850 Billion Tons of Carbon Could Be Released

[Guest]

It would be a better place for no one. We depend on each other as a species to provide for the needs of each other. Those millions of strangers you will have no problem dying also support our future children.

Maybe if they live in an amish farm hidden from civilzation it could totally work. If not then the future kids are screwed.

They are screwed anyway if nothing changes. Better to change things now and offer them some hope for a viable future.

Still, i seriously believe that we will not make it into that better future with the projected levels of population growth and everyone aspiring to my modest lifestyle.

No easy answers for us humans.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

The green party are the political arm of Greenpeace and other radically loony organizations that have no sense of how the world actually works.

As far as i am aware, no governments "profit from pollution"

these types broke into a mink farm and released them into the wild, the mink killed all the wild birdlife for miles around. then they rounded up urban foxes in the cities and released lorry loads of them into the country, a single fox will kill all hens it encounters, a lot of the local egg producers were wiped out, these weren't corporate battery farms, these were mr and mrs free range operations selling roadside eggs to supplement their meager incomes, dozens of foxes ended up being shot. Also poisoned the fox hunt dogs which also kills local employment. idiots don't know what they are doing.

[stevewinn]

Yet again the scare tactics used in the climate debate are evident, 850 Billion Tons of Carbon Could Be Released, oh no, were doomed. what a load of crap. - i mean have people forgot everything they were taught in school - even the basics of free thinking? 4.5Billion years of evolution - and the world is ending with us. no bloody chance. The pages of history show us a warmer earth results in a greater biodiversity and when the earth cools the biodiversity also decreases. i've said it before look at the present day - life is most abundant in the warmer parts of the world such as the tropics compared to the poles.

Take into account the time scale predicted by soothsayers for our doomsday. a century,100 years. the time frame is no coincidence, this time frame is also the future new life expectancy of humans born in the western world today. us here today will be long gone, dead. so the play on fear is to save the children of tomorrow. - if i was to say the doomsday scenario of climate change was one thousand years from now, the whole argument has changed and too the attitudes. think about it. how far are we from the end........................

Edited November 2, 2012 by stevewinn

[Little Fish]

any climate threat will come from a global ice age.

some perspective:

[Guest]

Steve,

No one is claiming that the world is ending because of us. The world will continue, but the world we need to survive may not. To the world this matters not one tiny jot since it has been through 6 mass extinctions in its long history. Unfortunately we are not the world and we will certainly regret having destroyed the equilibrium of a system on which have come to depend on having a very narrow set of environmental variables. For most that going to be terminal - for some they will probably survive into a very different future.

I don't know what hole you pulled the time scale of 100yrs, the long decline will really kick-in in about 30yrs and will continue for at least 300yrs thereafter. It will certainly be in my life time and yours. No distant horizon here - its almost now.

Hey, that may not concern you but it does me.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 2, 2012 by Guest

[Kazoo]

They are screwed anyway if nothing changes. Better to change things now and offer them some hope for a viable future.

Still, i seriously believe that we will not make it into that better future with the projected levels of population growth and everyone aspiring to my modest lifestyle.

No easy answers for us humans.

Br Cornelius

They thought that along time ago too. But then boom. Science created more efficient ways to grow crops. Humanity saved.

With all the amazing technology we have today. I'm sure we'll be fine as long as we stop people from purposely withholding for capitalist purposes.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Kazoo

[pallidin]

I assume this gaseous release is a slow release(decades/centuries/many centuries)

But I am no expert in that field.

As was suggested earlier in this thread, this has happened before, with no truly catastrophic consequences.

However, that was before we started dumping serious pollutants into the very air we breath.

I am going to hold from a firm opinion at this time...

[Professor Buzzkill]

They thought that along time ago too. But then boom. Science created more efficient ways to grow crops. Humanity saved.

With all the amazing technology we have today. I'm sure we'll be fine as long as we stop people from purposely withholding for capitalist purposes.

