Global Warming?

[greatbritishhoney]

'renting' the rain forests, paying compensation for their non-use.

This is almost certainly the way things will have to go.
It is fairly well accepted, climate change aside, that we are over exploiting the world's resources. The Global Footprint Network's 2008 study showed that we were in effect using 1.4 times the earths resource and reabsorptive capacity per annum (whereas in 1961 we were using 0.6 earths). Quite a worrying statistic considering the trend shows absolutely no sign of going anywhere other than up.
So, I think it is likely that the only way humans will be able to start to adequately regulate their impact on the environment is through the market - by quantifying the environmental cost of our consumption (i.e - passing on the cost of all the negative externalities to the polluter / consumer). I can't really see any other way without a major change of our political and economic systems.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

You can advise them not to make the same mistakes we have,

What mistakes are you referring to? And why are they mistakes?

Many things are of a natural progression, are you saying we should have skipped the industrial revolution (fuelled mainly on coal) and jump straight to cold fusion?

It simply would not have happened..

 

[jimbeekeeper]

1.4 times the earths resource .

No! We are using the current earth resources we have found a use for!

Think back, did cave man use petrol of natural gas? No! but crude oil was always around.

Why did the Victorians not generate their steam for the mills with nuclear power? Because they did not know about it.

Do you think people are just sat back and not looking for new fuel sources? No.

Using the law of conservation of energy, that matter can not be created or destroyed...all of what we will ever need or use is out there...we just need to know how to use it.

 

[greatbritishhoney]

No! We are using the current earth resources we have found a use for!

Think back, did cave man use petrol of natural gas? No! but crude oil was always around.

Why did the Victorians not generate their steam for the mills with nuclear power? Because they did not know about it.

Do you think people are just sat back and not looking for new fuel sources? No.

Using the law of conservation of energy, that matter can not be created or destroyed...all of what we will ever need or use is out there...we just need to know how to use it.

It's worth reading the data before you dismiss it. It's not really anything to do with using up one resource then moving on to something else.
The 1.4 earths refers to the fact that we are using up more resources / reabsorptive capacity (they call it biocapacity) than can be renewed each year. For example, if you release 1 litre of crude oil into the sea every year for a million years the earth will easily cope with it. If you release 1 million litres in one go you will have an ecological disaster.
What the report says is that the waste we are generating (not just carbon emmissions, but physical waste) is greater than our ecosystem can cope with and, if we carry on the current rate, we will do irreparable damage.
It is also worth noting that if the rest of the world consumed as much as the americans do then the figure would be 4.5 earths.
Irrespective of whether you agree with the report in principle, I think it would be foolish to think that a 100+% increase in resource use in less than 50 years is a sustainable way to proceed.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

I quite agree with what you have wrote, But you are referring to current known technology (fuel and disposal routes), not future ones.

In my views resources are there to be used to progress.

We can not simply shut down and hope that magically in 50 - 100 years a new energy source will just be handed to us on a plate.

Coal still has a valid use in our energy portfolio, wind does not.

 

[greatbritishhoney]

I quite agree with what you have wrote, But you are referring to current known technology (fuel and disposal routes), not future ones.

In my views resources are there to be used to progress.

We can not simply shut down and hope that magically in 50 - 100 years a new energy source will just be handed to us on a plate.

Coal still has a valid use in our energy portfolio, wind does not.

I agree to an extent, and I am not saying we should 'shut down'. However, we would be very complacent to carry on at our current rate of consumption (40% increase in just 20 years) without thinking about how we will support it in the future. This is important not just from an environmental point of view, but politically and economically too. What do we think will happen when resources are running out and the only viable oil that is left is under the antartic? Will we sit down nicely with the russians, chinese and americans and agree a nice fair deal that benefits all of mankind? Or will we stuff the developing nations and probably end up at war with each other over dwindling resources?

I currently use coal to heat my home but I know that the price is going to rise and rise, so I am starting to ensure that I have other cleaner more sustainable fuel sources available.

Edit: just to correct what I said earlier....the US rate of consumption is 5.3 earths, UK is 3.1 earths, Africa is 0.6 earths. Seems clear to me who is going to end up worse off in this equation.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

Mass sterilisation is my view!

Stop supporting these third world countries that are so draught ridden and people so malnourished...yet they still manage to knock out 10 kids.

Or look at it the other way, and use the excess humans as fuel! Taking away water (which would require energy in its self) leaves about 8 Mj/kg of burnable mass.

Current population is nearly 7 billion, so lest go back to about the 1960's and about 4 billions.

So 3 billion to use = 6666660 MW = output of 1722 power stations the size of England largest coal station.

Simples!

 

[gavin]

Are you for real - not just on the wind-up?

 

[The Cumbrian]

Are you for real - not just on the wind-up?

Of course he is - he is putting himself up as first on the list!

 

[greatbritishhoney]

The reason people in developing countries "knock out 10 kids" is because infant mortality rates are so high that it is their only guaranteed way to preserve their family, genes, culture etc.
Why are mortality rates so high? Because we keep them in a state of permanent crippling debt and refuse to sell them simple drugs at a reasonable price.
Let's hope that one day things are not the other way round eh?

 

[Skyhook]

In my views resources are there to be used to progress.

What a very anthropocentric view. In fact worse that that, selfish.

Resources aren't 'there to be used', they are just there. We have the intellectual capacity to find ways to exploit them, and to decide what to do about it. Nothing wrong with that. But if we use them in ways that benefit mankind with no concern for other species, that is anthropocentric. If we use them in ways that benefit us, now, and the devil take other nations and future generations, that is plain selfish. It's interesting to note that one of the loudest voices calling for action on climate change is the Maldives- they know that their land would be one of the first victims of sea level rise.

 

[PlanB]