Back to climate change... by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Back to climate change...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 09:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2930
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 12:30 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS, I'm sorry, but I'll have to agree to disagree that any of those methods would impact large manufacturers and corporations for whom profit is the bottom line. Like I said before, remember Erin Brokovich? She's still busy, trying to bust yet another place PG&E has polluted, and there are many more where they're still doing it. There aren't enough Erin Brokovichs willing to expend the time and energy she did, even if they could be successful.

I don't see "violence" as the only alternative. Didn't like Cap and Trade, but fines should be sufficient, if done right, to help "encourage" polluters to be more careful. Or not, who knows, but I don't see threat of death being part of the equation at ALL.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 9:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS, facts aren't divisive, if people are truly interesting in finding the truth. Divisiveness is only caused by people who refuse the see truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 2:30 AM

DREAMTROVE

Niki

Ralph Nader has already gone into this one in exhausting detail...

Fines will have no good effect. Fines historically have always been too low to damage the rich or the corporations, let alone govts., who always exempt themselves, and too high to tolerate for the poor.

Someone at home with a wood stove would end up in bankruptcy, but big oil would just shrug it off, or weasel a way out. And don't think the govt. is going to end up paying for the pollution caused by the Iraq War.

More importantly you have to look not at where such money comes from, but where it goes to. Fines, cap and trade, etc. will end up in the hands of some global elite.

I think the solution is simple. We just recognize this as a form of warfare. If someone is pouring toxic chemicals into your river they are no different then if they were setting off bombs in your schools. You deal with them as you see fit.

It's war, you're being attacked. If you don't fight back when someone goes to war with you, you will be exterminated. Evolution has just selected you for extinction. A war of pollution is not going to take prisoners, so you don't even get to be slaves to your attacker.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 2:41 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And if CO2 *** IS *** the problem?
As Happy and Rion pointed out (not to mention every post Anthony makes on the topic), these problems greatly overlap. Taking care of the other problems will also take care of an overwhelming majority of the CO2 problem.

Solving problems is about finding common ground. CO2 is divisive and discourages collective problem solving.

Hey, what about my long mathematical explanation of how this was not conceivably the issue?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 3:14 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I must have missed that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 3:16 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS, facts aren't divisive, if people are truly interesting in finding the truth. Divisiveness is only caused by people who refuse the see truth.

Some people see "facts." Some people see "observations," and varying summaries, interpretations, hypotheses, and theories to explain those observations.

Summaries, interpretations, hypotheses, and theories most certainly can be divisive, if they are stated as "facts" and are forced down people's throats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:42 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Sorry DT, but your math cannot fit on a protester's sign or a bumper-sticker, so it is destined to be forgotten.

On facts, facts themselves are not divisive, but people's interpretation of them sure can be. FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. FACT: we exhale CO2 every day, so obviously, there is some means of balancing the CO2 equation or else we would have respirated ourselves into nonexistence long ago.

I'm more concerned with the damage being done to the plants and algae that balance out the CO2 equation. If they weren't being destroyed with deforestation and the like, they should be thriving with all this excess CO2 right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 9:36 AM

DREAMTROVE

Happy,

Yes, exactly.

CTS,

It was a while back. The basic reality is that the human production of CO2 is primarily because humans breathe. We're outnumbered a couple hundred to one by the rest of the animal kingdom, a thousand to one by plants, and the entire biomass its outnumbered by the ocean biomass, ie, fish.

Little fishies and algae are most of the world system, but it takes a while for them to balance because the ocean is a barrier. However, human destruction of forests has many many thousand times the effect on global co2 as human industrial polution. In fact, if all known and even suspected sources in the world of fossil fuels were to be burned at once, it wouldn't have the observed effect on co2 levels, that aside from the fact that rising co2 on a small scale has no measurable effect on temperature, but rather the other way around.

Still, all this is moot. What would really happen if you were to produce an excess of co2 would be that plants would grow to consume it. Unless you killed the plants.

I figured that roughly 50 teratons a year of co2 is consumed, and that the earth only contains 6 teratons, ergo, most co2 is recycled. Most of that is also in the ocean, but in a forest system, sure, no co2 your produce is making it out of the forest.

Humans produce something like .0003 teratons of co2, vs. i think it was .18 teratons for decaying plantmatter, etc. you get the picture.

I'm just recalling these numbers from memory, they might be slightly off, but the general trend is just really fucking obvious. And it makes sense.

If you look at changes in co2 production, the major growing producers is africa, that's because the population is going up. Most of the co2 from humans comes because humans breathe.

The whole scare is just that, a scare. Now, sure, we can use that scare

maybe reroute it to deforestation which is a much more major problem.

Poisoning the water is a major problem to, so hey, if they kill the fossil fuel industry, that's also fine with me, as long as no one is handing the globalists a global taxation system, and there are no exemptions which make it profitable or possible for someone to pollute and get away with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE