Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

$747M in US dollars in humanitarian assistance in 2014 for Canada. This was less than Sweden at $933M and Japan at $882M, but a lot more than France at $462M.

The (oppressor) US gave away 4.7 Billion and was #1 in the world by a longshot.

The United Kingdom came in at a distant second at $2.3B.

This excludes peacekeeping & military aid, but you can find those too through the attached link.

Country Profiles |

Just in case you think my secret agenda is "oh the evil US", you can refer back to this.

Regarding that impressive amount of US foreign aid, one wonders whether you are in favour of that level of giving, or if it was something done over your objections. You're expressing pride about it, so I'll assume you are on-side with it.

Donations as a percentage of GDP may give some more insight into the relative importance of foreign aid in the donor countries, but it ignores differences in each country's internal requirements and their other altruistic activities, such as the massive amount of private aid that also flows out of the US, and the role of the US military in keeping rogue states in check.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What a crock of delusional crap. Do you think no one at the UN would consider for one moment to create the IPSC - Intergovernmental Panel on Social Change -, for example, if this was even remotely true?

um, what?? or does this just indicate how deeply you hate the UN?

BTW, how much does your country currently provide in foreign aid annually? You know, those payments derived from YOUR taxes set by YOUR elected officials that were decided by factors such as YOUR current economic conditions taking into specific account factors applicable to YOUR country with distribution of funds determined by YOUR national interest.

Gross amounts, 2013
9. Canada – $4.91 billion
10. Australia – $4.85 billion

As a percentage of GDP, 2013
13. Australia – 0.34%
15. Canada – 0.27%

I will note that in 2013 Canada had a government that had been dialling back some of our foreign aid, and our current government will be reversing alot of that... but for 2013, good on you .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Brob2

That's dismal. Less that a sixth of the population and GDP of the USA yet the UK gives 50% of the USA's assistance?? Am I missing something, because these numbers are not flattering to the USA on any sort of pro rata basis.

I guess it depends on whether you look at it as a fiscal question or the sort of "fairness" question that has become so fashionable these days. I doubt the victims of the Indonesian tsunami who benefitted from a response by the US govt. and its private citizens that dwarfed any other country really cared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani...ean_earthquake. Speaking of dwarfed, you may have overlooked how many times US aid from its private citizens and corps. exceeds what the US govt. provides each year. Private Giving to Developing Countries Vastly Exceeds U.S. Foreign Aid, Study Finds | News | PND. Or how about the $730M the US gave to help Japan with the devastation suffered from its tsunami? Americans donated more than $700 million to aid Japan after quake-tsunami. I'd say your comparison can be more fairly interpreted as that much more flattering to the generosity of the United Kingdom than it is to the stinginess of the U.S.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Regarding that impressive amount of US foreign aid, one wonders whether you are in favour of that level of giving, or if it was something done over your objections. You're expressing pride about it, so I'll assume you are on-side with it.


Is your "wonderment" about my personal views on the level of my country's annual contributions a result of an attempt to stereotype because of my view on CC perhaps? Although disappointing for you I'm sure, I'm in favor of the foreign humanitarian aid that is donated annually by my govt., the vastly greater amounts that are donated by private philanthropy in the US, and the generous amounts donated by US corps., incl. the $100M American corps. donated to Indonesia tsunami relief alone. I believe it reflects, among other things, a national culture of generous domestic and international philanthropy that accelerated after WW2. My only concern about this aid, at any funding level, is the corruption and abuse that seems to necessarily follow, and all too often leads such worthwhile humanitarian efforts into transfers of huge monies from wealthy citizens in wealthy nations to wealthy despots in poor nations.

But I'm actually prouder of the charitable culture in developed Western countries overall. http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...oped-countries But this only highlights the abysmal record of the world's second-largest economy. China donated only $54M in humanitarian assistance in 2014, but at least that was up from $9.4M the year before. China | But then in the "People's" Republic, citizens like you & me don't get to "favor or disfavor" their govt's level of giving, and if they "object" they'd better keep it to themselves. But along with their 1x/week coal plant "directive," they're adding lots of solar panels so I guess it's all OK.

