‘Unprecedented’: Scientists declare global climate emergency; jet stream crosses equator

a reply to: LSU0408

China and its population of 1.4 billion isn't going to do a damn thing

Study: China’s new policies will lower CO2 emissions faster, without preventing economic growth

news.mit.edu...

a reply to: bknapple32

Ketsuko mentioned the 2.7 billion in China and India that won't be doing anything. If this is real, America and the EU alone won't make a difference.

a reply to: LSU0408

On 1 October 2015, India submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), including the targets to lower the emissions intensity of GDP by 33% to 35% by 2030 below 2005 levels, to increase the share of non-fossil based power generation capacity to 40% of installed electric power capacity by 2030 (equivalent to 26–30% of generation in 2030), and to create an additional (cumulative) carbon sink of 2.5–3 GtCO2e through additional forest and tree cover by 2030. For 2020, India has earlier put forward a pledge to reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 20% to 25% by 2020 below 2005 levels. We rate the Indian INDC as “medium”.

climateactiontracker.org...

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

The MSM are always trying to sell you fear.

Ignore it...it is BS.

Is anyone you disagree with classified into the MSM?

I ask because the person who made the findings... doesnt work for the MSM

You're right.

This is 'Rawstory' which is a ultra-Progressive piece of trash.

They aren't mainstream.

a reply to: LSU0408

China is literally the largest invested and producer of rnewable energy and they are definately doing something about it.

Meteorologists are not qualified on their own to make climate change comments.

There have been at least 8 surveys done on what scientists think about climate change.

Do you honestly think removing the tropic forests isn't going to impact the climate?

www.google.com... obile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=SR63mHb6M9C6rM%3A
www.google.com... s_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0i71l5.0.0.0.9857.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.mobile-gws-serp..0.0.0.JeXIoeF1ha4#imgrc=BHjioSQxNwP06M%3A

Seriously are you advocating we just keep on keeping on or should we discuss the fact we may be altering the entire symbiotic relationship of flora and fauna and climate.

a reply to: Phage

India has made huge improvements. The first time I went was 20 years ago and there were two stroke rickshaws everywhere. The last time I went with my dad at a trade show in Mumbai it was like a different country. I couldn't believe it. Not even exaggerating.

The only thing I would argue is the problems are well beyound emissions. I am worried that some of the other major factors in sustainability aren't even on the table.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: bknapple32

Ketsuko mentioned the 2.7 billion in China and India that won't be doing anything. If this is real, America and the EU alone won't make a difference.

Id suggest checking Phages links out


Also, is this really the next argument? "Well why should we if no one else will?"- Is essentially what youre arguing. I dont think I need to state how that kind of thinking inhibits progress of any kind.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Discotech


Of course if thus were talked about sincerely we would have to debate the very structure we are living our society with.

The Judea-Christian view of man's 'dominion over the world' simply won't allow it. If you plan on hanging out on this rock with all the creature comforts of the industrialized West, well, you might be in for a rude awakening. Adaptation at this point. Mitigation is no longer on the table. Actually, the mid-latitudes and Southeastern US will be fine. Florida Keys? Anchorage? Nah, you don't want to be there in 50 years.

a reply to: luthier

All right ... what exactly is the US supposed to do about South American and Sub-Saharan African countries clear-cutting their tropical rain forests? It is tragic, but without imposing our will on them in an Imperialistic manner, which I thought was BAD, there isn't much we can do.

Are you suggesting that we now embark on a program of wars for trees and regime change for forests?

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Yeah I used to bug out to bucky fuller franticly trying to get people to realize we are on a spaceship and their are only so many resources. We should design for maximum efficiency.

He suggested putting domes over cities. He said we would figure out real quick to lower emissions

a reply to: ketsuko

Possibly annexing

I jest.

No I don't

I suggest not pretending it isn't happening and trying to create a dialogue that it doesn't matter and isn't doing anything.

Second these are corperations in many cases that can have pressure put on them instead of having oval office dinners with them and then talking about ho bad emissions are.

a reply to: luthier

Not really and not always. A lot of them are subsistence farmers who need to grow crops to feed their famiies. Slash and burn is their way of life. If they can't farm, they can't live.

It's like telling people who risk death by mosquito born illness that they couldn't use DDT anymore. Sure, more mosquitoes was mostly a minor annoyance to us, but people by the millions have died in many parts of the world.

So, you want to save the trees, but what options are you offering the subsistence farmers to replace their food? And no, I don't think taxing me to pay for them forever is an option. Find another way.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not really and not always. A lot of them are subsistence farmers who need to grow crops to feed their famiies. Slash and burn is their way of life. If they can't farm, they can't live.

The deforestation in South America is not due to farming.
It is due to logging.

Subsistence farming does not do this:
www.nature.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

The deforestation in South America is not due to farming.
It is due to logging.
www.nature.com...

And is essentially slash and burn. Which is what took out the Maya. Human interaction with the climate destroying an empire has happened before. It will happen again.

a reply to: bknapple32

Just slash. No burn.

a reply to: ketsuko

No a lot of them are not subsistance farmers.

And you can't farm where there is no soil.

Anyhow that's complete ignorance.

Slash and burn subsistance farming doesn't cause massive deforestation. Corperate farming definitely does.

But if it makes you feel better go ahead and think that.

Even if it were true (which it is not) it doesn't change anything. The future is the same.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bknapple32

Just slash. No burn.

Im not even going to attempt to try and debate that with you. We agree- leave it at that . haha

a reply to: Phage

Slash and burn agriculture is still practiced in northern South America. They may take the logs out, but they still burn the patch and then farm and graze off of it until it plays out and they move on to the next patch.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes I know. But subsistence farming is not really the problem.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, it does when you have too many people doing it and not giving the land enough time to rest.

It is a traditional practice that was practiced all over, but the only way it works is if the land is used once, maybe twice and then left to recover for around 15 to 20 years which allows a lot of the forest to regrow over it and nutrients to replenish. When the population of an area grows too large, this can't happen and the land gets used too intensively leaching the area of nutrients and creating the destruction that is seen.

It happens with large farming and subsistence farming.