Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[kmacdonald]

I like warm weather. I don't own property in Florida. I only have something to gain with Global Warming------warmer weather. If you tree huggers think convincing the skeptics will solve the problem you need to re-evaluate the situation. I'd be more concerned about the political unrest it will cause in the future than the coral reefs. Hundreds of millions of lives could be lost in the final struggles to "save" the planet.

[kmacdonald]

I know, a few picture of Nimo are convincing to some bleeding hearts.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Hey North...You should have been around 6 months ago in the Climate Change threads that were active and went well over 2000 posts. It was cross between a ping pong tournament and a train wreck in slow motion.

But it was good fun watching the ping-pong going on, both sides blatantly ignoring science.

[MLOI]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Hundreds of millions of lives could be lost in the final struggles to "save" the planet.

Unfortunately that is the best case scenario.

As has been mentioned above, the challenge that is not being faced is over population.
Over population;
+ Increasing global standard of living (particularly China, India, Indonesia);
= Increased energy (and other resources) consumption.

Which leads to increased pollution, including with CO2.

Which is experienced as global warming (Plus South China sea being a barren rubbish dump, plus plus etc).

If the huge, and growing, populations of china, india etc increase their level of energy consumption to match us in the first world, then we are all fvcked in as little as one generation.

Given that no - one has the balls to come out and take drastic measures to reduce population, we are left with the option of trying to get china, india etc to limit their energy consumption. And in order to do that, some of us first world folks need to set a better example.

Personally, I think that given that population growth is inversely linked to female education (ie educated empowered women have less kids), I would like to see massively increased money and effort dedicated towards educating women. If we can get the third world down to a birth rate less than replacement (ie under 2.2) like most of Europe already has, we might avoid more drastic actions.

Lets start by killing off any religion that seeks to keep women un educated, or which restricts birth control.

Or should we all do nothing and let our kids and grandkids smother under the weight of pollution in the oven of global warming?

Mike

[kmacdonald]

It's too late Mike.

[MLOI]

Oh - and I'm taking my pre teen kids to spend 6 months sailing the GBR next year. So they can see it while it is still vibrant and full of life. In 20 years they can visit the new reef that is going to grow further south.

Oh.
Bugger.
Coral reefs take 100s of years to grow. I guess the idea of the reefs just moving south isn't going to help my grand kids after all.

Hmmm
Perhaps we should try a bit harder to protect the reefs we have?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by MLOI

If the huge, and growing, populations of china, india etc increase their level of energy consumption to match us in the first world, then we are all fvcked in as little as one generation.

Given that no - one has the balls to come out and take drastic measures to reduce population, we are left with the option of trying to get china, india etc to limit their energy consumption. And in order to do that, some of us first world folks need to set a better example.

I'm not that worried (yet) about overpopulation.

Good news there is that as those nations develop, the birth rate is dropping. The question is - do we first-worlders provide leadership on energy-management by example, and by shouldering the burden of developing the more efficient and sustainable technologies that will give other nations the energy they need, without them making the same mess that we made while developing?

Lets start by killing off any religion that seeks to keep women un educated, or which restricts birth control.

That's... just about all of them. Ummm...

[MLOI]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm not that worried (yet) about overpopulation.

That's... just about all of them. Ummm...

Given we come from countries that rank 230th and 235th respectively (out of 240) for population density, we probably don't have a great perspective on overpopulation.

I'm curious what you would suggest a sustainable population level for the planet is, given a level of energy consumption of lets say 50% of the current Canadian / Australian level?

Does the rolling eyes emoticon mean that you think it is a good idea that religions are against educated women and birth control?

Mike

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by MLOI

I'm curious what you would suggest a sustainable population level for the planet is, given a level of energy consumption of lets say 50% of the current Canadian / Australian level?

Canadians are energy-pigs , I don't know about Australia but I imagine there's some draw for airconditioning. The key is how cleanly and renewably the desired energy is produced. So, personally I'm more concerned with that, and hoping that other factors will provide a natural tapering off of population growth.