Originally posted by Lake-Effect:

Donations as a percentage of GDP may give some more insight into the relative importance of foreign aid in the donor countries, but it ignores differences in each country's internal requirements and their other altruistic activities, such as the massive amount of private aid that also flows out of the US, and the role of the US military in keeping rogue states in check.

And don't forget the US contribution to the UN, also by far the largest contribution of any other nation, and an amount comprising 22% of the UN's entire annual budget. United Nations Official Document. Or how about over 28% of the cost of all UN peacekeeping operations? United Nations Official Document. Or back to the IPCC, how about funding almost 50% of it's total budget, at least in 2012? U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel. Speaking of, has your research uncovered any insight into why the IPCC is not merely another political organization designed to promote the mainstream MMGW agenda?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or back to the IPCC, how about funding almost 50% of it's total budget, at least in 2012? U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.'s Global Warming Panel.

...averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years

Ooooh. $3.1 M a year. What a burn. I feel your pain.

(That is one crap website, tho'. Wow. 'Hilary's Manservants Exposed.' Pulitzer committee take note.)

Speaking of, has your research uncovered any insight into why the IPCC is not merely another political organization designed to promote the mainstream MMGW agenda?

"why the IPCC is not merely another political organization designed to promote the mainstream MMGW agenda"

Having trouble unpacking that, sorry.

The IPCC is the UN's attempt to create THE intergovernmental body to collect and discuss the science behind climate change, and to try to negotiate a list of responses that the members will agree to. This also includes publishing their conclusions and proposals, obviously (eg Fifth Assessment Report). Is this what you meant by "promot[ing] the mainstream MMGW agenda"?

[newhaul]

L E. I just want to point out one thing that you seem to think is a jab at exile and the rest of us Americans. Yes it may be as you put it just 3.1 million dollars but that is still over half of the IPCC annual OPTAR.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[INDENT].

The IPCC is the UN's attempt to create THE intergovernmental body to collect and discuss the science behind climate change, and to try to negotiate a list of responses that the members will agree to. This also includes publishing their conclusions and proposals, obviously (eg Fifth Assessment Report). Is this what you meant by "promot[ing] the mainstream MMGW agenda"?

In other words playing politics across the international table
BTW IMO the two things that don't really belong in the same scentance. Science. And politics. One deals in facts and the other deals in opinions and agendas.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years

Ooooh. $3.1 M a year. What a burn. I feel your pain.

I doubt you'd feel any pain since you don't have to incur any of the $3.1M out of your taxes or your govt.'s deficit. What's Canada's contribution to the IPCC, btw?

(That is one crap website, tho'. Wow. 'Hilary's Manservants Exposed.' Pulitzer committee take note.)

Sorry -- never heard of the website before. Just another one of those intellectually lazy google searches. But all that matters is whether the $$$ figures are correct. Have you found they are not, or just insinuating?

"why the IPCC is not merely another political organization designed to promote the mainstream MMGW agenda"

Having trouble unpacking that, sorry.

"Unpacking" it, or finding anything other than the IPCC's own website to rebut it?

The IPCC is the UN's attempt to create THE intergovernmental body to collect and discuss the science behind climate change, and to try to negotiate a list of responses that the members will agree to. This also includes publishing their conclusions and proposals, obviously (eg Fifth Assessment Report). Is this what you meant by "promot[ing] the mainstream MMGW agenda"?

You never disappoint -- straight from the IPCC website again. But I guess you've now answered my question.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

L E. I just want to point out one thing that you seem to think is a jab at exile and the rest of us Americans. Yes it may be as you put it just 3.1 million dollars but that is still over half of the IPCC annual OPTAR.

Probably less about a jab and more about those pesky facts getting in the way again.

Originally Posted by newhaul

In other words playing politics across the international table
BTW IMO the two things that don't really belong in the same scentance. Science. And politics. One deals in facts and the other deals in opinions and agendas.

