Thread for discussing climate change

[Gunnar]

Yet another stupid question. Because it is not necessary to reject all modern conveniences to achieve a green energy economy, or significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Going back to the stone age would drastically reduce our quality of life and our health and longevity.

Giving up all technology introduced since the stone age would not simply 'reduce' the quality of life, health and longevity of pretty well all the global population: most of us would simply die of starvation.

Yes, of course! That too!

[Atlanticmike]

Yet another stupid question. Because it is not necessary to reject all modern conveniences to achieve a green energy economy, or significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Going back to the stone age would drastically reduce our quality of life and our health and longevity.

Giving up all technology introduced since the stone age would not simply 'reduce' the quality of life, health and longevity of pretty well all the global population: most of us would simply die of starvation.

Exactly!!!! Now you're starting to understand. Let's get back to survival of the fittest like it's been for most of the existence of humankind. Wouldn't that help mother earth? We could let all the fat, old and diseased people die off. Yeah, maybe we wouldn't be able to interact with people like Doc semen or Schmo anymore because they would probably croak within a couple of weeks, but I'm sure other left wing lunatics will come along and fill the void.

[Chap]

Let's get back to survival of the fittest like it's been for most of the existence of humankind.

That is completely unnecessary.

All we need to do is to start making a determined and systematic use of the technology we already have, developed to its maximum extent. That will give us and our children (like "us", the human race) a safer and ultimately better life - like it is already giving those poor people in Puerto Rico (mentioned in an earlier post) a better life than their antiquated and harmful fossil-fuel consuming electricity generation system can give them. We have the power to do that: we only need to find the political will.

Can someone explain to me what motivates Atlanticmike to post reams of childish babble on this topic? Is it supposed to be funny? In reality it is a sad thing to see a grown man with a family wasting his and everybody else's time like this.

[Some Schmo]

Can someone explain to me what motivates Atlanticmike to post reams of childish babble on this topic?

I can't explain it definitively, but I certainly have my suspicions. I suppose the most reasonable explanation for his childish babble is that he's childish.

Is it supposed to be funny?

I doubt it. If so, talk about your epic fails.

In reality it is a sad thing to see a grown man with a family wasting his and everybody else's time like this.

As you once pointed out to me (and it was great advice), we should ignore him. Maybe that will get him to value his time more. At the very least, it shows we value ours.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Let's get back to survival of the fittest like it's been for most of the existence of humankind.

That is completely unnecessary.

All we need to do is to start making a determined and systematic use of the technology we already have, developed to its maximum extent. That will give us and our children (like "us", the human race) a safer and ultimately better life - like it is already giving those poor people in Puerto Rico (mentioned in an earlier post) a better life than their antiquated and harmful fossil-fuel consuming electricity generation system can give them. We have the power to do that: we only need to find the political will.

Can someone explain to me what motivates Atlanticmike to post reams of childish babble on this topic? Is it supposed to be funny? In reality it is a sad thing to see a grown man with a family wasting his and everybody else's time like this.

He’s literally less advanced in mental and social development than is usual for someone his age. Since he’s literally incapable of mental and social development he’s very foolish and stupid. It is what it is.

- Doc

[Atlanticmike]

Let's get back to survival of the fittest like it's been for most of the existence of humankind.

That is completely unnecessary.

All we need to do is to start making a determined and systematic use of the technology we already have, developed to its maximum extent. That will give us and our children (like "us", the human race) a safer and ultimately better life - like it is already giving those poor people in Puerto Rico (mentioned in an earlier post) a better life than their antiquated and harmful fossil-fuel consuming electricity generation system can give them. We have the power to do that: we only need to find the political will.

Can someone explain to me what motivates Atlanticmike to post reams of childish babble on this topic? Is it supposed to be funny? In reality it is a sad thing to see a grown man with a family wasting his and everybody else's time like this.

I think your cognitive dissonance is kicking in. Am I making you think outside the box? Here's the truth dissonance boy! With a global population estimated to be 9.9 billion by 2050, please explain how we are going to reduce CO2 admissions with 2 billion more people on Earth by then. That's 2 billion more people breathing out CO2. How many more animals will need to be raised to feed those 2 billion people? Are we going to figure out a way to genetically modify animals so they don't exhaust CO2? What about transportation? Are we going to Outlaw all vehicles that use fossil fuels even in poor countries that can't afford electric vehicles? and if we do Outlaw vehicles that use fossil fuels and only rely on electric vehicles, how do we charge them without using fossil fuels? What about planes, do you see us inventing planes that don't use jet fuel in the next 30 Years? Maybe we can invent a catapult that uses big azz rubber bands and we launch gliders off of a catapult. Wouldn't that be cool! A glider that seats 200 people going across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe sounds like fun. What do you suggest? Because my solution could start working tomorrow if we went back to survival of the fittest. How bout this! Let's just eliminate the medical field completely and let people die of natural causes and let's stop extending life, cuz basically, that's what doctors are doing, extending life of people in poor health. If more people died naturally and we didn't extend life by assisting them medically, then life expectancy what go down probably by twenty or so years which means instead of a human breathing out CO2 for 80 years, maybe it would only be 60 years. That's a 25% decrease in CO2 admissions. Also, that's less food needed so that means less pigs and cows belching. Damn! I should've ran for president! Let's go Brandon!