According to this guy, the disruptions wrought by unstopped global warming will result in conflicts and other calamities, so again, this makes me believe that the AGW/energy issues are where we need to concentrate our efforts; the population thing will unfortunately sort itself out (messily) if we don't.

Does the rolling eyes emoticon mean that you think it is a good idea that religions are against educated women and birth control?

Sorry, that was the shaking-head emoticon, meaning that going to war against religion(s) seldom goes well... so let's not.

[Nikolina]

The best way to combat climate change is to put a tax on it! That always works

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Nikolina

The best way to combat climate change is to put a tax on it! That always works

So says conservative economists:

Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979. It would also apply to CO2 emissions.

Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

[jtsailjt]

"The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution."

An increased tax might well cause people to really want to cut back on the energy they use and some undoubtedly would, but most Americans have virtually no savings or retirement plan and can barely afford to pay for their kids college and they have to use their car or pickup truck to get to work so can't cut back much on the miles they drive and they have to heat their houses and turn on the lights at night, etc. I don't know where you think the money will come from to pay this tax. Just how miserable are you willing to make these peoples lives in order to accomplish your goal of decreasing the amount of CO2 being released?

Also, the above quote might as well read " a tax on consumers and another tax on consumers" because any tax on car manufacturers will surely be passed on to consumers in higher car prices.

Some politicians seem willing to levy such a tax but it's rightfully a tremendously unpopular idea amongst the "common folk" of America. There ARE no shortcuts. If those of you who think that climate change is a pressing problem want to get anything done about it, you MUST first persuade the majority of taxpayers and voters that it deserves to be one of their top one or two priorities and so far that has proven to be a pretty hard sell because a lot more people are worried about a lot of other issues. You also must do your persuading without fear mongering or "shading" the truth that is soon proven by actual events to be not true. Remember all the talk a decade or more ago about climate change causing increasing severe weather conditions such as hurricanes, only to have hurricane frequency in the US drop to an all time low over the next decade? That sort of thing only hurts your cause. It'll take patience and time and much greater understanding of the mechanisms causing climate change before you even have a chance to persuade people who can barely care for their families or hope to be able to afford to retire someday, that they must sacrifice financially so that someone living a generation or two in the future won't have to deal with whatever harmful effects you have managed to persuade them that climate change "will" cause.

[buzzstar]

Reducing the world's human population by 70 - 90% would solve many, if not most, human created problems, and ease the burden of the ones we do not. If it were to occur naturally over the next 25 - 100 years rather then by catastrophic event or events the pain would possibly be minimal. Just saying that Malthus had a point.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Just how miserable are you willing to make these peoples lives in order to accomplish your goal of decreasing the amount of CO2 being released?

A real implementation of a carbon tax.

British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. It isn’t large or onerous; for example, the tax on gasoline is 6.67 cents per litre, and on higher-carbon diesel it’s 7.67 cents. The tax, also covering coal, natural gas and other fuels, has had a big impact. Between 2008 and 2012, per capita consumption of the fuels subject to the carbon tax fell by more than 17 per cent in BC, while rising by 1.5 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to an analysis by Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa. Per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from sources subject to the BC carbon tax fell 10 per cent, while the rest of the country’s per capita emissions from the same sources were down 1.1 per cent. And even as BC’s path of carbon use was diverging from the rest of Canada, its economic performance was not. The best measure of economic growth – per capita gross domestic product – shows almost no difference between BC and the rest of Canada between 2008 and 2011. In fact, BC’s economic growth, even with a carbon tax, slightly outperformed the rest of the country.
What’s more, BC has used the carbon tax to reduce personal and business taxes. For middle-class and upper-middle income people, BC is now the province with the lowest income-tax burden – lower than Alberta.
In other words, BC has delivered big results, without taking radical steps. A tax on carbon nudged millions of British Columbians into making small decisions to figure out how to lower their carbon-tax burden. And all of those small steps have added up. There have been millions of tiny evolutions – not one giant revolution. The entire province didn’t give up cars or capitalism.

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

[Capt Phil]

Because most children regardless of their family's station in life, learn from their parents, either castrate all men or sterilize all women then the rate of pollution and global warming caused by man and woman will drop to the point that Al Gore will be delighted! Phil