Agreed, except that's exactly what we have with the IPCC, and me & you are helping to pay for it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... more about those pesky facts getting in the way again.

I see that you still don't feel the need to explain to us why the IPCC is less than honorable, or useful, or whatever. Fine, it's not keeping me up at night.

We could try another tack, maybe: what would be better than the IPCC?

We have climate science telling us that human activity is materially altering the atmosphere, with the likelihood that this will cause many undesirable changes.

We have all the countries of the world, many of which are doing the emitting, and just about all of which will be affected in to some extent by changes. Polluters still wanna pollute, developing nations wanna develop, low-lying nations don't wanna sink beneath the waves, most of us don't want accelerated extinctions or disappearing coral or droughts or crop failures.

Your mission - produce the best possible outcome for the planet and its inhabitants. What organizational structure will you create, what changes will you implement to achieve this? In what ways will this differ from or improve upon the current implementation with the IPCC?

While you're at it, maybe I can help organize a Kickstarter or a telethon or something to help cover your $3.1 M.

Good luck.

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'd say your comparison can be more fairly interpreted as that much more flattering to the generosity of the United Kingdom than it is to the stinginess of the U.S.

That might be a fair comment. My point is that the USA does not punch beyond it's weight in foreign aid whereas the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada (until the Conservative Party was elected), etc. do.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I see that you still don't feel the need to explain to us why the IPCC is less than honorable, or useful, or whatever. Fine, it's not keeping me up at night.

The criticism of the IPCC centers around it's politicization of an issue that obviously belongs in the realm of science. You are free to disagree with the criticism, but not to mischaracterize the type of criticism that has been levied for a long time. Whether it's "honorable" or "useful" is irrelevant and far off the mark. Since you're only willing to research & post links that make you feel warm & fuzzy, I was feeling intellectually lazy and so took the liberty via Google. Pages of hits L-E. Here's just one of many. Go find your own website if this one doesn't make you feel "comfortable." http://http://www.climatedepot.com/2...epot-round-up/ Of course the IPCC also has its many defenders as we would expect, but the criticisms are hardly aberrant, new, or levied only by "govt.-haters" or whatever facile label you choose to spout next.

We could try another tack, maybe: what would be better than the IPCC?

A professional scientific organization who's funding is isolated as much as practicable from political influences. Not like this doesn't exist in other scientific fields.

We have climate science telling us that human activity is may be materially altering the atmosphere, with the likelihood possibility that, if true, this will could cause many undesirable changes.

We have all the countries of the world, many of which are doing the emitting, and just about all of which will be affected in to some extent by changes, assuming the scientific community can overcome the many doubts that have been raised from amongst its own members. Polluters still wanna pollute A certain amount of pollution produced by mankind always has and always will be inevitable, developing nations wanna develop, low-lying nations don't wanna sink beneath the waves and so will use technology to prevent that, most none of us don't want accelerated extinctions or disappearing coral or droughts or crop failures.

Gheez L-E. I can see how marketing was clearly your calling.

Your mission - produce the best possible outcome for the planet and its inhabitants. What organizational structure will you create, what changes will you implement to achieve this? In what ways will this differ from or improve upon the current implementation with the IPCC?

See above. Remove politics as much as is practicable until/unless policy changes recommended by a true consensus of the scientific community requires implementation by the body politic. But then what would guys like you do with all your spare time?

While you're at it, maybe I can help organize a Kickstarter or a telethon or something to help cover your $3.1 M.

Thanks, but Canadians have historically always taken on more than their fair share of responsibility to the int'l community, so I'm sure we don't mind spottin' ya for the IPCC budget.

Good luck.

Won't be me L-E, but if the "decision-making" process on the science continues to reside with a highly politicized arm of the UN, you should consider applying. The IPCC has made it clear they can dispense with well-qualified climatologists (just ask Dr. Christy), but as time goes by will probably need as many marketing people as they can get. And don't worry, NO EXPERIENCE IS NECESSARY. You'll be a shoe-in.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Brob2

That might be a fair comment. My point is that the USA does not punch beyond it's weight in foreign aid whereas the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada (until the Conservative Party was elected), etc. do.

