.

As for "energy from waste", good idea in theory, works well if run as it should be, but so open to abuse, e.g. reducing running costs to increase profit, reducing maintenance to again increase profit, lack of qualified experienced and motivated people to run the plants down the line.

Furthermore, like your fellow traveller up2u2, you cannot save the planet from a doubling of its population this century, with all the environmental effects that will have on planet Earth, never mind the huge political unrest that will be certain to ensue when living space, jobs, food and fresh water become scarce. So if by 2100 the climate has warmed between 2 and 5 degrees C, I think the politicians in charge then will have far far more to worry about than little bit of climate change.

Not that I'm saying do nothing, far from it as I firmly believe we have no right to abuse our planet and we must do all we can to sustain life on Earth. But the "holier than thou" attitude expressed by many of the global warming believers actually hinders open discussion on the matter as I have seen over the days on this thread.

Finally, as you admit to being an Aussie, am I correct in saying Australia has the greatest CO2 emissions per capita in the world, if not THE greatest it's well up there with the big boys ?

[metisdead]

Off topic baiting posts have been removed.

[lostboy]

<<SNIP>>

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

So how is that cap and trade scam working out for Australia?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia Repeals Controversial Carbon Tax

AP | By KRISTEN GELINEAU

Posted: 07/17/2014 12:41 am EDT Updated: 09/15/2014 5:59 am EDT

SYDNEY (AP) Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

Article continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in the end, this is all most of you folks have in the way of an argument...

"So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years."

I am pleased that I have been able to provide some useful activity for your Sunday lunch time by googling articles on Australia and finding out more about my wonderful country. But come on Charles, your Texas Good ol' boy act isn't working on this one.

How is cap and trade working out in Australia? Well look at the consequences of Abbot's decisions. He is no longer leader. Carbon markets or similar or alternative strategies will be introduced in Australia, if not under the Libs then certainly when the government changes. The Mad Monk was too zealous and partisan for his own good and went the way of the dodo. Not before embarrassing many Australians however.

I have engaged through my work for Thai agencies with Australian officials working in the relevant Ministries and statutory authorities on climate change and energy issues and I am quite confident that environmentally friendly policies will resume.

Besides, I made it clear in my post that carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair - yet. As one of those pushing the edge of the right wing envelope, surely Charles you must appreciate the attempts at market based solutions to problems.

As a self confessed old white man (not sure if you're always grumpy or not), you can tell us precisely what impact you have on global environmental policy now? Sure, your career, from what I understand, contributed significantly to the American Energy Imperialist Economy but now in your Isaan village, do you have much sway over Arab princes and various Asian Generals? Or is TVF the only outlet? I use the phrase grumpy old white men to herald the emergence of the millennials who are fixing problems of long standing and of personal immediacy to me. So the old white men can keep shaking their fists at the sky.

Please let me know if you would like more primers on Australian politics and culture. Last time I was in Texas driving down to Freeport from Houston, I was surprised how much it resembled many parts of Australia where I grew up.

Looks like you've got a lot on your plate if you are working for Thai agencies because this is one of the worst countries I've lived in for pollution. I have yet to see any constantly and fairly enforced policies from this, or previously elected governments that have had significant environmental benefits.

As an aside,I bought a reusable bag from Lotus/Tesco, great !, but the only problem was it was heavy duty plastic. Not exactly a solution. As for the one day a month no plastic bag "suggestion", well you just got to laugh.

Recycling of waste has its merits if done well, but there are drawbacks and questions over markets for recycled material and the environmental damage that may occur during the recycling process. Bangladesh being just one of many examples. Much more needs needs to be done in the first place to reduce the amount of waste generated. When I was young, TVs, radios, fridges etc could be repaired, such that appliances lasted a lifetime. That is no longer the case. The huge piles of discarded fridges, supposed to be "recycled" are a prime example.

And Sir, before you attempt to bait me as you clearly tried to do with a previous poster I was and still am on several ISO EMS technical working groups, one of which has just issued the new version of ISO 14001.

As for "energy from waste", good idea in theory, works well if run as it should be, but so open to abuse, e.g. reducing running costs to increase profit, reducing maintenance to again increase profit, lack of qualified experienced and motivated people to run the plants down the line.

Furthermore, like your fellow traveller up2u2, you cannot save the planet from a doubling of its population this century, with all the environmental effects that will have on planet Earth, never mind the huge political unrest that will be certain to ensue when living space, jobs, food and fresh water become scarce. So if by 2100 the climate has warmed between 2 and 5 degrees C, I think the politicians in charge then will have far far more to worry about than little bit of climate change.