[Chap]

Just to show I do my best to take Atlanticmike seriously when I can:

How many more animals will need to be raised to feed those 2 billion people?

Newsflash: many people all over the world already eat a largely plant-based diet, which is able to feed us all with a much lower carbon footprint from food production than today's industrial stock-raising demands. And with rapidly developing cell culture technology, it looks like we shall no longer need to raise animals to get meat. You can get your hamburger without all those expensive smelly cows.

if we do Outlaw vehicles that use fossil fuels and only rely on electric vehicles, how do we charge them without using fossil fuels?

You use solar power, wind power and other renewable energy sources. And of course if you want a zero-carbon internal combustion engine, you can feed it on hydrogen produced by electrolysis using renewable energy. See my post on the prize-winning electrolysis project.

And so on. As time goes by, electric vehicles (which are already MUCH cheaper than fossil fuel power vehicles to maintain) are getting cheaper, and people will find them a better buy than the old fashioned kind. Remember when they told us that the internal combustion powered motor car would always be a toy for the rich, and could never replace the horse? Yeah, right.

This stuff is not a game. It's our children's chance of a future. Let's be serious- like alpha males with family responsibilities should be. Our kids and their kids have a much greater chance of having their lives changed for the worse by global heating than they their chance of being involved in serious danger during a home invasion. Just think of the number of kids whose families lost their homes in wildfires this year ... According to the NFPA, " In 2018 more than 58,000 [wildfires] burned nearly nine million acres across the U.S. More than 25,000 structures were destroyed, including 18,137 residences and 229 commercial structures. "

Shooting at the flames doesn't stop them. Thinking ahead and thinking seriously might.

[Gunnar]

Suriname

Suriname has just positioned itself as the most carbon-negative country, according to Net Zero Tracker. That’s amazing news! We have Suriname’s vast rainforests to thank for th

Bhutan

The World's First Carbon Negative Country

Bhutan is the world's first carbon negative country. Their unique political structure allows them to prioritise the welfare of its people and environment above economic success. As we approach various climate change tipping points, it is becoming clear that democratic capitalism does not provide an economic model conducive to effective climate action. Hence, other governments need to adapt their political models to something similar to Bhutan’s in order to avoid these tipping points. We are seeing the start of this as Iceland, Scotland and New Zealand have put well-being ahead of GDP in their budgets.

In this video we discuss how Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index (GNH) has facilitated the country becoming strong environmental stewards. However, due to climate change they have been seeking to raise awareness and share this political system with others.

Deep in the Himalayas, on the border between China and India, lies the Kingdom of Bhutan, which has pledged to remain carbon

Deep in the Himalayas, on the border between China and India, lies the Kingdom of Bhutan, which has pledged to remain carbon neutral for all time. In this illuminating talk, Bhutan's Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay shares his country's mission to put happiness before economic growth and set a world standard for environmental preservation.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica is one of the happiest and greenest nations on Earth. The right to a healthy environment is enshrined in its constitution and 99% of the country’s energy already comes from renewable sources.
In fact, Costa Rica aims to be 100% carbon neutral by 2021, decades sooner than most other countries.
In this video, President Carlos Alvarado Quesada explains how investment in Costa Rica’s citizens has been the best way to ensure economic growth. Having abolished its military in 1948, the country has more money to spend on universal, free healthcare and education.
What could your country learn from Costa Rica?

[Cultellus]

Just to show I do my best to take Atlanticmike seriously when I can:

How many more animals will need to be raised to feed those 2 billion people?

Newsflash: many people all over the world already eat a largely plant-based diet, which is able to feed us all with a much lower carbon footprint from food production than today's industrial stock-raising demands. And with rapidly developing cell culture technology, it looks like we shall no longer need to raise animals to get meat. You can get your hamburger without all those expensive smelly cows.

if we do Outlaw vehicles that use fossil fuels and only rely on electric vehicles, how do we charge them without using fossil fuels?

You use solar power, wind power and other renewable energy sources. And of course if you want a zero-carbon internal combustion engine, you can feed it on hydrogen produced by electrolysis using renewable energy. See my post on the prize-winning electrolysis project.

And so on. As time goes by, electric vehicles (which are already MUCH cheaper than fossil fuel power vehicles to maintain) are getting cheaper, and people will find them a better buy than the old fashioned kind. Remember when they told us that the internal combustion powered motor car would always be a toy for the rich, and could never replace the horse? Yeah, right.

This stuff is not a game. It's our children's chance of a future. Let's be serious- like alpha males with family responsibilities should be. Our kids and their kids have a much greater chance of having their lives changed for the worse by global heating than they their chance of being involved in serious danger during a home invasion. Just think of the number of kids whose families lost their homes in wildfires this year ... According to the NFPA, " In 2018 more than 58,000 [wildfires] burned nearly nine million acres across the U.S. More than 25,000 structures were destroyed, including 18,137 residences and 229 commercial structures. "

Shooting at the flames doesn't stop them. Thinking ahead and thinking seriously might.

Those wildfires were started by criminals and electricity, to name a few ignitors. None of them were started by a rising tide.

Anyone know how the lighting fires and controlled burns by indigenous populations prior to the arrival of Nephi and those guys in the boats shaped like a dish compare to modern fires that are stopped with airplanes and D-10s. Obviously fewer structures burned, but what about acres?

[Gunnar]

AM only makes himself look more foolish and ill-informed with every post he makes, especially on this topic.