How to Reverse Climate Change

You can do your part to counteract global warming by turning on your car air conditioner but then leaving all the windows open as you drive around town. That way you'll be cooling down the entire environment.

Also, dye your hair white so when you walk around in the sun, you'll deflect the sun's radiant energy back into space. This doesn't really solve anything, it just shifts the Earth's warming over to the Moon. But why not? What's the Moon ever done for you?

 

Are you thinking land use has nothing to do with climate change? Do you think man can continue the browning of the planet, but just reduce fossil fuel use, and the climate will change back? Certainly if we can restore healthy ecosystems to half of the browning earth that would be a good thing. It certainly is a less crazy idea to restore heards, even if they are cattle, to the grasslands instead burning the dead plant matter, instead of chopping down forests to grow corn and cane thinking burning this in our cars will solve some imagined problem.

 

Earth has a limited number of resources while the human population seems to be unlimited.

Whats' wrong with this picture?

DBCassidy

 

Earth day is April 22. Be sure to supports them and participate. They have a good carbon foot calculator note web site.

Earth Day Network | Earth Day 2013

 

While I certainly agree with your statement, it poses three questions that need answers:
1. What is the maximum sustainable population of the earth under our current technological level?
2. How do we get there in a way that is 'fair' to all concerned?
3. Should we?

 

Sounds like a Rand Study

RAND Corporation Provides Objective Research Services and Public Policy Analysis

 

Why would technology stagnate. Malthus would have said 1 Billion is not sustainable. Should we kill 6 billion people and roll technology back?

Life is not fair, but it seems most with malthusian ideas think in two classes of citizens, those that deserve to use resources and those that don't. We saw these ideas during the green revolution, when people thought india wasn't worth feeding.

I don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle. We can't forget haber-bosche or the green revolution. We can do better land use, more efficient buildings, power plants and cars, and switching to cleaner sources.

This conflicts directly with the old ugly green ideas of population control. I like your questions, just not the thoughts that others have. Some couch some really ugly ideas in the guise of being environmental. Take the Savoy piece. Say the world instead of cutting population cut meat consumption, and much of the meat was raised by grazing like texas before fenses instead of grain fed factory farms? Meat prices would likely go up, and it would be tougher, but we could feed many more people, and reclaim land.

 

Not driving any vehicles at all would be a great start. Also subsidize birth control for the entire world; that would also be a good start.

 

Let's see the data / studies comparing increased human population with increased global warming. Has any studies even been done?

If not, why not? Is this not, perhaps the largest, single contribution to global warming.

Of course, my above statement is solely based upon the fact that humans alone are largest contributing factor to global warming. Barring any other factors that maybe a contributor (volcanos, wild fires, etc)

DBCassidy

 

The fact that humans emit the amount of CO2 we do is evidence enough for me about the harm we've done. However, it is an appropriate argument to say, well, how much damage? The weather is so complex, but of course, we are talking about climate, which is different.

 

Human's don't emit (much) CO2, human technology and machines emit CO2!

Oh, I forgot, that congressman who suggested thateople on bicycles contributed more to CO2 emissions than those who drove because they breathed harder!

Icarus

Edit, sorry, it wasn't congressman, but a state of Washington legislator

Washington State Lawmaker: Cyclists Cause Pollution By Exhaling | Streetsblog.net

 

Could it be said, we have exceeded the max numbersfor this planet? In addition to increased global warming, look at the 3/4 of the planets' surface: the oceans, and the shrinking fishing stocks.
If the human populace was in balance with nature, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

DBCassidy

 

Really, how about during the entire life span of a human, the decades of energy conversion process that 1 person goes thru during their life. Driving, heating, consuming, computer usage, etc. does indeed contribute to heavy CO2 emissions.

You may not agree with this, that is your choice. Heck, at this very moment, we are all increasing CO2 emissions with this very thread discussions. Think of the electrical power used to run the server farm(s) to support PC.

DBCassidy

 

For those who missed it, this was covered in another thread:

“It was over the top and I admit is not one which should enter into the conversation regarding bicycles,” wrote Orcutt. “Although I have always recognized that bicycling emits less carbon than cars, I see I did a poor job of indicating that within my e-mail. My point was that by not driving a car, a cyclist was not necessarily having a zero-carbon footprint. In looking back, it was not a point worthy of even mentioning so, again, I apologize – both for bringing it up and for the wording of the e-mail.”

 

Terrible idea... we need to teach and promote abstinence from promiscuous sexual behavior, starting in our own country.

 

I think that the posted was referring to breathing. However, it is an illogical argument, and one that I have heard before. All animals undergo respiration; humans themselves are not the problem. It is our unsustainable consumption pattern that is the problem.

 

Db,

I think you missed the dripping sarcasm in my post!

Like I said, human breathing is not the big human cause of CO2 emissions, but rather the emissions of our machines!


Icarus

 

You are fighting nature, it is unlikely you will win - teanagers' raging hormones.

DBCasssidy

 

So we get rid of the machines and that will solve CO2 emissions?

DBCassidy