And as long as we don't destroy the capitalist system that encourages technological advancements in the name of climate change

[Little Fish]

all this malthusian indoctrination about population.

human population is largely in decline.

the west and other "first world" countries, china, russia are all in population decline, developing nations such as india are stabilising.

the only place where population is increasing is in africa and black skinned countries.

if you want to reduce the population, then you should be lobbying for reducing the black population.

edit - before anyone gets upset with that, the way to reduce population growth in african countries is by letting them develop independently, economically and educationally to the same standards of the conuntries that have a population decline. population growth is directly linked to those things, but it ain't going to happen.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

They thought that along time ago too. But then boom. Science created more efficient ways to grow crops. Humanity saved.

With all the amazing technology we have today. I'm sure we'll be fine as long as we stop people from purposely withholding for capitalist purposes.

Food production has peaked and is in decline. Technology in the agricultural sector borrows from the future since in depletes soil carbon and micro nutrients as well as water. We loose about a million acres of productive agricultural land a year. This is replaced by wilderness and forest clearance. All this is against a projected need to increase production by 50% to meet future population growth.

Optimism in these circumstances is pure wishful thinking. Technology has always come with a downside, the main proposal at the moment is to increase production through GM crops, but no GM crop has increased productivity - and they make us more vulnerable to catastrophic crop failures since they reduce the genetic diversity of the crops we rely on.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Population is still growing even in most developed countries, it will continue to grow out to at least 2050 regardless of reproduction rate's dropping below replacement rates. We have discussed these demographic issues before Little Fish.

Almost all of the environmental damage occurred in the last 40yrs. so a continuation of population growth out to 2050 will do as much damage as we have currently caused. What will make it worse is the standard of living and rates of resource consumption are growing across the world - and this is the main driver of environmental degradation.

Education will help in the medium term - but the medium term is already to late for saving most of the wilderness we rely on to survive.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Population is still growing even in most developed countries, it will continue to grow out to at least 2050 regardless of reproduction rate's dropping below replacement rates. We have discussed these demographic issues before Little Fish.

we have discussed them before, but you have not acknowledged that world population growth is overwhelmingly in africa, just look at the charts and compare Europe, north america with africa. if you are going to talk about numbers then the numbers matter.

http://www.guardian....tion-country-un

the blue line is africa - 1 billion in 2010 - 3.5 billion in 2100 (growth of 2.5 billion)

the top line is world population - 7 billion in 2010, 10 billion in 2100 (growth of 3 billion)

so 83% of the population growth up to 2100 is going to be in africa, the other half billion is in asia (4 billion in 2010, 4.5 billion in 2100) after which it will too decline. "still growing even in most developed countries" is misleading.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

we have discussed them before, but you have not acknowledged that world population growth is overwhelmingly in africa, just look at the charts and compare Europe, north america with africa. if you are going to talk about numbers then the numbers matter.

http://www.guardian....tion-country-un

the blue line is africa - 1 billion in 2010 - 3.5 billion in 2100 (growth of 2.5 billion)

the top line is world population - 7 billion in 2010, 10 billion in 2100 (growth of 3 billion)

so 83% of the population growth up to 2100 is going to be in africa, the other half billion is in asia (4 billion in 2010, 4.5 billion in 2100) after which it will too decline. "still growing even in most developed countries" is misleading.

Unless you let them starve when they exceed their ability to feed themselves - it matters little where the population growth is. However standards of living are rising in many parts of Africa - and as I pointed out it is this factor which makes the population time bomb so dangerous. Over two billion people in India and China are experiencing a dramatic expansion in their standard of living - with consequent pressures on resources.

Picking an arbitrary end date of 2100 masks the obvious fact that most of the growth occurs up to 2040 - and that is entirely enough time to do all the damage I described. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you the vast majority of the environmental damage occurred in the last 40yrs ago when population rose from about 2billion to 7billion. This is the very essence of population dynamics - the last tiny element of exponential population expansion does almost all the damage and leads directly to resource crunches which crash the population. It is far more true to say that populations are growing in the developed world than to say that they are in decline.

Just look at how long it has taken China's vigorous population control measures to actually stabilize its population. Its population will only begin to decline by 2027 - a time delay of many decades from implementation to result.This because population dynamics is defined by more than absolute replacement rates.

I am denying nothing you have said here - simply pointing out that it represents a very partial interpretation of what it actually means.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 3, 2012 by Guest