Real news, MSM news, and faux news
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2026 14:49
VIEWED: 7882
PAGE 5 of 8
BTW, I apologize mightily for intruding into your attempt to have a reasonable discussion. I'll stop posting to this thread.
But YES - that book on idioms is cool. I got rather distracted and started reading it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Contributions to global emissions growth in 2011 were largest from China (0.226 PgC above 2010 levels, 9.9% growth) and India (0.043 PgC, 7.5%).
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (2.5 PgC, 28%), the United States (1.5 PgC, 16%), the European Union (EU27; 1.0 PgC, 11%), and India (0.6 PgC, 7%).
...
So let's say that the US CAN technically achieve an emissions reduction of 1/3 over the next 12 years (0.5 PgC), and the EU can reduce their emissions by another 1/5 (0.2 PgC). That's a 0.7 PgC per year reduction after 12 years between the two of them.
Between the US and the EU, achievable reductions are roughly 3 TIMES the increases due to China and India.
Not really.
You're assuming that China and India's emissions don't increase at all during that 12 year period. Assume instead that they continue to increase at the rates shown above, and in 12 years China will be producing around 7.75 PgC per year and India around 1.43 PgC.
At China's rate of 7.75 PgC per year after 12 years, the next year's increase, at 9.9%, will be 0.76 PgC. India's will be 7.5% of 1.43 PgC, or another 0.10 PgC, for a total of 0.86 PgC.
So a 0.7 PgC per year decrease in twelve years against a 0.86 PgC increase leaves a net increase of 0.16 PgC per year. And this doesn't even take into account probable increases in Latin America, Africa, the rest of Asia, and let's not forget Russia and the former Soviet Bloc countries not in the EU.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So explain it to us in a way that will convince a majority of American voters. Remember, that's your standard for Kiki and Signy, so please stick to it.
Interesting that you left out the bit where I said I didn't think this was likely.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as Geezer is concerned.... still waiting for ideas, I guess! I tried to give hm some starter ideas, yanno- like a starter culture. Maybe he's fresh out?
So you're still asking me for solutions to a problem (reducing net global greenhouse gas emissions) I consider unsolvable.
Could this be because you don't have any real solutions yourself? That you know that the problem is not amenible to solution, but hope that "If you wish hard enough you can fly"?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And bringing this over from the "climate money pit" thread to keep SignyM happy.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Oh, so you ARE discussing the topic? HAHHAHAHAHA! Thought so!
Also if you can find any evidence that SignyM's and KIKI's proposals to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1/3 or 1/2 or 4/5 are actually feasible, I'd be happy to see that too.
And yanno, the funny thing is, I keep saying I'm look for ideas, not proposals. In fact, I specifically said "I'm not looking for solutions to put on a development grant" (ie, a proposal). And so far, I haven't made any "proposals", I've provided three nascent ideas with the thought that perhaps they might spark other, possibly better ideas.
And finally- not that I'm trying to dictate where people post, but I keep trying to corral the discussion in the original thread, so it can be contemplated with all of the original context. So FWIW, here is the link, again.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55505
So what "ideas" do you want?
1. "Ideas" on how the U.S. can reduce the U.S. share of carbon emissions, or possibly reduce overall U.S. carbon output?
2. "Ideas" on how the U.S. can get the rest of the world to reduce global carbon emissions, or possibly reduce overall global carbon output? (Note: This is the one you're going to need if you believe that the greenhouse gas tipping point is near or already past.)
3. Something else?
What's your goal?
If it's #2, I don't think it's possible without a Deus ex Machina on the order of aliens landing and ordering us to mend our ways, with their superscientific help.
#1 could be doable, but probably not at the pace and rate of decrease that KIKI has proposed. Obama's plan is a good start.
You seem to think I'm against reducing carbon emissions in the U.S., but I'm not, and I'll tell you why.
Fossil fuel is a finite resource, and it's getting used up fast. A move to remove greenhouse gasses, even if if will not reduce global carbon one bit (And I've stated why I don't think it will) will have the benefit of reducing energy consumption and bringing online more renewable energy sources. Once we get over the unreasonable fear of nuclear energy and get some well-designed and safe plants up and running(Yeah. I know. Just take it as read for the sake of argument.), in concert with renewables, hydropower, and reductions in consumption, we'll be in a better position when the coal, oil, and natural gas run out.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, there seems to be a lot of "cross thread posting", which is fine except it makes it hard to track where a point is coming from, or going to.
From the other thread, you made the point -
Quote:
I often find that statement, or something similar, in discussions here and elsewhere. It seems to me to be the same wishful thinking as "If you believe it, you can fly", but expanded to "If everyone would just believe it, we could all fly"
It fits in with your argument here:
Quote:
Could this be because you don't have any real solutions yourself? That you know that the problem is not amenible to solution, but hope that "If you wish hard enough you can fly"?... .
My response to that, in the other thread, was
Quote:http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55522
If you don't think that can occur, then you can hardly support the idea of a Libertarian society.
First of all, as I've said- oh probably about a dozne times by now- I'm not looking for solutions, or proposals. I'm simply trying to spark ideas. AND BY THE WAY, EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN! This isn't supposed to be a grudge-match between Geezer and me.
I was going to wait until the coming weekend, but let me give you some examples of various ideas that have ocurred to me:
It seems we have several large problems, one of them is lack of jobs and the other is climate shift. What prevents us (the government) from hiring large numbers of people to do the climate-directed remediation?:
Careful and selective forest thinning to biochar, and better fire prevention
Redeveloping wetlands which not only retain nutrients from being washed into the ocean but also act as even better carbon sinks than forestland
Pre-planting a variety of heat-resistant plant further north to act as nuclei for the transition of biomes
Retrofitting old houses to be more energy-efficient.
Rebuilding and replanting barrier islands, and re-planting those stagnant dysfunctional estuaries which are currently transitioning from freshwater to saltwater, going thru a rotting-vegetation stage which is not productive for either regime.
These kinds of jobs require hands-on, job-creating work. (Elsewhere, Geezer asked: Should we revert to manual labor when we have automation to do things for us? My response was: Why not? You don't have to dump EVERY piece of machinery, but you can do it selectively).
The bars to this are: Well, people like Geezer just don't like the government doing ANYTHING. Also, there is the problem of spending. Corporations would object. But these are very "decisional" points: people have "decided" on various activities, there is nothing inherently impossible in any of them, and supportive scientific papers on all of them. All of these represent real investments in reducing futire costs and improving future outcomes, they're simply investments that corporations are unwilling to make.
We could reduce military spending and invest, in an active and conscious way, to not only to mitigate climate chnage but also to prepare for the coming problems. The problems are actually rather simple to solve (at least mentally) if one is willing to let go of old ideas.
Or we could direct market forces to do some of our work for us. Right now, corporations and nations are rewarded for maximum profit by a series of "free-trade" agreements, supported by law, which require decisions to be made on a pure profit basis, despite the fact that total costs may go up as long as they're "externalized" to society or the environment at large. But these are decision points. It's not as if we are wishing to fly (an impossibility without aircraft). There is nothing physically impossible, or even counter-productive to human happiness and development.
Laws can change if goals change. What if we were to trade food for energy efficient goods? What if we were to trade energy assis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think a really big issue has been corporate responsibility. Until fairly recently, corporations made money, sometimes an incredible amount of it, but give very little back, or at least a lot of them, including taxes. apart from bits of regulation, there was little requirement for responsibility around environmental mess they have caused directly or indirectly. There only impetus has been profit, the bigger the better, that's where CEOs are rewarded by their enormous renumeration packages. While profit remains the bottom line of success, everything else is expendable, including the environment. I could also add that there are many other casualties along the way, humane working conditions, nation building et al.
When legislation such as carbon taxes are introduced, the wailing that happens is around the impact on profit. The conventional thinking is that lower profits means economic disaster and higher profits mean more jobs. On one level that is true. A company needs to be earning enough to employ and grow, but there comes a point where super profits just go back to shareholders and company directors.
Anyway, no solutions, just some thoughts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So explain it to us in a way that will convince a majority of American voters. Remember, that's your standard for Kiki and Signy, so please stick to it.
Interesting that you left out the bit where I said I didn't think this was likely.
So you're sticking to your libertarianism, even though you've already admitted that not one country on Earth has ever used it as a foundation of government, you admit it's unlikely ever to happen, you've got zero plan to try to convince people or push your agenda...
... but you just still like talking about it?
Huh. So I have to ask at this point...
Why are you busting Kiki and Signy's chops for bringing up climate change?
Are you the only one who's allowed to daydream about an ideal world, or suggest that maybe we should be pushing towards such a thing?
I mean, how do you expect libertarian beliefs to win out if China, India, the EU, and others aren't on board?
Apparently you choose your unwinnable battles based purely on a whim.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All thoughts welcome, solutions not required!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer seems to have fallen into the age-old trap of looking for someone to come up with The One Magic Solution. He's looking for someone to come up with a single step that solves 100% of the problem. That's like thinking that you can begin your thousand-mile journey be starting at your destination.
I've been saying this for years: There isn't one single monolithic perfect solution. That holds true for pretty much any Big Problem you're ever going to face. To go chasing the magic bullet is to set yourself up for disappointment and failure. If you put all your money on the 100% solution and fail, you have one hundred percent failure and zero help.
Instead, look for a hundred different one-percent solutions. Look for all the tiny things you can do, right now or in the immediate future, and start doing them. None does much, all do something.
If you start looking at a hundred small solutions, and half of them fail, you're still halfway there.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME