Carbon Releases in Asia 237
ninthwave writes "After previous discussions on global warning, I thought I would post some interesting research in the affects of forest fires and drought in Asia on carbon output. The Guardian has this article. More detailed information can be found in these articles from
Leicester University
and the
BBC"
It takes Apple enough Time!! (Score:1, Funny)
(hyuk hyuk)
Well, (Score:2, Interesting)
We have government officials (Bush) that think they know everything, that's the dangerous thing
Re:Well, (Score:1)
Re:Well, (Score:2)
Oh my GOD, an open and honest scientist! I wish more scientists had the honesty to say "we don't know yet."
You, ma'am, are a national treasure!
Jon Acheson
Re:Well, (Score:2)
Re:Well, (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Does the Christian Right oppose {insert issue X}?
If Yes, then research has demonstrated that {issue X} is dangerous, not to mention, morally repugnant.
If No, proceed to #2.
2. Does {issue X} imply the need for action which might result in any major corporation losing money?
If Yes, then there has not yet been sufficient research on the subject.
If No, proceed to #3.
3. Does any major corporation stand to make a great deal of money because of {issue X}?
If Yes, the research has indicated that it is vital that government give vast amounts of money to the development of {issue X}.
If No, then ignore and move on to next issue.
After running through the above process, observe public opinion. If it appears that opinion regarding {issue X} is sufficiently negative to possible cost you even a severely compromised election, immediately reverse your opinion, claim that's what you were saying all along, and that the research supports your current stance.
Not another Apple article on /. (Score:1, Funny)
nothing a little nuclear winter can't help (Score:1, Funny)
Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that the greatest threat to the environment is over-population. While many do not agree with this, I believe that this may be the key to living in a sustainable and habitable planet for the next 10,000 ro 100,000,000 years.
What do Slashdotters think?
How presumptious (Score:1, Insightful)
It amazes me how much people like to think they are all big and have to take care of the world all of the time.
Re:How presumptious (Score:2, Insightful)
We can destroy human civilisation!
If another ice age turns up then the planet doesn't care, its had them before and will have them again. However, agriculture as we know it and the industries that require a well fed population (i.e. all of them) will cease to work and civilisation will cease.
Sod the planet, we need to learn how to terraform nature for our own survival.
Re:How presumptious (Score:3, Insightful)
More notably stupid friggin US disposable products. Who the fuck thought up the "swiffer" or whatever its called. Ever heard of a fucking broom? Fuckin middle class idiots have probably killed more people than all of the worlds tyrants put together.
Similarly yuppies with cars, eight TVs, 6 million 40W lights, etc... [I'm guilty of some of these to an extent]. I still laugh at people with SUVs when I think of gas prices, hehehehehe
While we won't affect the existance of Earth *our* survival depends on us taking care of the place.
Tom
The planet will survive , but will we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How presumptious (Score:4, Insightful)
And thats all that matters. Not even the greenest-of-the-green is trying to say that we can destroy the planet. For that matter, what does destroying the planet mean, anyhow? I think if you stopped and tried to apply context to most people who talk about damaging the earth, you'd realize they're really talking about damaging the ecosystem and conditions _we_ need to live.
Everytime there's an environment article, someone has to go point out how we can't destroy the planet. Of course we can't, but we can and have adversely affected the environment _we_ have to live in.
Congratulations for scoring a +5 on a moot point.
Re:How presumptious (Score:2, Insightful)
If the goal was simply to protect the earth, then you would be right.
But consider the effects on humans if we continue to change the world we evolved to live in. Our crops might survive, and we might not starve due to lack of enough food to feed billions. But as the heat expands the oceans like the liquid in a thermometer, our coastal cities become threatened. And whole island nations in the Pacific can be inundated.
The earth will survive. But I rather like it the way it is. I have an economic stake in preserving it.
So far, the change has been gradual enough that we can cope -- indeed we hardly notice. But there are positive feedback elements in global warming that cause the pace to accelerate. At some point, our abilities to cope will be overwhelmed.
Re:How presumptious (Score:2)
To say removing all the rain forests has no impact is contradictory to what we know.
It is a species responsibilty(to itself) that it figures out how to live within the confines of the enviroment that it was created in, or it will become extinct. We are different then most species in that we can figure out how to change are enviroment to suit us. Unfortunatly, what suits us may not be very forward thinking and self defeating, in the long term.
Yes, I know, in the long term we're all dead, however I would like my grandkids to go swimming in the ocean not have to fear biologic contamination. That is goin gon at some very popular beachs right now.
Re:How presumptious (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of environmental laws isn't that we think that we are going to 'destroy' earth it is that we think we will destroy our ecosystem. The ecosystem is actually very frail and many extinctions have been tied to minor changes in the ecosystem. Wether or not the planet is here in 10,000 years is an irrelevent point in terms of how we make environmental decisions.
Efficiency and cleanliness (Score:3, Insightful)
We know burning oil causes health problems, and we know the supply is not going to be sufficient for the next century, so getting going with cleaner and more efficient forms of energy is a good idea.
