Answer to Global Warming

[Mogwyth]

UN scientists have said global warming is for real and it's worst than they thought. Several posters on here have suggested population control as a solution, but we need to reverse the damage we have done as well. So what can we do that will achive both.............................














.....................a few strategic nuclear warheads, take out half the worlds population and create a nuclear winter at the same time

 

[Llanigraham]

But surely if we all left our fridge and freezer doors open that would cool it down!!!!


























Coat on.
Leaving now!

 

[freelanderPX54]

It is pretty simple really. The UK needs to carry on and ban cars from the roads, kill all the cows (and the 4 legged ones as well) because of the methane that these selfish animals produce, ban all home electrical appliances - do we really need them? and when we have made a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% diference to climate change, we can say "haven't we done good?"

The other alternative of course is a tactical nuclear strike on the worlds worst polluters - China, Parts of Russia, America, Parts of South America and France (because they are French)

 

[Ben Breese]

I read somewhere that cars only produce 7% of the worlds TOTAL co2 emissions. So if you took every car off the road through out the world, it would make 7% of difference. Yet this gvt seems its the answer to the worlds problems And considering we're only a small country compared to the US too, we must have a fraction of the worlds vehicles in comparison.
I'll try to find the article, don't hold your breath though

Cheers, Ben

 

[conkers]

Plant a tree on your birthday! Do this for every year of your life and don't have sex. I learnt this from catholosism, don't ask what I learnt from islam

 

[Mogwyth]

I read somewhere that cars only produce 7% of the worlds TOTAL co2 emissions. So if you took every car off the road through out the world, it would make 7% of difference. Yet this gvt seems its the answer to the worlds problems And considering we're only a small country compared to the US too, we must have a fraction of the worlds vehicles in comparison.
I'll try to find the article, don't hold your breath though

Cheers, Ben

You're right Ben, to take it further cars in the Uk produce 8% of the the UKs emissions, the UKs emissions account for only 2% of the worlds emissions. Tropical deforestation contributes between 10 and 30 per cent of global warming emissions, China's emissions will increase by more than the UK total in the next 2 years and the point in taxing gas guzzling cars in the UK is..........................

 

[Roger Whittle]

You're right Ben, to take it further cars in the Uk produce 8% of the the UKs emissions, the UKs emissions account for only 2% of the worlds emissions. Tropical deforestation contributes between 10 and 30 per cent of global warming emissions, China's emissions will increase by more than the UK total in the next 2 years and the point in taxing gas guzzling cars in the UK is..........................

Someone on the radio yesterday - 'any answers' I think (Johnathan Dimbleby, well known 90 driver) was quite vociferously sceptical of the global warming hysteria and Dimbleby was giving him a bit of a hard time. By the way, have you noticed how the BBC has selectively lifted its 'balanced view' policy? Now, they are 100% 'Global Warming is our fault' orriented.

However, the Naysayer had done his homework - or certainly appeared to have done so - and made some very telling points. One was; if the UK 'shut down' - or went back to the stone age - it would make absolutely no difference to climate change whatsoever. He also pointed out that if flying were to be banned, it would make no difference to climate change.

His most telling criticism of 'green taxes' was quite simple. He would only pay 'green taxes' willingly if all of it were to be directed to subsidising Brazilian farmers, so they would stop cutting down and burning the rain forest. He claimed this would be the only way such taxes could or would make the slightest difference. I agree.

Roger.

 

[Lighting90]

of course, everyone picked up from that latest UN report that even if we suddenly stopped producing all this CO, the worlds temp would still rise by 2.4 degrees C, if we carry on as we are, it was going to rise to 3 degrees C, and worst case if we increase the CO output year on year as at present, it would rise by 6.4 Degrees C, all of course over the next 100 years.... not tomorrow one should add.

So, if we carry on as we are the net effect is actually only a 1 degree increase... It should be noted that net increases are only predicted in areas like china and other developing parts of the world... as they try to manufacture goods for us in the first world, on the cheap...

So, who is to blame for all of this, well, maybe it is time we stopped buying the cheapest goods we can find, and start be more selective about where the goods come form that we buy... easy to say rather than do, but I start with British, the european then other parts of the world after that. Doesn't always work and even when you do choose, sometimes the choice is removed by the manufacturers you are buying from in general. At least the computer I am using to view this website was assmebled in Ireland, and the monitor was made in Italy... okay if I open both up the componets are made in china, etc... but at least I have helped a little....

