Global Warming Vulgar?

lee1234

Does anybody else think the focus on Global Warming these days is fad like. More than half the world population live in poverty right now, its an old problem but serious one. Is'nt this more pressing than something thats future based and still quite ambigious ??

gerky

For starters its not a future based thing its happening now and it effects can be seen now and in the recent past.

And the people who are and will be worst affected won't be you and me, it is the poverty stricken who lose their homes to floods or rising water levels or starve because their crops fail due to drought, they poor suffer at the hands of wealthy.

You do also have to think of the future, what happens when people don't have food or water? they move to try to find it.
So we're not talking about thousands of migrants, we're talking millions which in turn leads to conflicts which leads to wars.

lee1234

gerky wrote: »

For starters its not a future based thing its happening now and it effects can be seen now and in the recent past.

Thats absolutely true. However the rest of what you say is sheer speculation. Weather patterns are extremely unpredicatable and the rise is sea levels is slow enough to be completely prepared for.

You know China is building one new coal burning power station per week. Even the biggest supporters of climate change prevention claim to be carbon neutral. How can you compete with india and china emissions by being carbon neutral you need to be very much carbon negative. its a token gesture and ultimately pointless.

Glowing

lee1234 wrote: »

You know China is building one new coal burning power station per week. Even the biggest supporters of climate change prevention claim to be carbon neutral. How can you compete with india and china emissions by being carbon neutral you need to be very much carbon negative. its a token gesture and ultimately pointless.

That might be true, but the per capita carbon emissions of the Chinese are a fraction of the U.S and Europe. Who are we to tell them to slow their rate of development, just cos we got there first?

We need to allow them to grow economically, to a certain level, and at the same time, reduce the emissions from the west so everyone ultimately has the same per capita carbon output.

gerky

lee1234 wrote: »

Thats absolutely true. However the rest of what you say is sheer speculation. Weather patterns are extremely unpredicatable and the rise is sea levels is slow enough to be completely prepared for.

Which part of my post is speculation? the WMO have already said that extreme weather events are happening more frequently.

And while some wealthy country's can afford to cope with some of the effects of rising seas, how exactly can third world country's cope with it or island nations.
There has already been large areas of land lost or damaged by rising levels and erosion.

And if people don't have enough food or water, a lot of them will move to try and find some that's a simple fact.

bonkey

lee1234 wrote: »

Thats absolutely true. However the rest of what you say is sheer speculation.

I beg to differ. Its not "sheer speculation" at all.

Weather patterns are extremely unpredicatable and the rise is sea levels is slow enough to be completely prepared for.

Yes, weather patters are extermely unpredicatable. This would be true with or without the event of AGM. What AGM predicts, however, are not weather patterns. The effects that the poster was referring to are not being predicted as a result of weather patterns.

As for the rate of sea-level rise....exactly what are you proposing? You seem to suggest that its slow enough that the Bengaldeshi can build a wall along their entire coastline and only need to build it higher really slowly....or that those hundreds of millions of people have a good half-century to figure where to evactuate to, so its not really a problem.

You know China is building one new coal burning power station per week.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that. I've long argued that anyone who wants to argue about cost-effective combatting of carbon levels should be paying the Chinese to go greener. In the short-run, I'd suggest that the greenest thing anyone could do, for example, would be to give the Chinese nuclear tech, build the stations for them, and provide them with the fuel to run them. Euro-for-Euro, you'd be hard-pressed to cut more carbon emissions any other way.

its a token gesture and ultimately pointless.

No, its not. China and India are chasing the developed/western world's way of life. They've built their industry first to sell to us, and then to copy us. They've joined the club, so to speak, and are basically racing their way to join us at the top. The problem is that this is making it abundantly clear just how unsustainable our position at the top really is...and how it relies on there being so few of us there.

If we make a major shift sooner rather than later, however, then we still have a chance to make them follow our lead. If "the top" becomes a cleaner way of living, and the industries they've built up to capitalise on our wealth have a choice of cleaning up or losing their market....they'll follow our lead. If we are storming ahead with a cleaner economy, while they are increasingly paying the cost of pollution (and the Chinese have worked out how much it already costs them per year), then they will move with us rather than be left behind.

Of course....that can only happen if we view it as them trying to catch up to us. If we view it as a race to the bottom...then sure...why bother cleaning up our act? In fact...lets just abandon the whole idea of emissions control, and beat the Chinese at their own game. I'm sure our economy could really benefit if we allowed massive, wide-scale pollution of all types.

What's that you say? Thats not what you're suggesting? Sure it is...only its not what you're suggesting for us...just for the Chinese and the Indians.

lee1234

I stand by what I say, Regarding the rising sea levels the current rate of increase is 3.5mm per year. That about 1 1/4 inches per 10 year period for gods sake. Hardly apocalyptic.

bonkey wrote: »

No, its not. China and India are chasing the developed/western world's way of life. They've built their industry first to sell to us, and then to copy us. They've joined the club, so to speak, and are basically racing their way to join us at the top. The problem is that this is making it abundantly clear just how unsustainable our position at the top really is...and how it relies on there being so few of us there.

If we make a major shift sooner rather than later, however, then we still have a chance to make them follow our lead. If "the top" becomes a cleaner way of living, and the industries they've built up to capitalise on our wealth have a choice of cleaning up or losing their market....they'll follow our lead.

This is fanciful to say the least. Even if the become as clean as we hope to be, Thats still a monstrous increase in emissions that there is no way around. 2.5 billion people combined and growing.

Regarding weather I wont plagiarize Its put better here than I ever could

"Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels." John Tierney NY times.

I dont think we might as well do nothing I just think we could be putting this publicity and outrage into far more deserving arenas and there are many of them out there. Apocalypses have been predicted since biblical times. It may never happen

bonkey

lee1234 wrote: »

This is fanciful to say the least.

I never claimed it would be easy.

The reality is this...our current lifestyle is unsustainable. The more people trying to live our lifestyle, the more unsustainable it is. The Chinese and Indians, primarily, are making this abundantly clear.

This gives us three options:

1) Stick with it till it collapses, messily.
2) War, to prevent them getting there.
3) Try and change things, so that we all head in a new direction, which has better prospects.

You see option 3 as fanciful...thats fine...You go support option 1 or 2, then, or come up with an alternative not on my list.

I find it ironic, though, that on one hand you argue that the problems of global warming, such as sea-rise etc. aren't so bad, and on the other hand are trying to make out that there's something insurmountably problematic about other developing nations. Its as though you can't decide whether global warming is or is not a problem...apparently because that would limit the number of arguments you can make about why we shouldn't be trying to do anything about it.

Regarding weather I wont plagiarize Its put better here than I ever could

No, please...plagiarize away. My position is that arguments based on weather are misdirection...they have little if anything to do with climate. I didn't introduce the argument about weather...I pointed out that it should not be what is under discussion. If you want to reinforce that...feel free....but I'm not sure why, because you are basically striving to prove that I'm right.

I would point out, however, that one tends to see weather being mentioned more by those who have an issue of some sort with AGM (or with actions taken to mitigate its effects).

Apocalypses have been predicted since biblical times. It may never happen

Is that honestly the best you can do? "It may never happen"? Whats next? "Arrah, shur, it'll all be just grand." ???

lee1234

Its not ironic is obvious that i have two arguments.

1. Increasing emissions are inevitable. In the short, medium and long time.

2. The negative impacts of this are exaggerated, over hyped and diversionary.

Your conclusion of 3 options (one of which includes war) shows a childlike simplification of the issues. Also, how do you foresee "it all collapses messily" I presume your talking about society and life as we know it. I haven't come across any serious organisation who is claiming this.

bonkey

lee1234 wrote: »

1. Increasing emissions are inevitable. In the short, medium and long time.

I assume you can show this inevitability?

2. The negative impacts of this are exaggerated, over hyped and diversionary.

I assume, similarly, that you can show this to be the case?

Your conclusion of 3 options (one of which includes war) shows a childlike simplification of the issues.

Why don't we put that to the test. Supply a fourth option.

Also, how do you foresee "it all collapses messily" I presume your talking about society and life as we know it. I haven't come across any serious organisation who is claiming this.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php

Studies prepared for the US DoD...speeches by British Secretary of Defence. If memory serves, someone senior in the UN has also gone on record saying that we would see the firs wars over water within our lifetime if global warming trends continue.

You see long-term continuous increases of emissions. This requires massive increases in availability of resources. This planet doesn't have those resources. The obvious conclusion is that something has to give. Given that our entire global economy is based on the notion of growth, reacing a ceiling in any one of a number of critical areas could prove disastrous.

Lennoxschips

I stand by what I say, Regarding the rising sea levels the current rate of increase is 3.5mm per year. That about 1 1/4 inches per 10 year period for gods sake. Hardly apocalyptic.

The IPCC predicted that 3.5 mm a year in 1990 for the period between 1990-2005, and were pretty much spot on. So they know what they are talking about. The same IPCC predicts much greater rises in the future.

But the people most affected by climate change are living in south-east Asia and, especially, Africa. These are also the people with the lowest emissions. That's the vulgarity.

piraka

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The IPCC predicted that 3.5 mm a year in 1990 for the period between 1990-2005, and were pretty much spot on. So they know what they are talking about. The same IPCC predicts much greater rises in the future.

But the people most affected by climate change are living in south-east Asia and, especially, Africa. These are also the people with the lowest emissions. That's the vulgarity.

Are you referring to natural climate change or anthropogenic climate change?