What should the rest of the world do about America's Climate change denial?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

NOTHING! There isn't a damn thing the rest of the world can do about it!

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

Just for fun.

www.youtube.com...

John Oliver on climate change.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

A good example is the growing populations in the desert arid areas of the US western regions, that has forced the states to redirect water sources for the growing consumption of the areas been populated.

This causes problems as those areas that has been populated were not mean to be livable. But as usual making money is the primary motive when it comes to building communities in the desert.

Now we have to hear the complains of the people when it comes to shortness of water and the heat.

Right, this is a good example of how over the past 1-200 years, our technology has gotten just enough to be able to vastly populate areas previously not inhabitable. However, our application of tech and modernity is enough to support the population in the short-term, but not sustain the environment over the long-term.

Arizona is a great example. We've managed to inject tens of millions of people there, and turn the deserts into agricultural tracts. However, it's not sustainable the way it's being done. The water table in Arizona has dropped something like 100 feet over the past 100 years. Beyond the agricultural tracts, desertification has actually become worse.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

NOTHING! There isn't a damn thing the rest of the world can do about it!

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

Your whole premise is horribly deluded. I am almost 70 years old and I have seen this country cleaned from top to bottom. In the mid 1960's, here in Cincinnati, the air was so polluted the only time that you could see more than a mile was after a rain storm. It was like what China and India are today.

As an airline pilot, I have been fortunate enough to see much of the world that many people do not. The US has improved far more than any other area of the world. Asia is grossly polluted, as is the middle east. Africa is a cesspool and South America is not far behind.

The Tokyo Accords permits China and India to be exempted from compliance until 2030 because they are emerging economies. My first question is, are we working on pollution or economies? My next question is, why aren't we earmarking our foreign aid to these countries for environmental clean up. If pollution is so important to control, then why aren't we giving pollution control technology to the developing countries with dirty environments.

Your assertions that the US would use it's military for environmental reasons is absurd! The US could easily buy compliance to environmental laws.

This whole issue is about money not environment! China wouldn't comply to these laws so why not give them a 15 year reprieve to make it appear that they are in compliance. The EPA has cleaned us up so now we want the rest of the world to do the same. That is arrogant and deluded on our behalf.

I will never forget the Al Gore "Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange" scam.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

NOTHING! There isn't a damn thing the rest of the world can do about it!

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

Your whole premise is horribly deluded. I am almost 70 years old and I have seen this country cleaned from top to bottom. In the mid 1960's, here in Cincinnati, the air was so polluted the only time that you could see more than a mile was after a rain storm. It was like what China and India are today.

As an airline pilot, I have been fortunate enough to see much of the world that many people do not. The US has improved far more than any other area of the world. Asia is grossly polluted, as is the middle east. Africa is a cesspool and South America is not far behind.

The Tokyo Accords permits China and India to be exempted from compliance until 2030 because they are emerging economies. My first question is, are we working on pollution or economies? My next question is, why aren't we earmarking our foreign aid to these countries for environmental clean up. If pollution is so important to control, then why aren't we giving pollution control technology to the developing countries with dirty environments.

Your assertions that the US would use it's military for environmental reasons is absurd! The US could easily buy compliance to environmental laws.

This whole issue is about money not environment! China wouldn't comply to these laws so why not give them a 15 year reprieve to make it appear that they are in compliance. The EPA has cleaned us up so now we want the rest of the world to do the same. That is arrogant and deluded on our behalf.

I will never forget the Al Gore "Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange" scam.

You make good points.

But we ARE discussing providing tech transfer to developing countries to address all of this. It is being negotiated right now at the UN.

And no longer will China nor any other countries be exempt under current negotiations. Instead, actions will be subjected to Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). Countries with more capacity and especially those who have already industrialized and contributed more historic pollution (read the already industrialized countries excepting China and India), will have to take stronger actions and provide help to less developed countries in their actions.

Also, your final point misses the mark, i.e. that "we cleaned up and are now telling other what to do."

First of all, we HAVE NOT cleaned up our carbon impact, only some of our other types of pollution. To this day our greenhouse gas emission is #1 historically and #2 presently (after China).