And of course the nations that get going on this idea soonest will be the ones selling the power to the ones that just muddle along trying to find a few more barrels of heroin *cough* I mean oil...
So while orbital solar, better photovotaic ground based solar, pebble bed fission, etc. are expensive to research and get started with, the folks who get good at it can turn around and sell it to the rest of the world as the oil runs low and folks get tired of breathing gas fumes instead of air...
Re:How presumptious (Score:2)
I for one think that the idea here is as a species are we going to make it through the conditions we have to live in, with enough of society intact to carry forward the advances we have made or do we suffer a massive trama to the species and hve to wait another 100,000 years before we can look towards space travel or disease control, or any advance that is worthy to the species.
We are tied very closely to our ecosystem how far we can be removed from its working I for one would not like to test. But in this lifetime I believe it won't bother me much, I can keep my standard of living and probably do ok. Two three generations down the road who knows, but I would rather try to have some legacy other than problems to hand that generation.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
I believs the greates threat to the environment is over-consumption fueled by greed and selfishness and the refusla by certain developed nations to face the consequences of their own actions. Let's face it, if we go on the way we are, this planet will be wasted long before over-population becomes a problem...
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be a brilliant comment except that the third world has cornered the market on the problems of pollution and overbreeding.
Or do you believe that Nebraska farmers are clearing the rainforest to make Big Macs?
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
So while "Saving the Planet" is a noble cause...maybe people would be more responsive if they realized they are saving themselves, their loved ones, their children and their grandchildren.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
The Earth will continue on its cycle of renewal long after the last human has passed, or before
Everyone always says this, as if its indisputable fact that somehow doesn't need to be proved, but I'm going to call you on it: PROVE IT. Whats your reference?
Which aspect of the physics of planet Earth ensures that the Earth will always just have a "cycle of renewal"? Which aspect of physics will prevent the "balance" from running away in any particular direction? Is there some "magical force" in the Universe that always rebalances the Earth's climate? "Mother nature"? "Gaia"? (Hint: neither of these exist. These are pseudo-religuous inventions of our culture, self-re-assuring inventions to make us feel better. "Mother nature" is a fictional concept).
All the evidence we have suggests that the Earth is just a pile of rock and lava and various assorted chemicals and other forms of energy. There is no "magical intelligent deity" behind it. When the shit hits the fan, there will be no magical giant hand that reaches down and starts the "cycle of renewal" over. If this planet gets screwed, chances are, its screwed FOR GOOD.
Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't. In fact, we have no evidence at all to suggest that it isn't purely by chance that it hasn't happened yet. Show me the scientific paper that proves, for example, that the greenhouse effect CANNOT runaway on Earth, causing our atmosphere to boil away, like Mars. What magical force prevents it from happening? None whatsoever - to our knowledge, our planet is subject to all the same laws of physics that every other planet is. No exception. If the laws of physics allow it, it can happen.
Your statements are pure conjecture. A made-up fallacy to comfort ourselves. We've all heard these arguments repeated so many times we just assume its true, but I've yet to see any proof of it.
And there is no proof of it, because man does NOT understand the Earth's climate well enough yet. We simply do not know if the Earth can "re-balance" itself. Not one human on the planet can claim to 'know' this, mankind does not have this sort of knowledge. Any such claims are tantamount to religion.
Yes, "Saving the Planet" is a noble cause, but if you want to "preserve the environment", you're ultimately doomed to fail - there is unlikely to be room on this planet for both humans AND an "environment" during the next few hundred years. Rather, we have to be practical about it. We have focus on making life on this planet sustainable FOR US over long periods. We must accept the unfortunate that the natural world will have to be almost entirely destroyed to make room for us. BUT, we need to also accept the fact that we will need to do things like replace (for example) the atmosphere-cleaning "machine" that the rainforests are now, with some suitable large-scale replacement technology. We (humans) are ultimately in control of our own destiny. We CAN determine our future, and our ongoing success, but we have work at it, and we have to start accepting responsibility, not just sit around and wait for "mother nature" to come make everything OK.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Save the Earth! (Score:2)
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
People don't like to admit that have only a fraction of data to base the concept of Global warming on, and the effects are even arguable. Our climate has self corrected before, and will again. What about the theories that there will be more vapor in the ozone b/c of warmer temperatures, and less light from the sun will get in, and the tempratures will fall back off?
One could make the argument that stopping global warming would more interrupt the natural cycle.
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
The fires might have been started by humans, but we were not the cause. The drought and resulting dried vegetation led to the fires. If no man had ever set foot in Indonesia, those forest fires would probably have happened anyway.
How can we take responsibilty for that? What could we have done differently?
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Informative)
The carbon release estimates, btw, vary from 0.81 to 2.57 billion (I'm not sure if that's a british billion) tonnes. The low estimate corresponds to 13 percent of annual fossil fuel consumption, the high to 40%.