Point well taken, but only for those who believe that overall contributions should be judged by a percentage of GDP alone.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The criticism of the IPCC centers around it's politicization of an issue that obviously belongs in the realm of science.

Finally. thank you.

It would be a legitimate criticism if it wasn't based on a misconception. The IPCC isn't doing 'science'. I don't think it even 'commissions' science. It's taking the science that's out there, what's already known, what's been suggested as mitigation, and trying to formulate policy and spur action in response.

A professional scientific organization who's funding is isolated as much as practicable from political influences. Not like this doesn't exist in other scientific fields.

And we have that in climate science - universities and institutions that the scientists work out of, and journals that they publish in, and national/international bodies where they meet and compare their work. Like any other comparable branch of science.

The IPCC isn't that. The IPCC is tasked with digesting the science from the above channels and negotiating with member governments to develop policy for a response, and try to get it implemented. Policy... means that politics is being done. Axiomatic.

Remove politics as much as is practicable until/unless policy changes recommended by a true consensus of the scientific community requires implementation by the body politic.

Science isn't policy! Listen to your own words. The scientific community has done its job when it notifies us of its findings, conclusions and warnings. Strictly speaking, it's not up to the scientific community to formulate policy, though their input is welcome and useful.

The IPCC's job is to formulate and implement policy in response to the results and warnings they're receiving from climate science. Clear now?

(Let's shelve the consensus thing for now. If you can find one or two dissenting scientists on the planet, you're going to yell "no consensus!" so there's no resolving that)

Many scientific bodies and prominent scientists have been so disturbed by the threat posed by AGW that they have come forward to advocate strongly for action. What's the critism levelled at them? "You're doing politics not science! Secret agenda! Stop it!". There's just no winning with deniers/skeptics...

A certain amount of pollution produced by mankind always has and always will be inevitable.

...so let's not change a thing.

if the "decision-making" process on the science continues to reside with a highly politicized arm of the UN.

The IPCC isn't deciding. They're responding. The UN ... is politics. The IPCC is no more "politicized" than any other international committee (you're not so bad at producing marketing hype yourself ). The UN thought, and continues to think that AGW is a problem that needs global attention. In their shoes, if not the IPCC, then what should they be doing?

The most common criticism levelled at the IPCC from many scientists is that in their attempts to formulate policy that most governments will sign onto, they are actually downplaying the problem and their proposed solutions are insufficient.

It's a truism that if both sides of a negotiation are equally unsatisfied with the outcome... you've probably achieved a reasonable compromise.

[Reefmagnet]

Meanwhile, in the wacky climate change research and science is settled department...

In 2008:

Eating roo may combat global warming

Thursday, 2 October 2008
ABC/AFP

The report highlights that kangaroo has been the main source of meat throughout much of Australia's human history*(Source: Reuters/Stringer Australia).

Eating kangaroo instead of cattle and sheep has been given a scientific stamp of approval by the government's top climate change adviser.

The belching of millions of farm animals is a major contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, notes Professor Ross Garnaut in a major report to the government on global warming.

Kangaroos, on the other hand, emit negligible amounts of methane gas.

If farmers were included in a system requiring industry to buy permits for the gas they produce, the cost of meat would rise and could lead to a change in eating habits, says Garnaut in the*600-page report*released on Wednesday.

"For most of Australia's human history - around 60,000 years - kangaroo was the main source of meat," he says.

"It could again become important. However, there are some significant barriers to this change, including livestock and farm management issues, consumer resistance and the gradual nature of change in food tastes."

Viable replacement

Garnaut cites a study looking at the potential for kangaroos to replace sheep and cattle for meat production in Australia's rangelands, where kangaroos are already harvested.

The study concludes that by 2020, beef cattle and sheep numbers could be reduced by seven million and 36 million respectively, allowing for an increase in kangaroo numbers from 34 million now to 240 million by 2020.

