Thread: Environment problems

Mike, if co2 emissions are in fact detrimental to the world via Global Warming and those emissions have to be reduced, the emissions per capita is of no benefit at at all.

It is not rocket science to realize that the nett reduction of emissions would be the key to prevent any perils that co2 might produce.

A small country like Australia could reduce emissions by 100% and yet a 2% increase in an large population country would mean a nett increase to World emissions.

If emissions have to be reduced to save the world then EVERY country would have to reduce their emissions or at a minimum some counties reduce theirs and others remain stable. How else will could it work?

If all countries reduced their emmisions or lifted their emissions to the current world average based on a per capita basis there would be a nett increase in emissions world wide. Would that work?

Originally Posted by dazzler

Hi


If a 25% change is okay and not to worry about then what level should we go to. 50%, 100% ?.

cheers

dazzler

No-one is saying it should all simply be ignored (well, not me anyway) But it also shouldnt follw that anything we change "MUST" be bad - thats a theory ascribed to gaia enthusiasts who see humans as a blight on the planet, but not the most sane people. it is what it is, the question is will it do serious harm, is it on track to, and in what time lines.

Even if we accept that deep cuts must be made on the say so of the believers, is it possible, realistically? That means getting all countries to severely curtail their output in carbon based economies - its going to be no small task and it'd be fair IMO to therefore say goodbye to economic growth (and hence real wages grwoth and better living stds), say good bye to the third world becoming developed, say goodbye to modern medicine in the 3rd world etc.

Now 3rd world countries arent going to accept that, why dont they deserve a similar std of living, so they will go on and burn burn burn - that ends up in a transfer of wealth to the non bound emitters.

So whats the answer - well, i think that the answer is planning for adpatation as necessary, and science and engineering to look at other methods of controlling the temp if at some point it starts to become an impending problem. prevention is not the only solution, and while prevention sounds nice, its only helpful when you can tell the future with pretty clear accuracy.

We have time and plenty of it - more of that time should go into determining which way albedo will go with increased temp, see if the current flat period of world temp stays with us, and develop ways of tackling the handling of the issue in time.

Yes a more reasoned approach with the doom and gloom theories cast aside for the purpose of discussion will go a long way to a sensible solution.

I