Re:Responsibility? It's people. (Score:5, Informative)
That season (1997/1998), the fires spread because the forests were unusually dry. This was partly because it was an El Niño year, which caused severe drought.
But human activity was probably a more important factor--in the mid '90s large drainage canals were cut in the peat forests (as part of the Mega Rice Project [insideindonesia.org]), which dried out large areas of peat; and large areas of the forest have been damaged by other activities, especially logging. So the fires spread along the banks of the drainage canals (see this article from the Guardian [qmw.ac.uk]), along logging roads, and in general, areas where humans had damaged the forest--pristine areas were far less affected by the fire, even when they did burn. (See Satellite shows how logging makes forest more flammable [esa.int], which is based on an article in the Nov 22 2001 issue of Nature.)
So, yeah, I'd blame humans for this fire--they started the fires, human use of the forest made the fires both larger and more damaging than they would have been otherwise. El Niño was a huge factor in the spread of the fires, but humans made it way worse.
While the carbon released by the fires is something to worry about, these fires also caused a big loss of biodiversity. Borneo is one of the few places where orangutans are found in the wild, along with other endangered primates. The fires are thought to have killed thousands of orangutans and destroyed much of their habitat. This wouldn't be such a huge problem--forest can grow back, after all--except that Borneo is being heavily deforested, because of (largely illegal) logging, conversion to farmland, and so on. At current rates of deforestation, some think that Borneo's forest might be essentially gone in two decades, driving orangutans, proboscis monkeys, and other species to extinction.
Incidently, since these fires were burning in peat, some of them never really stopped--the peat has just been smoldering for years. It's an El Niño year right now (much weaker than '97/98), and there are fires on Borneo again (or at least there were, as of August [inq7.net]--it's hard to find current information, though you can look at the Global Fire Monitoring Center's webpage for southeast Asia [uni-freiburg.de]). Another chance to take measurements of carbon emissions, I guess.
what can we do ? (Score:2)
I understand the need for trying to find the reason behind the warming, so we can possibly try to slow it down.. but this really won't get us anywhere.. what if we aren't to blame ?..
we know what is bound to happen, part of the world gets really warm, and other parts fall into an iceage.. how are we gonna survive this ?.
Re:what can we do ? (Score:2)
If you want something practical to do, save our national treasures from exploitation and ruin. Find a sane, intelligent group to join (personally I prefer the Natural Resources Defense Council - http://www.nrdc.org/), and get cracking.
The important thing to remember is that protecting the environment has to be wise and practical to do any good. Nobody is going to take measures that are outrageous, and doing harm in other areas, such as jobs, harms your fellow humans (who are also part of the environment and deserving of protection).
For example, if you like wood, but want to be environmentally sound about it, and want to help people, tree farms are the way to go. The trees as they grow provide shelter for animals and protect against erosion. Farming, rather than clear cutting, also provides jobs for the community that do not dry up and blow away.
"What do you think Mothra would do?"
Moll, "Mosura" 1996
Overpopulation is a red herring (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, the most recent estimates [bbc.co.uk] that [nature.com] I would consider objective are that post-2050, population numbers will decline significantly.
We need to stop blaming world population growth for climate change, when in fact the more static populations in the west are responsible for far more man-made pollution per capita. The focus needs to be on the real problems of pollution and climate change.
It depends on your definition, doesn't it? (Score:2)
In short, I will agree with you that no matter which way you look at it, we're the problem.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2)
What do Slashdotters think? This is a problem without solution. China has had legislation regarding population growth for a long time and look at their population as an example. Yes, overpopulation is a problem. However, the symptoms of the problem must be dealt with in a way that does not affect the problem. We will continue to grow rapidly (probably exponentially) as a population. So something else must be done.
I think there is plenty of room (Score:2)
And I think the very greatest resource is human intelligence, so the more folks we have, the better chance we have of finding solutions for our various problems.
In the near term, we should certainly be working on helping the developing world implement cleaner forms of energy, sources of building materials, and better farming methods for the developing world.
The current course seems to be dominated by blind faith in some invisible hand, which seems to me just replacing "God" with the "free market" rather than a sensible attempt to find and implement the best solutions.
I agree with that, we need to figure out how to control the weather so that changes efforts to make a decent, healthy, and productive life to every human being don't enhance the wild swings of the natural cycle.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2)
the total CO2 emissions due to animal respiration,
natural fires and decomposition, and volcanic
emissions.
I agree that it would be useful to reduce the amount
of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but the
way to do it is not by reducing anthropogenic
emissions, which are not the problem. Instead we
should focus on abatement.
It's not an issue of responsibility, as in a tort.
It's an issue of responsibility as in stewardship
and the consequences of inaction.
They have macintoshes in China? (Score:2, Funny)
Carbon relased in Asia? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't they know that Carbon is the most sinister of the basic elements. Superficially less threatening than Plutonium, Carbon can change into diamond, graphite OR coal at will! Nothing can hope to compete with sucha a combination of hardness and combustibility. We are all doomed.
Mankind must vacate Asia at once and put all our resources into developing some Element Hero to combat this element villain so foolhardily released.
Rumor has it that Carbon bonds freely with Hydrogen... perhaps this can be a clue to it's weakness... we can only hope.
Re:Carbon relased in Asia? (Score:1)
I saw in the latest New Scientist that we have developed Element Zero. Will that do?
Re:Carbon relased in Asia? (Score:1)
Re:Carbon relased in Asia? (Score:2)
Element 0 is also known as a tetraneutron (ie. 4 neutrons in a stable arrangement). It's made my firing a Beryllium-14 atom into a carbon target, producing Beryllium-10 and tetraneutron debris. If it's existance is confirmed, it would be the densest element known - similar to neutron star material.
Re:Carbon relased in Asia? (Score:2)
"We believe Iraq may be harboring vast deposits of carbon and carbon-based life-forms. We must act now in order to..."
Re:Carbon relased in Asia? (Score:2)
but if they released too much Carbon that each bond with less that 2 Hydrogen, the product would cause global laughing and thus end the civilization as we know it.
Nitpick (Score:1, Offtopic)
effects of
Pass a law! (Score:3, Funny)
Going out on a limb !?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know I'm going to get flamed for this. But we Human beings are part of the ecosystem. As opposed to watching over it. If we were to pollute the earth and kill ourself off. In a millennia or so the ecosystem would cylcle and bring forth a whole plethora of new species. I'm not saying we should do as we want. But I do think peopel should just admit we are protecting our own posterity and not "mother earth" As george carlin used to say all the earth has to do is shake us off like flees. Balancing our use of resources so that it doesn't affect the environment is more to protect us.
Re:Going out on a limb !?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't care about the distinction. Of course our efforts are designed to save ourselves. Folks who think humans are arrogant because we talk like we can destroy the planet (ie, not just the habitable conditions we require as a species) are simply looking for an 'out'
Of course planet earth will go on just fine without us; who cares what the words we use are, I'd just like to ensure we (or my grandkids, for that matter) don't have to wear gas masks to go to the corner store at some point in the future.
So I agree with you, but it's always confused me why people feel the need to point it out. In the end, a person either believes that we're setting ourselves up for some _serious_ human-endangering problems or not.
Think about it. When people say, "Save my house!" (lets say its on fire), nobody points out that the house doesn't have feelings or that all the molecules in the house will just end up in other places (in the smoke or in the ashes). We recognize that what the person _means_ is "Save the house I have to live in!" Same logic applies to the environmentalist's warcry.
fashionable gas masks (Score:2)
Re:Going out on a limb !?!? (Score:1)
Have the *hands on face* "oh my god!" knee-jerk types really taken over?
Re:Going out on a limb !?!? (Score:2)
As for watching over the ecosystem, it's really more a matter of watching over our own conduct and how it affects the ecosystem. Aren't we really talking about the behavior we try to teach our children, only apply it on a species/planetary scale?
On the other side of the coin, we can do some really bad damage to the Earth's ecosystem. There are short-term damages and long-term damages. Look at it this way, genetic diversity is the resource pool nature uses to recover from a disaster. In this light, our biggest "crime" is the rampant extinctions that are happening as we make room for more people. It'll take longer to fill all of the niches when there's less to start with. But then again, if it's nuclear war, the mutation rate will pick up and help solve that problem.
Re:Going out on a limb !?!? (Score:2)
One is fixing the Earth. The environment, etc.
The other is leaving.
Face it folks, mankind IS a parasite (or, as Agent Smith would say, a virus). We use up resources much faster than they can be replenished naturally. But we have the capacity to leave the planet.
And the thing is, it's a good idea, too. Overpopulation could be helped by lots of people moving off planet, the research and science involved in space programs with the stated objective of eventual human colonization of other planets would probably yield tremendous advances that would have beneficial side-effects for the environment (like the research on the bugs needed to consume waste products on a long voyage, which could probably be used to clean up landfills too).
Save the environment, colonize Mars!
Re:Going out on a limb !?!? (Score:2)
How are we going to destroy 5*10^18Kg of atmosphere? That would be SOME climatic change.
If you just mean change the composition, it is unlikely we will ever manage anything a fraction as dramatic as was done by whatever lifeform it was which first developed photosynthesys. Life survived that.
Remember that to eliminate life we would have to turn all of the earth into an environment worse than, for example, the cooling water of an operating nuclear reactor (since we know life can survive in such conditions).
The Upside to All This... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know: shorter voyages, less diesel burned, less pollution, falling amounts of carbon in the air, colder climate, northwest passage not navigable, longer voyages, more diesel burned, more pollution, rising amounts....
Pat
--
"Turn, turn, turn..."
Re:The Upside to All This... (Score:2)
Re:The Upside to All This... (Score:2)
The other upside is that only the strong will survive....Come on listen to this "The upside to global warming" There is no upside that will balance out recklessly changing the climate. That study was probably personally financed by Dick Cheney, and now our president will use it to show why emissions controls are unconstitutional barriers of industry.
Whats with slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
True, it is quite scientific, but there's no good arguments being made. It's a Trollfuck for envirowackos.
Where is there level-headedness? Where is there impartial studies (as in NO funding to Greenpeace)? Where is the "Whole Story"? I'm sure Global warming has goods and bads.
What's with slashdot... (Score:2)
As opposed to a trollfuck for technowackos? Personally, I saw "Carbon releases in asia" and though -- "You mean OS X hasn't come out in asia yet?"
Re:Whats with slashdot? (Score:2)
"Envirowacko" is a good category to use, along with perennial favorites socialist, communist, racist, PC, religious fundamentalist, liberal media and "What about the children?!"
Forest Fires in Asia? (Score:3, Funny)
We have a serious carbon problem (Score:4, Interesting)
While some of that carbon was emitted as soot and other particles that will eventually come out of the air, that's still a lot of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.
That is in addition to what started the problem, which was using fire to clear land for farming.
It was recently noted that the planting of forests to be carbon sinks is actually detrimental for the first 10 years, as disturbing the soil to do the planting released 10 years worth of carbon dioxide into the air.
Add to this the push to use more coal in the U.S. as part of the national energy policy (coal is nearly pure carbon, and thus releases more greenhouse gas than, say, natural gas, which has hydrogen as a major energy contributor).
It seems like the problems are going to get worse before they get better. We need to put a lot of effort into clean and renewable energy -- make it affordable, instead of relying on the altruism of those who run their cars on biodiesel or solar electricity and install compact fluorescent lights. It's one thing to try to legislate a solution -- but using economics to solve the problems is more likely to work.
graph (Score:2)
Re:Nuclear (Score:2)
> I wonder how many people who are against cutting
> down the trees are also against nuclear power.
Trees are a renewable resource. Cut down all you like, as long as you replace them. Burning them, and fossil fuels, releases pollutants. Even if you don't subscribe to the global warming theory, the particulant pollution is nasty for people with chronic sinusitus and other health problems.
> A conflict of interest I'd say.
No it's not. Nuclear power can be even nastier than a coal plant, especially when run by stupid people. Just ask the nice folks in Tokai how they liked Godzilla's 1999 visit to their plant.
> If we had more research in nuclear power, maybe
> we can make less radioactive waste (more
> efficient) and dump it all in Nevada's desert
> (to lazy to make link).
Making less would be an improvement, but we already have a Godzilla-sized lump of it to dispose of. In 10 years, we will have made enough to fill up Yucca mountain (77,000 ton capacity, larger than even the largest Godzilla at 66,000 tons). Yucca mountain will take 25-38 years to get all the waste there, and will be hot for at least 10,000 years. What are you going to do with waste in ten years? How will we keep Yucca Mountain safe, when worse case scenario has it destroying the life carrying capacity of this planet? How many more Yucca Mountains are you prepared to create?
Godzilla's definition of clean energy forbids both fossil fuels and nuclear (including fussion). It pays to listen to the big guy, as he has a tendency of destroying plants he doesn't like. Search Google for "tokai nuclear criticality" if you don't believe me.
Sonora:"New Godzilla reading. He's moving inward toward Tokai."
Shinoda: "The nuclear plants, I knew it.
Sonora: "Afraid so."
Yuki: "Well, that's just lovely. Another Chernobyl."
"Godzilla 2000" (US version dialog)
Thermal emissions (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone think that maybe, just MAYBE, that thermal emissions from our inefficient machines just might have an effect on the one-degree-over-a-century global change that the EPA has researched?
Perhaps that the effect of 6 billion humans breathing in 70 degree air and breathing it out at 98 degrees JUST MIGHT have a noticeable effect in populated areas?
That cars setting small portions of air on fire for extended periods of time perhaps could increase the air temperature just a little bit?
That factories, air-conditioners, heaters, and power plants, due to their less than 100% efficiency, might be emitting heat as a byproduct?
Could this possibly explain global warming? That we constantly find new ways to harness the suns energy to work for us, and the byproduct is always heat?
Maybe I'm just a wacko, but this seems a lot more reasonable than a minute change in atmospheric gases.
Re:Thermal emissions (Score:1)
Wildfires not the problem. (Score:1, Offtopic)
To be more specific, government researchers have incontrovertible proof that my penchant for bean burritos caused the last two El Ninos...
The Cost of Putting Carbon in the Air (Score:4, Insightful)
A carbon tax would help a lot. If we were taxed for the amount of carbon we put into the air we would have the cash to clean it up, or the incentive to begin conserving and/or using alternatives.
So why no carbon tax?
Re:The Cost of Putting Carbon in the Air (Score:1)
Oh yes, let's have a carbon tax. But since I have no elected representatives in the UN. I don't have to pay it.
There is no way that the US is ever going to allow the UN to institute a national ANYTHING tax. You can do what you want, but I have enough problems with representative taxation, let alone unilateral taxation!