This would be more than enough to replace the lost lamb and beef production, and kangaroo meat would become more profitable than cattle and sheep as the price of emissions permits increased.

Garnaut's report says livestock, mainly cattle and sheep, are responsible for some 67% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite being the national animal and appearing on the Australian coat of arms, kangaroos are slaughtered in the wild each year to control their numbers and much of the meat is used for pet food.

The idea of farming them for human consumption is controversial, but many Australians already eat kangaroo meat.

"It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels, it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal," says Peter Ampt of the*University of New South Wales's institute of environmental studies.

Differing views

The idea has received support from the Australian kangaroo meat industry.

"The idea of getting sheep out of the rangelands and running kangaroos as an alternate enterprise is one that has been around for a long time and it has a great deal of support," John Kelly from the*Kangaroo Industry Association*told ABC News.

"The simple principle I guess is that it probably makes a great deal of environmental wisdom for us in this country to produce our food from the animals that belong here."

But Ben Fahger from the*National Farmers Federation*(NFF) dismisses the suggestion, telling ABC News that climate change should not shape the future of the red meat industry in Australia.

"We've got huge demand for red meat globally, we're good at producing it and we want to continue to be good at producing it and not have an emissions trading scheme that would somehow put those red meat operators out of business," he says.

"What we want to do at NFF is make sure that cattle and sheep industries are not put out of a business because of a carbon trading scheme, if there's still a market for kangaroo meat in some areas all well and good, but the thought of complete replacement, well, we just do not see that happening."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...02/2380136.htm



In 2015:

Kangaroos produce as much methane as horses, researchers find during smelly research

Date November 5, 2015

Alana Schetzer

If you eat kangaroo meat thinking it is free of the environmentally harmful greenhouse gases produced by the bucketloads by farm animals, think again.

Researchers have busted that myth, finding that kangaroos produce as much gas as other herbivores such as horses.

A collaboration between researchers from University of Wollongong, University of New South Wales and the University of Zurich in Switzerland found that kangaroos produce about three litres of methane each day, although that amount can vary depending on how much and what each animal eats.


"Kangaroos are not mysteriously low methane-producing creatures, but herbivores with an active methane-producing microbe community," researcher Marcus Clauss said.

Advertisement

It was previously thought that kangaroos had a unique gut bacteria that meant they produced little to no greenhouse gas. Environmentalists and kangaroo meat producers have long marketed the meat as an alternative to beef and lamb; researchers said dairy cows each produce up to 200 litres of methane every day.

In 2011, scientists floated the idea of transplanting this gut bacteria to cows and sheep to reduce their carbon footprint.

Researcher Adam Munn said kangaroos could still be considered environmentally friendly, as they produced significantly less methane than cows. They also eat less food and drink less water than traditional livestock.

John Kelly, executive officer of theKangaroo Industries Association of Australia, was sceptical of the research, saying kangaroos remained a*more environmentally*friendly choice.

"There's a whole range of reasons to eat kangaroo; harvest is the only mechanism to control the population, which is essential to manage grazing pressure and encourage a whole lot of plant diversity," he said.

"The industry has been steadily growing for a number of years."

Dr Munn and his long-time collaborator, Mr Clauss, spent months measuring the output of two groups of kangaroos, one fed a controlled diet, and the other allowed to eat as much as they wanted. They found that*if a kangaroo is well fed, it will produce less methane than its hungry cousin. This is because fermentation is part of kangaroo's digestive system, which means that food passes through the gut faster and there is less time for microbes to break down the food and produce gas.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 22 per cent more potent than carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming and climate change.

The findings follow a 2012 report that found that*wallabies also produced methane.

A study published in the journal*Conservation Letters*in 2008 recommended Australia reduce its cattle and sheep populations and increase its kangaroo numbers to 175 million by 2020, which would lower greenhouse gas emissions by 16 megatonnes annually.

Worldwide, 28 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ka...04-gkqobm.html


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Worldwide, 28 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock.

Or 18%. Or 14.5%.