Atmospheric CO2 Hits High Milestone

Dear Kim, please attack South Korea. Make sure you use your sorry ass nukes. Make sure you make the Chinese get very upset and try to somehow make the Russians go along with you. We need a full thermonuclear war quickly to get rid of ourselves and save the planet. We suck too much. Save us, Kim.

Padraic wrote: The Doctor wrote: While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.  How many humans was it meant to support?  I'm not sure what that means, anyway - it sounds like the earth was designed and somehow we've exceeded specifications. If your number is quite a bit smaller, and you think that is truly the solution, how do you solve this problem without resorting to rather drastic measures?

It was meant to support me and 20 of my closest friends, all of which are coincidentally, female and hot. 

As I said it is not an easy problem to deal with.  The best way is to not only support contraception, but advocate it (which will take the cooperation of lots of religious organizations), distribute it freely (not just condoms, but the pill) and also fully support abortion rights.  Other than that there isn't much we can do that isn't drastic, except wait for nature to take her course. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I find it slightly curious that limiting the human population is the first measure you talk about.

From a certain point of view, it can be a good idea, but only on a long term, at least one generation. And waiting 20 or 30 years for limiting the number of drivers, gas users, factory operators... and, therefore, the amount of CO² produced... Well, good luck!
If we're looking for a "quick" solution (if there's a quick solution... ), the first drastic measure one could think about would be to limit the number of cars (or bikes, or buses, etc...), the use of coal and oil as sources of energy, etc...
And I'm not sure it could be done in a dozen years.

The Doctor wrote: Padraic wrote: The Doctor wrote: While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.  How many humans was it meant to support?  I'm not sure what that means, anyway - it sounds like the earth was designed and somehow we've exceeded specifications. If your number is quite a bit smaller, and you think that is truly the solution, how do you solve this problem without resorting to rather drastic measures? It was meant to support me and 20 of my closest friends, all of which are coincidentally, female and hot.  As I said it is not an easy problem to deal with.  The best way is to not only support contraception, but advocate it (which will take the cooperation of lots of religious organizations), distribute it freely (not just condoms, but the pill) and also fully support abortion rights.  Other than that there isn't much we can do that isn't drastic, except wait for nature to take her course.

Padraic wrote: Timely! Why are birthrates falling all over the world?  Blame television.

"Blame television"? Why not... but it sounds a bit harsh.

And if people start using trains rather than individual cars, leading to the (probable) disappearance of trafic jams and/or fogs, could we blame video games like Train Simulator 2013?

Dean wrote: Or we could plant trees.

Thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy or something for thinking this.

Gamemako wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Or we could plant trees. Thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy or something for thinking this. Well... sort-of. You certainly can't stop global warming that way, unfortunately.

Before man over-ran the planet much of Europe was forest, as was North America and China, temperatures were not 5.5°C warmer so there is no certainty in the study, their model is perhaps a little too simplistic. Trees are not the only plants that sequesters carbon, they all do - the trick is not to release it out again..

You don't hear too much about this, but UN Agenda 21 which was kicked off in 1992, is a programme of structured sustainable development, implemented locally at the national level.

UN Agenda 21 - Wiki

It is however non binding, and rather vague overall, unless the plan is to enforce this initiative at some point. I don't know how they would do that in the face of mass opposition.



Edited by Blacksword - May 15 2013 at 09:52

 

Ca² + 2HCO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + CO2

CPicard wrote: stonebeard wrote: A couple million people will have to die, probably in the US, for our lawmakers to finally think the human toll is outweighing the hit to industry that CO2 limits will incur. Then it will be a bit too late, of course. Huh, couldn't we rather, like, promote contraception, instead of mass murder (if I understood the idea of this post)? Or, even better, to shut down factories, no matter how high the rate of unemployment would rise?

Yup, you misunderstood his post.

Edited by Dean - May 15 2013 at 11:31