Re:The Cost of Putting Carbon in the Air (Score:2)
A carbon tax would help a lot.
Interesting. One wonders what would happen if this concept was applied to breathing.
It could result in a situation where you had to pay a tax for eating a cheeseburger because it's high in fat, and then pay a tax on the high carbon output when you exercise to burn it off. Could you get an exemption on the carbon tax if you already paid the fat tax to ingest it? It would hardly seem appropriate to tax overweight people for exercising.
I guess the question for us as a society is which is sillier - finding ways to do things without legislating them, or eating cheeseburgers exclusively as a tax shelter?
Re:The Cost of Putting Carbon in the Air (Score:2)
A great way to calculate the cost of the carbon is to use the cost to retrofit buildings so their energy use stops releasing that much carbon, or the cost of installing alternatives that mean that much less carbon is used.
This form of carbon trax tax would be an incentive to reduce the price of alternatives, to conserve, to use less, to retrofit buildings, etc.
So I say TAX ENERGY USE ACCORDING TO EQUIVALENT CARBON RELEASE using this cost formula!
Re:The Cost of Putting Carbon in the Air (Score:2)
Whoa! Looks like oil company propaganda hit home with at least ONE person!
North Am has cleanest air....Asia worst.... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Aeros
just look for yourself. Asia and the Euros take the cake for winter-time pollution because they have no effective way of running clean heating sources... they are the ones who are fscking up the environment, not the US.
If instead of implimenting the Kyoto Protocols they simply spent time cleaning up the air NEAR Kyoto, then they'd actually be doing something..
but, as usual, its news to everyone except for those that look at the facts that the US and Canada does more to ACTUALLY protect the environment than a whole room full of UN Anti-Americanists TALK about protecting it.
Just go look for yourself - and tell me where the dirty air is and is not and at what times of the year....
Re:North Am has cleanest air....Asia worst.... (Score:2)
Do not forget also, that it is not just Aerosols that the Kyoto is set to fix, indeed they have been banned in most Western countries, but carbon emissions from OTHER sources. USA and, suprisngly Canada are the worst in the world for energy usage (Per Person!)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canenv2.html
"Canada's 1999 per capita energy consumption, 410.7 million Btu per person, was the highest in North America, above the U.S. level of 355.9 million Btu per person. Relative to other OECD countries, Canada's per capita energy consumption is considerably higher than the United Kingdom (167.8 million Btu per person), France (173.6), Japan (171.6), Germany (170.4), and Italy (139.7)."
Re:North Am has cleanest air....Asia worst.... (Score:4, Insightful)
how is this statistic assume that this is a "bad" thing?
Would it be better for everyone in the US to stop using all forms of power? If we went to sub-Ethiopian levels of power usage.. who, then would make drugs for AIDS patients, invent the internet, build spaceships to discover the wonders of space, or to send inordinate amounts of food to shit-hole piss poor countries like Ethiopia?
You never got a job from a poor person that could help you feed and clothe yourself.. and a person that shits in a hole, freezes in the winter, and tills the land with his own children didn't do much to help anyone else.
I am damn PROUD that we and the Canunks use the most enegery.. we do the most good for the world too.
If you don't believe it - then give back your polio shot, and start speaking German... unless you're a Jew.. then you can just go fuck yourself.
Re:North Am has cleanest air....Asia worst.... (Score:2)
There's no way that you even equate these things to energy consumption, unless you're particularly stupid. Being proud of home much energy you consume is pretty sad and pathetic, don't you think? Nobody is asking Americans to stop using energy, they're just asking them to use it wisely and responsibly. And guess which country has the highest standard of living in the world? It's not the USA. It's not Canada. It's Norway.
Re:North Am has cleanest air....Asia worst.... (Score:2)
Does that include all those "freedom fighting incursions" that the US is so fond of? I think alot of the world would rather get on with it than to take the help the US offers. And this love afair Americans have that makes them think they single handedly won WW2 is just laughable.
Also your premis that your energy use directly relates to "good for the world" is just so...so....American....
Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!" (Score:3, Insightful)
And that guy that says hey, everyone, we may not know for sure but we should all start talking about the best way to deal with the whole big complex issue of energy and power consumption and pollution just in case, that kills me, it's like the twentyfirst century version of "can't we all just get along."
And when it's all over, opinions and attitudes will be changed! We will all be closer to the Truth because of the measured and well-reasoned discussion and debate! Conservatives and Liberals will share a cyber-hug, remarking that "we may have our little differences, but at heart we all want the very best for the Earth and all our brothers and sisters we share it with."
And the world will be a little bit better for it.
'Cause this is Slashdot, damnit!
Re:Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I did learn a couple of things from this story's discussion. That's why I come to Slashdot. Why do you?
Re:Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!" (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!" (Score:2)
carbon schmarbon.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:carbon schmarbon.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ronald Reagan was right... (Score:4, Funny)
Now, about ketchup being a vegetable...