Second, climate change is something that affects everyone. The emissions of one country go into the global atmosphere and affect everyone. Therefore the argument "we do what we want" or "we can't tell others what to do" is not admissable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: marg6043

Overpopulation is a myth. There is plenty of space on this planet for all of humanity to live in the state of Texas. Rather comfortably at that.

So, why isn't Texas so well populated? Half of it sucks, and there's no water.

All the good places for people to live already have plenty of people living there. Two thousand years ago, there was plenty of space to move into nice places, like California. Now there isn't. Eight thousand years ago, there was plenty of space to move into really nice places, like Tuscany. Now there isn't.

We also have the resources and distribution routes to feed, clothe, and supply the entire world many times over.

Requiring ever more extremes of resource extraction and modification. Where's the water? Where's the climate? Where's the energy?

It's a whole bunch different than finding beautiful streams of great water and fish in a temperate fertile unpopulated paradise like Italy.

The only reason you believe in overpopulation is because capitalism is founded and thrives on artificial supply bottlenecks. We certainly CAN change our ways to stop polluting the planet if we were to put our minds to it.

I believe in overpopulation because every ecological study on other species shows how it's possible and the physical size of the Earth is finite.

And the present problem: our resource extraction rate is damaging the entire climate of the planet, probably permanently.

If Earth had 400 million people instead of 8 billion, the natural seqestration rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would probably be enough to prevent any dangerous climate change.

Everything is driven by overpopulation.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: LDragonFire

Give us Billions of dollars like the US government is giving to Elon Musk so he can take his carbon credits and sell them to corporations that will continue to pollute the hell out of the planet?

Maybe?

I'll just keep praying for an ELE so we can just end the madness all around myself!

Odd how the pope jumped on the Globalist band wagon while denying a scientist that wanted to show his studies on how the solar system is causing our climate problems?

your praying for a extinction level event?...way to solve problem there, destroy every human on the planet....I guess you really put some thought into that solution...(rolls eyes)

a reply to: LDragonFire

"Political will to militarily attack the USA"

Over what? Climate change.
You must be off you rocker or posting gibberish just for the lulz.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What methods does any country have to force China or India into compliance? China has not ever cared about its' people or their condition. In the 1960s it let 30 million starve to death and now it cares about their air to breathe. I think, we give China more credit than it's due.

The environment conscious come from an educated population who understands the impact on the world. Countries like China and India can't appeal to its' people to overcome these problems because they are uneducated and extremely poor. Leadership in these countries understand this and makes little effort to comply. It would make little sense to encourage them to get in line because all you would get is lip-service. Counties with a billion in population are powerless to implement change.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What methods does any country have to force China or India into compliance? China has not ever cared about its' people or their condition. In the 1960s it let 30 million starve to death and now it cares about their air to breathe. I think, we give China more credit than it's due.

The environment conscious come from an educated population who understands the impact on the world. Countries like China and India can't appeal to its' people to overcome these problems because they are uneducated and extremely poor. Leadership in these countries understand this and makes little effort to comply. It would make little sense to encourage them to get in line because all you would get is lip-service. Counties with a billion in population are powerless to implement change.

But even China and India now are getting on board. They realize too. Yes, it will be very difficult to address all of this.

You see, now the science and economic predictions are overwhelming that taking action now is going to be FAR cheaper than dealing with the consequences of not doing so.

You see, the cost-benefit analysis has been done. It's cheaper, even from a selfish perspective, to take action now. So now even energy companies like Exxon or Chevron are slowly getting on board, from that perspective. You know when the energy companies are getting on board that the data is irrefutable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes, this is the other side of the equation. If more people could learn to live without unnecessary bull# and buying the newest and greatest things whenever they come out, it would go a LONG way to reducing overconsumption and the resulting waste.

I blame the modern concept of planned obsolescence that forces consumers to upgrade like clockwork, but people DO need to learn some self-control as well.

Yeah, I hear you. This is part of our individual battle, becoming sustainable ourselves. That includes reducing the excessive material accumulation, reducing our energy impact, driving less, taking public transport more, etc. Another one is diet. Some researchers believe the number one environmental impact that one can have is a sustainable diet. For example, I try my best to reduce my meat consumption. This can look like having meat once a day instead of 2-3 times a day. Animal products in general are far more environmentally intensive than non-animal products.