 

[Ben Breese]

You're right Ben, to take it further cars in the Uk produce 8% of the the UKs emissions, the UKs emissions account for only 2% of the worlds emissions. Tropical deforestation contributes between 10 and 30 per cent of global warming emissions, China's emissions will increase by more than the UK total in the next 2 years and the point in taxing gas guzzling cars in the UK is..........................

So the all the cars in the UK produce 0.16% of the worlds total co2 emissions. Well, I can see its all our fault now:shakehead
Motorists are the easy way for the gvt to get money, thats the bottom line.

Cheers, Ben

 

[TBM]

It's the meat eaters that are to blame. Beef Cattle provide something like 17% of emissions through their methane, and the rainforests are cut down to make more pasture for them.

Not a modern thing though - the large amounts of deforestation took place in the mesolithic period.

Go vegetarian, replant the rainforests and the whole world would be carbon neutral. Would only take 10 years. The trees could more than handle the emissions from industry and motoring.


All depends how serious you are about it. The simple solution is out there.

 

[Mogwyth]

So the all the cars in the UK produce 0.16% of the worlds total co2 emissions. Well, I can see its all our fault now:shakehead
Motorists are the easy way for the gvt to get money, thats the bottom line.

Cheers, Ben

Nail, Hammer, Head.

There was a report in Telegraph today about carbon capture power stations, these work by pumping crude straight out of ground into the power station and reducing the oil down to CO2 and Hydrogen, the Hydrogen powers the station emitting just water and the Co2 is pumped back into the oil field which has the added benefit of pushing more usable oil out of the bed rock. Now BP are willing to put £500 million of thier own money into building the first of these power stations, the small catch is the cost of the electricity produced it's dearer than a normal power stations, Bp has asked that it be put on par with renewables in that the power companies have to buy a minimum percent of thier power from renewable sources. Various energy experts from the universities have said this is the way forward. The goverment in their infinite wisdom have said maybe, after we employ a company to carry out a feasability study, then we discuss it for a while, then we'll build a demonstration plant and by 2011 we may have an answer, by which time BP will have closed the oil field it wants to us as it will cease to be economicly viable for normal operation.

 

[Mogwyth]

It's the meat eaters that are to blame. Beef Cattle provide something like 17% of emissions through their methane, and the rainforests are cut down to make more pasture for them.

Actualy that may have been true in the past by now its for date palm oil production, which apart from it's widespread use in food production is being eyed up by the energy companies as a fuel substitute.

 

[Lodelaner]

International co-operation by the world's biggest polluters (USA and China) won't happen.

The earth will heat up, despite alternative and renewable energy sources and technologies.

So accepting that climate change will happen; it will affect human geography as we know it today, it will affect animal species and flora.

And I think that's the point - it won't wipe everything out. It will be different. We know that we live in an unsustainable world so things must change. Unquantifiable numbers of people, species and plant varieties will die, unquantifiable numbers will flourish.

Humans dislike change; it's a dreadful prospect. Whilst we fiddle around the edges, the world will continue to make hay whilst the sun shines.

 

[Bigredone]

It's the meat eaters that are to blame. Beef Cattle provide something like 17% of emissions through their methane, and the rainforests are cut down to make more pasture for them.

Not a modern thing though - the large amounts of deforestation took place in the mesolithic period.

Go vegetarian, replant the rainforests and the whole world would be carbon neutral. Would only take 10 years. The trees could more than handle the emissions from industry and motoring.


All depends how serious you are about it. The simple solution is out there.

Nah it's the vegetarian's who are to blame, there not doing there share!,
if we all ate the cattle then there would be less of them to fart then again is it not the cattle's fault for being so dam tasty in the first place?

But being serious i do agree with what you are saying about the rain forest's as it is more than just tree's that they cut down, it's a whole eco system there destroying.

 

[Lighting90]

It's the meat eaters that are to blame. Beef Cattle provide something like 17% of emissions through their methane, and the rainforests are cut down to make more pasture for them.

Not a modern thing though - the large amounts of deforestation took place in the mesolithic period.

Go vegetarian, replant the rainforests and the whole world would be carbon neutral. Would only take 10 years. The trees could more than handle the emissions from industry and motoring.


All depends how serious you are about it. The simple solution is out there.

Easy answer to that one, only buy British Beef... as no rain forests were cut down for them...