Link to "All Things Considered" story about this (Score:2, Informative)
Regards, Montag
Random thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
It's arrogant to think that we can destroy the planet. We can make it inhospitable to humans (destruction of arable farmland, poisoning of waters). We can make it more expensive (increased cooling costs, increased food costs, deleterious effects on health leading to increased medical costs, etc.). But if all humans die out then other species will take our place. Maybe it'll be armadillos. Maybe cockroaches.
There's a need to balance environmental responsibility with progress and the economy and the current lifestyles. Lots of people talk about being environmentally conscious but don't want to give up their six computers, SUVs, air conditioning, etc.. Think globally, act locally... Many debates seem entirely polarized around the two camps with few people taking the middle ground. The arguments often go along the lines that choosing the middle ground is akin to joining one of the camps or that the other camp is so extremist that it forces extremism in this camp. Blah blah blah.
Coal seam fires (Score:5, Interesting)
Possible use (Score:2)
An inanimate carbon rod saved the space shuttle you know.
Ice age vs Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the CO2 will save us from the next one! Maybe we're just delaying it. Who knows how much environmental change is natural vs. mankind? I'm not sure we have enough of an observational timeline to say that we have caused any of it.
My point is that the global climate is dynamic. Maybe we should stop flipping out about every tiny variation. It's obvious that pretty extreme fluctuations occur normally!
Here [ornl.gov] is a timeline of past ice ages.
Re:Ice age vs Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
But we can sure as hell do better with out environment anyway. There is no excuse for air-pollution, water-polution, encroaching upon wildlife, tearing down forests willy-nilly, heedlesly diverting natural waterways for irrigation, recklessly wasting our money on inefficient and limited energy supplies and all that other fucking crazy shit that goes on in the world today. Our lives, our health, our economy, our world and every other fucking thing we can think of will be a hell of a lot better off if we start working with mother nature, instead of against her. That means preserving the natural cycles that were already there, replanting what we take from the earth, not moving habitats around the world just because we feel like it, investing in renewable, efficient and cost-effective energy sources, and doing whatever it takes to make sure the world we live in continues to be able to sustain our quickly growing global population.
Re:Ice age vs Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ice age vs Global Warming (Score:2)
Morals have nothing to do with survivability. I will kill in order to survive and I will make damn sure that no one dumps shit in my streams so that I can survive and I'll kick major butt on anyone who decides that lining their pocketbooks from the sale of toxic waste is more important that my health.
I guess we do have different morals. Take your relativist attitudes and shove them up your ass. While your at it, shove some nuclear waste up there as well to clean out all your shit. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the monetary compensation.
Conservatives love to talk about how global warming is just a natural process and we should let mother nature run its course, but the moment someone tells them to leave the trees alone, keep their waste out of the air and water, and let the wolves roam free, i.e. let mother nature run its course, they go whining on about the economy and jobs. Two-faced, I'd call that.
The reverse is also true (Score:4, Informative)
Reducing Greenhouse CO2 Through Shifting Staples Production To Woody Plants [badgersett.com]
Woody Agriculture: Increased Carbon Fixation and Co-Production Of Food and Fuel [badgersett.com]
I knew it was terrorists not automobiles... (Score:2)
Now my fears were addressed. No longer should I subscribe to the lefty rhetoric that claims that the arrogant use of the SUV has anything to do with "global warming" and its ill [slashdot.org] (but useful [bayarea.com]) effects.
First Dinosaur farts then this!! Yet another reason for getting rid of nature. It just screws with everything!
Damn asian spicy foods (Score:2)
Ahh. Now, are the world leaders REALLY this dumb? (Score:2)
The world leaders, diplomats and power brokers, (many of whom are really, really smart; Rhodes Scholars and crazy high IQ's, as many of them are, believe it or not. I know a few, and I tell you, they breed that way. You don't get to be fucking powerful by being a dolt. Unless you happen to be a Bush on a String, but that's a whole different ball of wax), anyway. . , what if they actually listened to their scientific advisors? 'Cuz they're certainly not eating from the same trough or reading from the same books that the rest of us schmucks are. What if they knew, for real, in advance that a big pile of shit was going to hit the fan? --And by 'shit' I mean ecological collapse, country-killer comets, ice age returns, possible magnetic pole-flipping, and a train load of other dark and nasty things I won't even touch on. What if. . ?
See, there's been this mega-cheesey, bad sci-fi idea floating around for the last fifty years or so called, "Alternative 3". --The idea being that all the rich and wealthy build a big pretty space ship and leave the planet while the rest of us die in filth and misery. Pulp fiction fairy tale nonsense, of course. But fairy tales have their roots you see. .