The planned obsolescence thing is a problem, I agree. Things like cars are good examples of that. There is no good reason that so many American cars aren't good for much more than 100,000 miles, whereas Japanese cars can and do last 200,000 miles regularly. We have the tech and know-how to build longer-lasting cars.

originally posted by: mbkennel
So, why isn't Texas so well populated? Half of it sucks, and there's no water.

All the good places for people to live already have plenty of people living there. Two thousand years ago, there was plenty of space to move into nice places, like California. Now there isn't. Eight thousand years ago, there was plenty of space to move into really nice places, like Tuscany. Now there isn't.

More like because people like to spread out and have their space, despite not needing it. Does a family REALLY need a multi-acre home to survive? Of course not.

Requiring ever more extremes of resource extraction and modification. Where's the water? Where's the climate? Where's the energy?

It's a whole bunch different than finding beautiful streams of great water and fish in a temperate fertile unpopulated paradise like Italy.

The Texas thing was just an example. I'm not realistically suggesting that all of the world's population should try to live in Texas. I was just using it to show that the world DEFINITELY has the space to house all of us. The resources also exist to feed and clothe everyone.

I believe in overpopulation because every ecological study on other species shows how it's possible and the physical size of the Earth is finite.

But we haven't reached the saturation point yet. We only think we have because of artificial bottlenecks on resources created by corporations along with consumer desire to live on more and more and more.

And the present problem: our resource extraction rate is damaging the entire climate of the planet, probably permanently.

I agree.

If Earth had 400 million people instead of 8 billion, the natural seqestration rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would probably be enough to prevent any dangerous climate change.

Everything is driven by overpopulation.

Not likely. It is believed that the deaths of 99% of the Natives shortly after the Europeans "discovered" the Americas cause a massive regrowth of trees which resulted in a mini-Ice Age in Europe. This leads one to believe that the entire population of the Americas was artificially helping to keep the planet warm enough to prevent these cold temperatures in Europe through deforestation alone. The population pre-Columbian is estimated to be around 30 to 50 million

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is why I secretly believe that nothing substantive will ever get done. Part of the problem is us, and we aren't willing to change our behaviors.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mbkennel
So, why isn't Texas so well populated? Half of it sucks, and there's no water.

All the good places for people to live already have plenty of people living there. Two thousand years ago, there was plenty of space to move into nice places, like California. Now there isn't. Eight thousand years ago, there was plenty of space to move into really nice places, like Tuscany. Now there isn't.

More like because people like to spread out and have their space, despite not needing it. Does a family REALLY need a multi-acre home to survive? Of course not.

Requiring ever more extremes of resource extraction and modification. Where's the water? Where's the climate? Where's the energy?

It's a whole bunch different than finding beautiful streams of great water and fish in a temperate fertile unpopulated paradise like Italy.

The Texas thing was just an example. I'm not realistically suggesting that all of the world's population should try to live in Texas. I was just using it to show that the world DEFINITELY has the space to house all of us. The resources also exist to feed and clothe everyone.

I believe in overpopulation because every ecological study on other species shows how it's possible and the physical size of the Earth is finite.

But we haven't reached the saturation point yet. We only think we have because of artificial bottlenecks on resources created by corporations along with consumer desire to live on more and more and more.

And the present problem: our resource extraction rate is damaging the entire climate of the planet, probably permanently.

I agree.

If Earth had 400 million people instead of 8 billion, the natural seqestration rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would probably be enough to prevent any dangerous climate change.

Everything is driven by overpopulation.

Not likely. It is believed that the deaths of 99% of the Natives shortly after the Europeans "discovered" the Americas cause a massive regrowth of trees which resulted in a mini-Ice Age in Europe. This leads one to believe that the entire population of the Americas was artificially helping to keep the planet warm enough to prevent these cold temperatures in Europe through deforestation alone. The population pre-Columbian is estimated to be around 30 to 50 million

The thing is, overpopulation for any species is not ever in terms of pure numbers, but based on the carrying capacity of the environment as well as average impact per person.. That term means how many of a certain species a given ecosystem (global or local) can support sustainably. Going above the carrying capacity may harm the ecosystem, so usually there are population checks that are triggered naturally, such as an increase in predators who feed off the species, or disease, or insufficient food for the excess population that creates starvation, etc. Our tech has addressed the natural checks such as predators, disease to a degree, and so on. What it hasn't done is address that we are WAY over the sustainable carrying capacity for the global ecosystem, nor have we adequately addressed the negative side effects, which are climate change and/or ecosystem disruption.