Unless someone comes up with something that uses CO2 to create energy, change will happen as the CO levels are raising generally, as more of it is been released that was trapped in the underground coal/oil/gas reserves we use... and also the amount trapped in the ice/snow layers that are melting...

Just have to work out the best place to move too, that is all... and sell now while the house prices are good here, and buy hopefully where the house prices are cheap...

 

[Landyhunter]

Yellowstone. If Yellowstone volcano were to blow the resulting drop in temperature would reverse global warming and take out one of the main reasons for it (America). Things would be rough for a few years for everyone but at the end of it all balance would be restored and enough of the human population will be destroyed to ensure it stays that way. Well until we multiply to the extent that we consume more than the natural resources can sustain (which is what we do now).

 

[Snagger]

Yellowstone. If Yellowstone volcano were to blow the resulting drop in temperature would reverse global warming and take out one of the main reasons for it (America). Things would be rough for a few years for everyone but at the end of it all balance would be restored and enough of the human population will be destroyed to ensure it stays that way. Well until we multiply to the extent that we consume more than the natural resources can sustain (which is what we do now).

Be careful of what you wish for - if the Americans are suddenly inwardly preoccupoed or even eliminated, the Islaamic arc and Communist Asia will fill the power vacuum. Not a "happy thought".

 

[TBM]

Be careful of what you wish for - if the Americans are suddenly inwardly preoccupoed or even eliminated, the Islaamic arc and Communist Asia will fill the power vacuum. Not a "happy thought".

personally, give me an islamic fundamentalist terrorist over a christian fundamentalist terrorist american president any day.

I think, over the last 50 years, America are the perpetrators of far more terrorist atrocities worldwide than Al Quaeda. I remember, at University 20 years ago, seeing a pamphlet produced by Amnesty or some similar organisation. It listed around 50 countries/regions that had been bombed by the USA since the cessation of hostilites after WW2. And that was 20 years ago, how many have they added since then? And how many more have they got planned? Iran? Korea? Syria? How long till we're next?

 

[Snagger]

Easy answer to that one, only buy British Beef... as no rain forests were cut down for them...

Unless someone comes up with something that uses CO2 to create energy, change will happen as the CO levels are raising generally, as more of it is been released that was trapped in the underground coal/oil/gas reserves we use... and also the amount trapped in the ice/snow layers that are melting...

Just have to work out the best place to move too, that is all... and sell now while the house prices are good here, and buy hopefully where the house prices are cheap...

The whole of the UK used to be forest (proper deciduous woodland, not of the horrible pine rubbish). Now only a tiny percentage is left - it was cleared largely for agriculture, but a great deal was cut down to ptovide materials for the Royal Navy in Henry VIII, Elizabeth and George III's reigns. The land was then used for agriculture anyway...


My opinion - buy British to support our economy as well as to reduce Asian and South American pollution, do not give to charities that foolishly promote the over-population of the third world, try to be sensible about energy useage (like turning off un-neccessary appliances etc), but above all, be pragmatic that it's all over played in order to give politicians tax-raising leverage world wide and that himans' impact is limited while natural elements dominate the possible warming issue.

 

[TBM]

I remember, at University 20 years ago, seeing a pamphlet produced by Amnesty or some similar organisation. It listed around 50 countries/regions that had been bombed by the USA since the cessation of hostilites after WW2.

1.China 1945-46
2.Korea 1950-53
3.China 1950-53
4.Guatemala 1954
5.Indonesia 1958
6.Cuba 1959-60
7.Guatemala 1960
8.Belgian Congo 1964
9.Guatemala 1964
10.Dominican Republic 1965-66
11.Peru 1965
12.Laos 1964-73
13.Vietnam 1961-73
14.Cambodia 1969-70
15.Guatemala 1967-69
16.Lebanon 1982-84
17.Grenada 1983-84
18.Libya 1986
19.El Salvador 1981-92
20.Nicaragua 1981-90
21.Libya 1986
22.Iran 1987-88
23.Libya 1989
24.Panama 1989-90
25.Iraq 1991-2002
26.Kuwait 1991
27.Somalia 1992-94
28.Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
29.Bosnia 1995
30.Iran 1998 (airliner)
31.Sudan 1998
32.Afghanistan 1998
33.Yugoslavia 1999
34.Afghanistan 2001-02

My mistake. 'Only' 34 bombing raids and 20 odd different countries. They've had a couple of goes in some places. No doubt missed the first time......