I've gotta ask. . . "Why are there so many damned tunnels dug under the U.S.?" Underground military bases which go deep, deep, interconnecting throughout much of the continent. --I'm serious. Look this stuff up if you don't think it's true. If you have a friend or two in the military who work on one of the big bases, well they might just be able to nod at you and say, "Yeah, half the damned military is underground, forcryingoutloud!" --The Denver Airport, like a big pimple, for some reason is one of the places where it hits the surface. Big scandal. Tunnels galore. Look this shit up. LOTS of digging. What's up with all of that? Why? Fear of nuclear strikes? Nuh-uh. They've been digging this shit since the the 30's. There's a damned base 3 hours north of where I live, and everybody in the whole town knows the army is lying when they tell us the base closed down in the nineties. Not with that many soldiers around, it didn't! --Not with the transport trailers vanishing into hillside tunnel mouths where there ain't no other side to come out of!
Shadow governments? Everybody knows about this. Some people even know about Fema; (Which they even tried to make sound pretty on 'The West Wing', (more sleepy-time propaganda about how nice things aren't. All is fine here in the fairy tale. Go back to sleep while we bleed and ass-rape you.), --Oh, everybody knows, and it scares the shit out of them; it touches a nerve. When Jay Leno cracked his Shadow Government joke one evening back when the facts were surfacing into indisputable pop culture last year, the audience sure didn't laugh. No way. --They made an awkward, unhappy and nervous sound. None of them saying it aloud, but all thinking in that flash moment, "Oh, Yuck! I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't like it! Jay! You're supposed to calm us and lie to us! Let us sleep in the belief that everything is fine. Please stop it with the Shadow Government! How it bothers me!"
Not that those who know a few things are any less confused. There's a mind game a-raging; a massive misdirection game. "Can you find the Boeing?" "Who REALLY bombed the WTC?" "WHY is the economy going to tank right when it would really help plunge us into war?" And "Why, oh why are there so many storms and earthquakes and volcanos?"
Douglas Adams called it the "Interconnectedness of All Things", (and if he didn't, then it's only because he used better wording than I can summon or recall at the moment.)
And what's with this made up war? It came out of nowhere! Could it be any more contrived? I've never seen any global event which has been more desperately engineered than this one! There's a rush-darn schedule to keep, by gosh! (Of COURSE the Kyoto agreement got ditched and all those coal reacters got fired up back in 2000. What does it matter when the signs are screaming. Just a quick cash grab before the curtains.)
It doesn't matter how far up one's head is stuffed, or how much Leno minces out his trademarked litte high-pitch voice. Even the real dopes are beginning to get a clue. The freekin' clocks make you hold your breath these days! The days aren't just a little shorter. . . Fact is, for the last few years time has been more and more quickly scurrying willie-nillie that even the damned muggles are beginning to get wise. "I say, Honey, doesn't it seem like we just got out of bed a very short time ago?" "Why, yes, dearie! But let's discuss such things. It flusters by blusters!" "Oh, terribly sorry, Honey!" "Quite okay; just don't do it again!"
--We've got Christians who don't want to get, "Left Behind", we've got Alien huggers who dearly want to believe that they're going to get lifted by their UFO friends when the time is right, (nevermind the fact that those alien buggers sure seem to like their bovine lips and cow plasma; hey, everybody's got a fetish or two, right? Me, I waste my time spouting off on Slashdot, so I'd be a right hypocrite to blame somebody for a cow-lip and blood fetish.). And shit! We've got freekin' Cruise and Travolta smug in whatever bullshit their twisted little cult is pumping them full of. (Travolta was in their damned movie!, for crying out loud!) No matter how far under your rock you happen to be jammed, it's getting harder to shut out the fact that some weird shit is up! And those who are well tuned in are making travel plans and enjoying their last few milk-shakes but good!
So waddaysupposedtado? Huh?
Well, I tell people to keep their heads together and try not spill their coffee when the shit begins to fly. That and sell your damned stocks while the selling is good! The PPT (Plung Protection Team) is going to let the cash run dry and the gold stocks soar when the time is exactly right. . !
The U.S. was born under the sign of Cancer, and in about seven months time, Saturn returns with a vengeance for two and a half years. Whoopie. Hard times ahead, by gum! --Course, that's just some sort of astrology shit, and so long as one is safe under a cool and cozy rock, one can rationalize all day long, watch 'Friends' and eat their Taco Bell Smurf Food while sucking down some Sodium Benzoate enriched beverage like a good little consumer.
-Fantastic Lad
Global Cooling (Score:2, Informative)
www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm [globalclimate.org]
(Article from Newsweek April 28, 1975)
In the early seventies, the world's climate scientists were paranoid about global cooling. Has the system really changed that much in 30 years due solely to human intervention? I would think the climate would have more inertia than that; are we just reading signals in the noise?
A quote from the article:
Headline (Score:2)
Indonesia Wildfires Release Carbon
But they're talking about fires that occurred in 1997. The news is still up-to-date, since it's recent analysis that's being reported on, but the headline is just a little ludicrous. It's like if they discovered that the Titanic had hit a rock rather than an iceberg, and reported "Titanic Hits Rock, Sinks!"
Easy on China (Score:2)
All that is to produce clean, renewable energy and to prevent the incredible loss of life those rivers cause when they flood.