Not that I'm saying do nothing, far from it as I firmly believe we have no right to abuse our planet and we must do all we can to sustain life on Earth. But the "holier than thou" attitude expressed by many of the global warming believers actually hinders open discussion on the matter as I have seen over the days on this thread.

Finally, as you admit to being an Aussie, am I correct in saying Australia has the greatest CO2 emissions per capita in the world, if not THE greatest it's well up there with the big boys ?

As an Australian national, am I responsible for the country having the highest emissions in the world? I voted for the party that created carbon tax. I do not hold shares in mining companies. As a non resident national, I am not sure what else I can do. Just as the first settlers de-forested the country to the tune of an estimated 70% of native flora, I do not believe that I should be held personally responsible for this. This mentality existed until the 70's when much of Australian culture was irrevocably changed by the Whitlam labour government.

So in terms of baiting, I think you are being far more provocative than I. My post was not even in response to one of your many, many posts and I made no reference to you. I guess if I was baiting, then I hooked you well and good since you took my post personally and responded.

OK, to your points. Thailand is a middle income country having experienced massive growth in the past decades and its governance and regulatory system has not caught up with this. I have worked in the 2 sectors that are major contributors to pollution being energy and transport. Investments in public transport infrastructure, increasing capacity mix in power production to 10% renewables by 2036 under PDP2015 and significant investments by the Energy Conservation Fund in demand side management (energy efficiency) with awareness campaigns, retrofitting building, promoting energy efficient appliances is a pretty good start for a country that still projects a need for 50 GW capacity by 2036 (up from the current installed capacity of 30 GW - about equivalent to the state of Victoria). Polluter pays has been a core policy of the Thai government for two decades. The current government has prioritised investment in solid waste management. Thailand is getting there with a mixture of advocacy, regulation and direct subsidisation of investments in environmentally friendly technologies.

Why tar everyone with the Bangladesh experience. Their ship-breakers are major polluters and their governance and regulatory systems are incapable of dealing with the poison produced by such greed. Is it relevant to climate change? I have no idea. I have stated that climate change is a political issue and I do not care about points scoring.

You accuse me of being a fellow traveller of the Alarmists. Fine. Whatever. But really, the overpopulation thing was the fear-meme of the 70's. I grew up with it. Watched Soylent Green and thought Charles Heston was great until I found out he was a gun nut. What have we learned since then apart from using Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and Grieg for death scene music? Well, that food technologies have improved to feed billions of more people. Also that educating females results in a lower birth rate. Similarly, birth rate falls as GDP of a country increases. So population alarmism is pretty much out of date. But is was scary for a kid in the 70's.

So I guess the question is why is a right wing environmental scientist part of the Denier's camp? It makes no sense. The right has consistently opposed environmental regulations and in the US rant about closing the EPA. Whether you subscribe to the ideology of climate change or not, surely the proponents of environmental conservation and protection are a better bet than those who oppose this?

[thaibeachlovers]

Why don't you guys get a room.

Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.

I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

And yet, none of the strategies that you have detailed are working sufficiently to make a dent in the increase ( or so we are told ). I'm interested in solution/s that can be applied in all countries, China and India as well, that are realistic, effective, affordable and that WORK.

You mention public transport, but countries like New Zealand have minimal intercity public transport, so most people drive. Some have good public transport but too expensive.

I have no problem with conferences, but flying to them rather than using video conferencing is just hypocrisy.

This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers.

LOL. Do you mean those people that are obsessed with technology and spend their days conversing with their imaginary friends? I haven't seen one that gives a **** about the environment, as they race around in their expensive cars wasting fuel. As for Thailand, they all want a car, and the town I live in is fast becoming a permanent traffic jam, as the roads were designed for m'bikes.

Otherwise, Thailand is well served by excellent bus and rail options for long distance travel- no need to drive a car.

While I do not believe that GW can be reversed, if in fact it is man made, and I am not convinced, even if the Pope does wear a very silly hat, that it is, I would like to see a restriction on the infernal private motor car. It is a pestilence on the planet, wasting vast areas of land and consuming zillions of $ that would be far better spent on affordable public transport options.

Lastly, while the human destroyers of the planet as we know it continue to increase at such a fast rate, no strategy will succeed in reversing anything. Population control is the only thing that will succeed in saving the planet as we know it. However, that is not going to happen, so I have no hope of a man made solution, though nature/ Gaia may have a trick or two to rectify the situation. Ebola perhaps?

