Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
All thoughts welcome, solutions not required!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The bars to this are: Well, people like Geezer just don't like the government doing ANYTHING.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
#1 could be doable, but probably not at the pace and rate of decrease that KIKI has proposed. Obama's plan is a good start.

You seem to think I'm against reducing carbon emissions in the U.S., but I'm not, and I'll tell you why.

Fossil fuel is a finite resource, and it's getting used up fast. A move to remove greenhouse gasses, even if if will not reduce global carbon one bit (And I've stated why I don't think it will) will have the benefit of reducing energy consumption and bringing online more renewable energy sources. Once we get over the unreasonable fear of nuclear energy and get some well-designed and safe plants up and running(Yeah. I know. Just take it as read for the sake of argument.), in concert with renewables, hydropower, and reductions in consumption, we'll be in a better position when the coal, oil, and natural gas run out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're sticking to your libertarianism, even though you've already admitted that not one country on Earth has ever used it as a foundation of government, you admit it's unlikely ever to happen, you've got zero plan to try to convince people or push your agenda...

... but you just still like talking about it?


Huh. So I have to ask at this point...

Why are you busting Kiki and Signy's chops for bringing up climate change?

Are you the only one who's allowed to daydream about an ideal world, or suggest that maybe we should be pushing towards such a thing?

I mean, how do you expect libertarian beliefs to win out if China, India, the EU, and others aren't on board?

Apparently you choose your unwinnable battles based purely on a whim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geezer seems to have fallen into the age-old trap of looking for someone to come up with The One Magic Solution. He's looking for someone to come up with a single step that solves 100% of the problem. That's like thinking that you can begin your thousand-mile journey be starting at your destination.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
A post he has yet to respond to except with more dishonest whining about RATES of increase. The problem with rates is, if you start at very, very, very low levels, you could double or triple your output, and still be at very very very low levels. But if you start at high levels you could reduce your output by a fractional rate and reduce a very large absolute amount.

---

Quote:

---

I read his posts, and what I read was - why should the US do ANYthing??? It's not FAIR b/c EVERYONE ELSE doesn't HAVE TO!!!!!

---

Quote:

---

A whine he keeps whining despite the numbers that show his assumptions to be untrue. The US COULD solve the problem of global warming - albeit slowly - on its own, even if China and India increase their output, even at increasing rates.

---

Quote:

---

My instinct is all "Wetlands, yes! I love those!" or "I had no idea that EU/US reductions could buffer so much of India/China's emissions! How awesome!" It's supremely motivating. And then I get all bummed out why everyone else isn't all "Fantastic! What can I do to make it so?" and instead there's name-calling. Really, just ignore me. I have a Pollyanna moment every once in a while.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Forest fire prevention and biochar. OUr old forests used to be about 60-100 trees per acre: pretty light on fuel. Fire would race through, but stay mostly on the ground and do little damage because the understory was usually pretty light- a few shrubs and some grasses, it would flare up but burn out quickly.

Our new forests (since the advent of effective fire prevention= suppression circa 1940) are chock-o-block full of small trees, at about 600 per acre. That's a lot of fuel! Unfortunately, by the time forest scientists realized that stopping EVERY forest fire was a problem too, and changed policy course to "let it burn" in the 1970s, the forests has already built up so much fuel that the resulting fires were catastrophic. They turned into "crown fires", and burned so hot and so long that the soil was sterilised. Everything was killed: Trees, shrubs, root crowns from which some plants resprout, seeds, animal- even soil fungi, which are a hugely important part of tree and shrub health. The Yellowstone fire of 1988 was a huge fire which shed light (so to speak) on the consequences of "let it burn".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm pretty hyped on these ideas, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There is real news and then there is the rest. Unfortunately, real news- which is about events that are life-altering for the vast majority of the population- aren't topical, funny, or horrific. It doesn't bring in the advert dollars. If I may use a RW comparison, it's like the overall debt versus the IRS "scandal": one is more important but has all the interest (heh, get it?) of a clock ticking, the other one has the attraction of a dogfight. And who doesn't like a good dogfight, right?

So, in the real news today:

The earth is still warming. Alaska is sweltering in an unprecedented heat wave, Calgary is unprecently flooded. Last year, the Danube was so low that boats lay in the riverbed, this year, there was historic flooding in Bavaria and part of Eastern Europe. The Sierra snowpack reached an unprecedented low. This is what climatologists have been predicting for a long time: Less snowpack, more droughts AND more floods. That's exactly what's happening.

-----------------

Demonstrations in Egypt, Brazil, Argentina etc. You don't hear much about Greece anymore, but Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and most of Eastern Europe are suffering from youth unemployed of 25%+. This does not bode well for places like Pakistan, which has a very large, angry, young population. It doesn't seem to matter whether the system is democratic, semi-democratic, or authoritarian, or capitalist or mixed... modern economies, when tied into international trade, are finding it impossible to stabilize their economies at high employment.

Developed and developing nations are "investing" in Africa: another cheap labor pool to exploit, and a possible market to suck dry. Obama is urged to follow suit, and get in line behind China and Russia before the good deals run out.

-----------------

Fertilizers are killing our oceans and lakes

Gulf of Mexico could see record-sized ‘dead zone’ from pollution this year

Quote:

---

The Gulf of Mexico could see a record-size dead zone this year of oxygen-deprived waters resulting from pollution, US scientists have cautioned based on government data models. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s forecasts said the dead zone could be as large as New Jersey, or up to 8,561 square miles (22,172 square kilometers).

Dead zones are toxic to marine life and are caused by excessive nutrient pollution due to agriculture runoff. They are influenced by weather, precipitation, wind and temperature.

When there is little oxygen in the water, most marine life near the bottom is unable to survive.

“This year’s prediction for the Gulf reflects flood conditions in the Midwest that caused large amounts of nutrients to be transported from the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf,” NOAA said in a statement.

“Last year’s dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico was the fourth smallest on record due to drought conditions, covering an area of approximately 2,889 square miles.”

---

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/gulf-of-mexico-could-see-record-
sized-dead-zone-from-pollution-this-year/

Like the record algal bloom in the Great Lakes,





the Gulf Dead Zone is tied to corn farming. Corn is an extremely nitrogen-demanding crop, and farmers spread lots and lots of nitrogen fertilizer on their corn. Half of the corn is destined for ethanol subsidies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Russians feeling buyers remorse when it comes to Putin.

Stirrings of Labor Unrest Awaken as Russia’s Economic Chill Sets In

“They say they have orders but they also cut our salaries,” Yevgeny M. Shukhin, a burly, mustachioed worker said of the factory’s management, stomping his feet against the cold at a labor protest this month on Machine-Builders Square.

Day after day, he said, the workers trudge to the factory by the thousands, only to sit out their shifts at idle assembly lines.

"In 2012, when Mr. Putin was still campaigning for the presidency, a shift foreman at the factory here in the northern Ural Mountains appeared on a nationally televised call-in show and said that he and his “boys” from the factory were ready to come to Moscow and beat up urban protesters"

"Now, as far as many workers at Uralvagonzavod are concerned, all that might as well have occurred in a different country, or lifetime. “I don’t think Uralvagonzavod will vote for Putin again, we saw what that led to,” Mr. Shukhin said. “This is the opinion of a lot of workers, but a lot of them are afraid to say it. We just don’t understand why they are firing people.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/stirrings-of-labor-unre
st-awaken-as-russias-economic-chill-sets-in.html?_r=0

---