"Did the coal miners canary just flutter?"

[Mr Quatro]

Didn't we have a thread about cows causing the problem a little ways back?

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-ca...at-methane-CO2

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector).

Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

It matters only because without it most of the 7 billion people on this planet would starve. Unless you fix the population problem first you will never be able to prevent them from continuing to use fossil fuels. Never. Because nobody is going to care about some ill defined future danger like global warming when their children's bellies are empty or they are freezing to death.

Get us down to say half our present global population and alternate fuels might have a chance of supporting the remainder but even then a big percentage of them will be living in the stone age.

Maybe August has a point here. Maybe we should implement something like this:

A Modest Proposal --

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

It is even very much conservative; it dates way back to 1729...







<O>

[propbeanie]

What was the proposal for the Scots? those troublemakers...

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, you're right. I should have said "promoters". I've been in a bit of pain and having trouble concentrating this last week. No, I was a denier until I realized that some of the scientists I admire the most were firmly convinced that this is fact.

Sorry for the confusion. It was all on my part.

I figured as much. I figured I'd give you a chance to clarify before I went all 'internet' on you . Sorry bout the pain.

And I too had trouble coming up with a word to describe the opposite of climate change deniers.

"Well adjusted, intelligent, people who can read charts, listen to facts and figures, and can make up their own minds while not being led down the path of corporate greed" Just was too long to write out many times.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

I figured as much. I figured I'd give you a chance to clarify before I went all 'internet' on you . Sorry bout the pain.

And I too had trouble coming up with a word to describe the opposite of climate change deniers.

"Well adjusted, intelligent, people who can read charts, listen to facts and figures, and can make up their own minds while not being led down the path of corporate greed" Just was too long to write out many times.

How about shortening that to just "smart and right people" or maybe just "intelligent"?...






<O>

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by August

Get us down to say half our present global population and alternate fuels might have a chance of supporting the remainder but even then a big percentage of them will be living in the stone age.

That's a very fair point August.

As it stands, alternative fuel sources, aside from nuclear, are not developed enough to sustain the world as is. That's why as they become developed, we can start weening ourselves off the reliance of oil as a fuel source. Nuclear has it's own sorts of problems, practicality in small form, and political push back, but that's why research into sustainable fusion power is needed.

There will probably always be a market for petroleum and gas. Hell, if I had a '57 chevy or other collector type, I'd sure as hell make sure it had the v8 super charger, but I'm not going to be driving that on the road every day. But if I buy a new car for everyday use, I'd sure like it to be as clean running as possible, and as cheaply as possible.

Just like with any new technology, there will come a tipping point where the clean renewable energy sources will become more efficient and cheaper than the old.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by vienna

How about shortening that to just "smart and right people" or maybe just "intelligent"?...






<O>

Wouldn't have been as poignant.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Hell, if I had a '57 chevy or other collector type, I'd sure as hell make sure it had the v8 super charger, but I'm not going to be driving that on the road every day.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Yeah! That!

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

It matters only because without it most of the 7 billion people on this planet would starve. Unless you fix the population problem first you will never be able to prevent them from continuing to use fossil fuels. Never. Because nobody is going to care about some ill defined future danger like global warming when their children's bellies are empty or they are freezing to death.

Get us down to say half our present global population and alternate fuels might have a chance of supporting the remainder but even then a big percentage of them will be living in the stone age.

But who would be the one's to get rid of? Greenhouse gas emissions aren't evenly leveled across the 7 billion people nor is there a clear relation between population growth and higher GHG emissions, since it is the industrialized and rapidly industrializing nations that emit the most yet their population growth has slowed or is slowing.

It is more accurate to say that consumers, rather than people, cause climate change; there is enormous variation in greenhouse gas emissions between individuals with high consumption levels in developed nations with low fertility rates, and individuals with low or negligible consumption in poor nations with high fertility rates. In other words, climate change is driven more by consumer behaviour than simply by population number.

(Source)

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But who would be the one's to get rid of? [..]

It's the immigrants!

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Catfish

It's the immigrants!

God Damn Mongorians!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But who would be the one's to get rid of?

That's not a question that anybody could answer or do anything about. But, if everything that climate change proponents say is true (I'm not disputing them) then it is apparent that 'the ones' will be decided in a cruel and unavoidable way. There will be a reduction in the earths population, maybe a dramatic one. The simple fact is that the earths' population has grown faster than the technology to support it in a non environmentally damaging way has. One of the two variables will have to change, either by choice or by disaster. Don't like to be pessimistic but I think the latter will come first.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But who would be the one's to get rid of?

I'd recommend the kill two birds with one stone option, but then one thread would permanently close.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But who would be the one's to get rid of? Greenhouse gas emissions aren't evenly leveled across the 7 billion people nor is there a clear relation between population growth and higher GHG emissions, since it is the industrialized and rapidly industrializing nations that emit the most yet their population growth has slowed or is slowing.



(Source)

Interesting link you posted, i will check it out in more detail tonight.
For now though show me a person living in a grass hut and i'll show you a would be consumer who would love to partake in the modern conveniences provided by fossil fuels. I'm sure you can find an exception or three to that but in general it's going to be difficult to convince developing nations that they can't have the quality of life that we have enjoyed in the industrialized west.