We have reached the "saturation point" as you called it.

It has been estimated that somewhere around the 80's we passed the ability of Earth to sustain both our culture and population. It's currently something like 1.2 Earths are required to provide sustainably for our global culture.

That will be even more when we reach 9 billion by 2050.

sciencenordic.com...

People like Jeffrey Sachs, one of the experts on global sustainable development, believe all of the above but feel that if we just implement the perfect suite of better behaviors, sustainable economics, and sustainable technologies, even when we grow to 9 billion (which we will) it can become sustainable. While possible, that is pretty naive given we are not sustainable now.

www.earth.columbia.edu...

I highly recommend reading some Sachs in article or book form. He brilliantly covers all of these issues, from global poverty to economics to climate change.

Sachs was my professor by the way.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Population is the #1 cause for our pollution issues. We cannot sustain our planets resources when almost everyone contributes in some form to the pollution to our planet. I mean I take a crap everyday and soon we'll have 9 billion people crapping daily. thats a whole lotta poo and food to make the poo and that's only one example of our impact on the environment.

I shoulda wrote this on my appropriate technology research paper in college. A+ for sure!

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Population is the #1 cause for our pollution issues. We cannot sustain our planets resources when almost everyone contributes in some form to the pollution to our planet. I mean I take a crap everyday and soon we'll have 9 billion people crapping daily. thats a whole lotta poo and food to make the poo and that's only one example of our impact on the environment.

I shoulda wrote this on my appropriate technology research paper in college. A+ for sure!

Well, this is what I was basically saying. I am skeptical of the technological optimists that if we all can just change our behavior and expect all of the right tech to be developed, everything will be all good!

This is why I take one of the unpopular viewpoints that at some point, population growth control may be necessary. Something along the lines but done better than the China strategy.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

education is the best method for population control. Condoms should be free and birth control widely available to everyone that desires to have it. Its 2015 time to get with the program.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is why I secretly believe that nothing substantive will ever get done. Part of the problem is us, and we aren't willing to change our behaviors.

Yeah, or it won't until the more serious predictions regarding our environment come true. When we start seeing mass disruptions in food security and the advent of starvation, or some kind of massive economic problems due to environmental collapse, or something else, people will probably finally get the boot in their ass that they need.

Most people, especially in developed countries, and those that would be in a position to have the global power to do something about all of this, aren't personally experiencing consequences yet, so they are just going with the kinetic energy of the exploitative behavior and system of culture we've been engaged in for at least several hundred years.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That's the problem, the richest of us are going to be the last to experience the hardship caused by their squandering of resources. And the richest of us are the ones that ultimately drive policy and have the ears of the politicians. So by the time they are on board (if they ever admit to a problem), it may already be too late.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Id say THAT would be CHINA since THEY are THE WORST polluters on the planet.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

education is the best method for population control. Condoms should be free and birth control widely available to everyone that desires to have it. Its 2015 time to get with the program.

It is one of the main ones, and for a lot of reasons.

Education=

More years in school means less child marriage and later age of first child for women. Later age of first child generally is known to associate with less average children over a lifetime.

More education is associated with as you say better birth control behavior.

More education especially into college and grad school is also associated with less children.

A concept that is key to this is Demographic Transition. It is a well known phenomenon that applies to countries. Virtually all countries go through it. It is the reason that the developed countries have stabilized populations (US, Canada) or even negative population growth (Japan, Germany) versus developing countries that have very high population growth rates.

There are 4-5 stages. We are in stage 4 and 5. Developing countries are in stages 1-3, which has high growth.

This is the reason that we are projected to continue growing in population until 2050, up to about 9 or 10 billion, because while developed countries have completed demographic transition and stabilized their populations, most of the developing countries have not. Provided they continue to develop and key investments in their economics, education, health care, etc, continue, they will complete demographic transition by 2050.

I would post a graph but I have trouble getting the "insert image" link to work on ATS?

I highly suggest looking at this page, as it shows it.

buddinggeographers.wikispaces.com...