[RickBradford]

LOL. Do you mean those people that are obsessed with technology and spend their days conversing with their imaginary friends? I haven't seen one that gives a **** about the environment, as they race around in their expensive cars wasting fuel.

There's a very good article in TIME magazine from a couple of years ago which makes this point very well. Titled "It's Easy Not Being Green", it focuses on the attitudes of Generation-Y towards environmentalism.

[quoting a psychologist] Compared with boomers and Generation X-ers, Gen Y-ers are the least willing to cut down on driving and electricity use. “There was a lot more questioning of materialism in the 1970s. Now it’s just like, Let’s all live like the Kardashians,” she said. . . "We do stuff not to save the planet as much as to look as if we’re saving the planet. That means I need to spend a lot more on my food, clothing and appliances and let everyone know about it."

The article continues:

Ouch. At least Gen-Y is sufficiently self-aware to recognize the contradiction. The power for all those Macbooks, iPods, iPads, live-streaming, Facebook updates, and Tweeting has to come from somewhere — and Gen-Y demands to be plugged in at all times. Gen-Y will not “power down” for the planet.

So, yes, the idea that there is a noble youth movement out to save the planet from the old people is pure fantasy.

[eliotness]

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

[sirineou]

LOL. Do you mean those people that are obsessed with technology and spend their days conversing with their imaginary friends? I haven't seen one that gives a **** about the environment, as they race around in their expensive cars wasting fuel.

There's a very good article in TIME magazine from a couple of years ago which makes this point very well. Titled "It's Easy Not Being Green", it focuses on the attitudes of Generation-Y towards environmentalism.

[quoting a psychologist] Compared with boomers and Generation X-ers, Gen Y-ers are the least willing to cut down on driving and electricity use. “There was a lot more questioning of materialism in the 1970s. Now it’s just like, Let’s all live like the Kardashians,” she said. . . "We do stuff not to save the planet as much as to look as if we’re saving the planet. That means I need to spend a lot more on my food, clothing and appliances and let everyone know about it."

The article continues:

Ouch. At least Gen-Y is sufficiently self-aware to recognize the contradiction. The power for all those Macbooks, iPods, iPads, live-streaming, Facebook updates, and Tweeting has to come from somewhere — and Gen-Y demands to be plugged in at all times. Gen-Y will not “power down” for the planet.

So, yes, the idea that there is a noble youth movement out to save the planet from the old people is pure fantasy.

The concept in the article misses the point,

The point is not to regress technologically to a point of low power consumption If that was the point then it would not only apply the Gen X or Gen Y,

You cant expect a particular generation not to use the technology at their disposal, to conserve energy.

There is no argument that as each generation advances technologically , , the use of such technology will consume larger amounts of energy .

We have plenty of energy, our planet is awash in so much energy that it threaten our own existence,

the problem is we dont use it because we are trapped in the use of fossil energy

The point is to change the energy production models to ones that have a lower impact on the environment.

How do we go that? Perhaps if we factor in the price of fossil energy the cost of pollution mitigation, it would make fossil energy expensive enough to firstly , discourage use and thus decrease impact,

and secondly make alternative energy production cost competitive and encourage it's development and production,.until such time that scale of markets makes alternative energy sources less expensive than the traditional fossil energy model.

The truth of the matter is that all of the above will eventually happen, the question is, will it happen in a controlled fashion, or will we wait until we wreck the environment, cause untold pain an suffering to many. and then are forced in action?

and if we wait until such time will it be to late?

and all for what? to protect the profits of the petrochemical industry? or cheap Walmart products?

Edited October 18, 2015 by sirineou

[lostboy]

Why don't you guys get a room.

Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.

I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

And yet, none of the strategies that you have detailed are working sufficiently to make a dent in the increase ( or so we are told ). I'm interested in solution/s that can be applied in all countries, China and India as well, that are realistic, effective, affordable and that WORK.

You mention public transport, but countries like New Zealand have minimal intercity public transport, so most people drive. Some have good public transport but too expensive.

I have no problem with conferences, but flying to them rather than using video conferencing is just hypocrisy.

This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers.

LOL. Do you mean those people that are obsessed with technology and spend their days conversing with their imaginary friends? I haven't seen one that gives a **** about the environment, as they race around in their expensive cars wasting fuel. As for Thailand, they all want a car, and the town I live in is fast becoming a permanent traffic jam, as the roads were designed for m'bikes.

Otherwise, Thailand is well served by excellent bus and rail options for long distance travel- no need to drive a car.

While I do not believe that GW can be reversed, if in fact it is man made, and I am not convinced, even if the Pope does wear a very silly hat, that it is, I would like to see a restriction on the infernal private motor car. It is a pestilence on the planet, wasting vast areas of land and consuming zillions of $ that would be far better spent on affordable public transport options.

Lastly, while the human destroyers of the planet as we know it continue to increase at such a fast rate, no strategy will succeed in reversing anything. Population control is the only thing that will succeed in saving the planet as we know it. However, that is not going to happen, so I have no hope of a man made solution, though nature/ Gaia may have a trick or two to rectify the situation. Ebola perhaps?

I have no idea if the solutions i mentioned have had measurable impact. I will let the scientists who receive all these supposed billions of dollars work on their models and calculations. I do believe that an amalgamation of strategies will be more effective than big bang attempts. Australia does not have a good record in implementing big bang solutions to environmental issues. You may look up the Queensland cane toad, now a feral species or the introduction of myxomatosis to try and control the feral rabbit population. I also don't quite agree with you bout India and China or any of the emerging economies for that matter. Why should not their citizens aspire to a better standard of living just as most of us in the Western developed world have enjoyed? You can't change human nature. Better to work with it. Strategies to protect the environment will work when people can make money from them. Or, alternatively, save money or reduce losses. This is why renewable energy developed so quickly around the world. It cost billions in subsidies. Spain almost went bankrupt. German electricity prices are outrageous. But it worked and innovation is driving the price down to the point where solar is now almost equivalent to gas fired power production. Environmental protection need not be a zero sum game. The emerging economies can still benefit and achieve high standards of living.

Industrial and post industrial societies are quite selfish. The baby-boomer generation may be the last of these selfish generations. The resources probably don't exist to allow such exploitative societies. You may deride millennials for their tech and self absorption but they will be the ones who have to deal with diminishing resources. Stephen Baxter is a British physicist. He is also a science fiction author of some note. He is a very deep thinker of the near and far future. He new series of books starting with 'Proxima' provides very thought provoking reading about how a near future society copes with what we have left them.

[lostboy]

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

On climate change, you can really only be a Denier or an Alarmist. That is the nature of ideological disputes. As a socialist, I am automatically aligned to the Alarmists. Half the fun of hanging around on TVF World News is poking the eye of the opponent.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions. Food technology does not only mean GMO. I am quite agnostic on that issue. Besides, while earth remains a closed eco-system, there will be natural methods of population control. Technology too will contribute to the lifting of the living standards of people in emerging economies. Old models of infrastructure based on mega-projects, huge capex and lots of cement and other resources are already being overturned by technology. It has been happening i the communications industry for decades. It is now happening in the energy industry. I am very bullish on economic progress and the impact of wealth generation on poverty alleviation and, ultimately, reduced population growth.

I do not worry too much about religious views on birth control. Most people, including the 'faithful' ignore such silliness. The more societies move towards agnosticism and find alternatives for spiritual well being, the less influence these archaic institutions will have. Again, more economic development and higher standards of living will accelerate this process.

Much of your rationale is based on existing models e.g. the need for large families in under developed agrarian economies, the exploitation of the genetics of food crops for corporate wealth generation etc. If you try to apply these models to problems of the future, they won't work. I am a strong believer in social progress - look it up, it is actually a 'thing' - not in the imperialist sense but in the optimistic sense.

[thaibeachlovers]

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

On climate change, you can really only be a Denier or an Alarmist. That is the nature of ideological disputes. As a socialist, I am automatically aligned to the Alarmists. Half the fun of hanging around on TVF World News is poking the eye of the opponent.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions. Food technology does not only mean GMO. I am quite agnostic on that issue. Besides, while earth remains a closed eco-system, there will be natural methods of population control. Technology too will contribute to the lifting of the living standards of people in emerging economies. Old models of infrastructure based on mega-projects, huge capex and lots of cement and other resources are already being overturned by technology. It has been happening i the communications industry for decades. It is now happening in the energy industry. I am very bullish on economic progress and the impact of wealth generation on poverty alleviation and, ultimately, reduced population growth.

I do not worry too much about religious views on birth control. Most people, including the 'faithful' ignore such silliness. The more societies move towards agnosticism and find alternatives for spiritual well being, the less influence these archaic institutions will have. Again, more economic development and higher standards of living will accelerate this process.

Much of your rationale is based on existing models e.g. the need for large families in under developed agrarian economies, the exploitation of the genetics of food crops for corporate wealth generation etc. If you try to apply these models to problems of the future, they won't work. I am a strong believer in social progress - look it up, it is actually a 'thing' - not in the imperialist sense but in the optimistic sense.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions.

Once population passed 3 billion it was already too big. Simply the sheer numbers ensure everything will be exploited.

How many species are becoming extinct all the time because of humans?

The rain forest is being destroyed rapidly.

Fish are at the tipping point of extinction.

The world's oceans are completely polluted.

There is clearly only room for one species in the brave new world of the future. So congested, that we will have to live on floating cities and eat harvested seaweed ( only farmed fish will survive )

You appear to come at the problem from a belief in the "goodness" of humanity, when the driving force of everything humans do is greed ( second only to sex ). Without greed ( greed is good as the man said ) humans would never have evolved out of the caves, but the world is becoming run by corporations and they care only about profit, which is very bad for the environment.

So, unless you get rid of capitalism and put the Kumbaya singers into government the future looks bleak

Yes, we could support an almost infinite number of people on the planet, but would you want to live in that world- I don't?

Technology will not be available to the teeming masses. Most of them will be unemployed and dirt poor- technology can replace every manual job on the planet, and it will, or at least the corporations will try to.

Have you not seen the hordes invading Europe in the hope of a better life? Their own countries are a living example of what overpopulation causes, but they will still breed uncontrollably, even if they get to live in Europe- it's what they do.

I too read science fiction and the future is well known.

BYW I used to be an optimist when I was young, but now I am a pessimist ( or as I like to think of it, a realist ).

[eliotness]

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

On climate change, you can really only be a Denier or an Alarmist. That is the nature of ideological disputes. As a socialist, I am automatically aligned to the Alarmists. Half the fun of hanging around on TVF World News is poking the eye of the opponent.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions. Food technology does not only mean GMO. I am quite agnostic on that issue. Besides, while earth remains a closed eco-system, there will be natural methods of population control. Technology too will contribute to the lifting of the living standards of people in emerging economies. Old models of infrastructure based on mega-projects, huge capex and lots of cement and other resources are already being overturned by technology. It has been happening i the communications industry for decades. It is now happening in the energy industry. I am very bullish on economic progress and the impact of wealth generation on poverty alleviation and, ultimately, reduced population growth.

I do not worry too much about religious views on birth control. Most people, including the 'faithful' ignore such silliness. The more societies move towards agnosticism and find alternatives for spiritual well being, the less influence these archaic institutions will have. Again, more economic development and higher standards of living will accelerate this process.

Much of your rationale is based on existing models e.g. the need for large families in under developed agrarian economies, the exploitation of the genetics of food crops for corporate wealth generation etc. If you try to apply these models to problems of the future, they won't work. I am a strong believer in social progress - look it up, it is actually a 'thing' - not in the imperialist sense but in the optimistic sense.

So you think it's a simple black or white issue. I think you're wrong, but you are entitled to your view as I am of mine.

I do think you are viewing the population question through rose coloured glasses, but I actually hope you turn out to be correct because if you're wrong the consequences could be horrific.

Social progress is largely dependant on governments, who control access to education and capitalists who create better paying jobs. Very few governments want true educational progress. After all a well educated population might challenge the "powers that be", and that applies as much to the UK as Thailand. The last period of New Labour had a very detrimental effect on social progress in the UK. My opinion, but as you admit to being a socialist I'd expect to to disagree, but I'm going off topic sorry.

I am greatly concerned about the religious aspect of population control and do not agree with your "it will be right mate" view. There are regions of the world where religions rule and religious leaders decide what type of education children receive, if any. How does your rosy socialist address that ? No sorry I think you are so wrong your view is actually dangerous.

[Somtamme]

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

[thaibeachlovers]

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

I agree, except that it will never affect more than a tiny, well off portion of the planet's population within the next century or so.

More to the point, we are being constantly told that time is of the essence before the methane storms destroy us all, and technology like that will not be commonplace ( worldwide ) even in the lifetime of one born today. Meanwhile, the Chinese economy now depends on persuading all it's citizens to enter the consumer age.

Edited October 19, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[eliotness]

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

I remember seeing that before I left the UK. Interesting. I live a mile or so outside the village so things like using wind power and especially solar are of great interest. Trouble is we don't seem to get enough good breeze, either nit noy or v rarely mak mak, no happy medium. Solar panels seem a bit too expensive at present and I'm not sure what the pay-back period would be for, say, enough panels to power the aircon in the bedroom, because if it takes more than 10 years to recover the outlay against the saving on my electricity bill, then as I'm mid 60s I am not going to be interested. I'm sure technology will develop to help decentralise electricity systems, but the use unfortunately will be limited, unless someone invents a mega cheap system, with low and easy maintenance.

[RidgeRunner]

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

I remember seeing that before I left the UK. Interesting. I live a mile or so outside the village so things like using wind power and especially solar are of great interest. Trouble is we don't seem to get enough good breeze, either nit noy or v rarely mak mak, no happy medium. Solar panels seem a bit too expensive at present and I'm not sure what the pay-back period would be for, say, enough panels to power the aircon in the bedroom, because if it takes more than 10 years to recover the outlay against the saving on my electricity bill, then as I'm mid 60s I am not going to be interested. I'm sure technology will develop to help decentralise electricity systems, but the use unfortunately will be limited, unless someone invents a mega cheap system, with low and easy maintenance.

Elon Musk projects that in twenty years, 50% of energy consumed in the USA will be from clean renewable sources.

The Solar City Co. will install solar on your house for free and the monthly payment will be less than your current electric bill. Musks 5 billion dollar battery factory, currently under construction will produce more batteries than all the worlds factories combined. His power wall battery pack can be installed in every home and business, be networked and be called up at peak times eliminating that extra powerhouse in town.

His Tesla car has the best safety and consumer rating of any car ever made and can be fuelled with the sun. The solar powered hyper loop transport system will move you in comfort at 700MPH.

Now he revealed plans for an electric plane.

Fossil fuels are on the way out.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott

[eliotness]

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

I remember seeing that before I left the UK. Interesting. I live a mile or so outside the village so things like using wind power and especially solar are of great interest. Trouble is we don't seem to get enough good breeze, either nit noy or v rarely mak mak, no happy medium. Solar panels seem a bit too expensive at present and I'm not sure what the pay-back period would be for, say, enough panels to power the aircon in the bedroom, because if it takes more than 10 years to recover the outlay against the saving on my electricity bill, then as I'm mid 60s I am not going to be interested. I'm sure technology will develop to help decentralise electricity systems, but the use unfortunately will be limited, unless someone invents a mega cheap system, with low and easy maintenance.

Elon Musk projects that in twenty years, 50% of energy consumed in the USA will be from clean renewable sources.

The Solar City Co. will install solar on your house for free and the monthly payment will be less than your current electric bill.

Musks 5 billion dollar battery factory, currently under construction will produce more batteries than all the worlds factories combined.

His power wall battery pack can be installed in every home and business, be networked and be called up at peak times eliminating that extra powerhouse in town.

His Tesla car has the best safety and consumer rating of any car ever made and can be fuelled with the sun.

The solar powered hyper loop transport system will move you in comfort at 700MPH.

Now he revealed plans for an electric plane.

Fossil fuels are on the way out.

That's good news about those solar cells.

As for fossil fuel, whatever GW side you're on, it is a finite resource and will not be able to be consumed at present levels for much longer. So the world needs alternative "fuels" not just to "save the planet" but to meet peoples aspirations all over the world. I saw a programme on the Tokyo motor show and Honda have developed an electric moped and that could have a huge impact in South East Asia. Fracking I regard as the last gasp of the fossil fuel corporations.

[RidgeRunner]

U huh. Marsha Blackburn the US Republican that represents the industrial polluters says "ignore the Pope."

Does she think the Pope just dreams up these policies?

He is advised by a team of scientific experts. Just like Obama is advised by the National Academy of Scientists.

Who you gonna believe? The above mentioned elite scientists or Marsh (dumbshit) Blackburn?

[eliotness]

U huh. Marsha Blackburn the US Republican that represents the industrial polluters says "ignore the Pope."

Does she think the Pope just dreams up these policies?

He is advised by a team of scientific experts. Just like Obama is advised by the National Academy of Scientists.

Who you gonna believe? The above mentioned elite scientists or Marsh (dumbshit) Blackburn?

The Pope believes many things, as does Obama. Trouble is that a lot of people don't trust what they say compared to what they do. As for Blackburn, I wouldn't trust her if she said "the sun will shine tomorrow. Both sides have their "pet expert scientists" to advise them. So what makes a scientist " an elite" in your humble opinion ? You are free to side with whoever you want, but just remember the millions who died to give you the right to choose.