[jimjam]

The most telling example is provided by the US, which has emitted about a third of the carbon responsible for global warming. Yet it has essentially done nothing to check its annual rises in output. Lobbying by the fossil fuel industry has proved highly effective at blocking political change – a point most recently demonstrated by groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute, which helped persuade President Trump to pull out of the Paris agreement, thus dashing the planet’s last hope of ecological salvation. “The coalition used its power to slow us down precisely at the moment when we needed to speed up,” said the environmentalist Bill McKibben in the New Yorker. “As a result, the particular politics of one country for one half-century will have changed the geological history of the Earth.”

[One Degree]

The most telling example is provided by the US, which has emitted about a third of the carbon responsible for global warming. Yet it has essentially done nothing to check its annual rises in output. Lobbying by the fossil fuel industry has proved highly effective at blocking political change – a point most recently demonstrated by groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute, which helped persuade President Trump to pull out of the Paris agreement, thus dashing the planet’s last hope of ecological salvation. “The coalition used its power to slow us down precisely at the moment when we needed to speed up,” said the environmentalist Bill McKibben in the New Yorker. “As a result, the particular politics of one country for one half-century will have changed the geological history of the Earth.”

I don’t know what your information is based on, but China was #1 the last I heard.Should the US quit raising food for export?Should we allow immigrants who increase their carbon footprint 10 fold?

[Doug64]

I don’t know what your information is based on, but China was #1 the last I heard.

Here's where the rankings were as of a year-and-a-half ago: Biggest Contributors To Global Warming In The World By Country

1 China 23.43 %
2 U.S. 14.69 %
3 India 5.70 %
4 Russian Federation 4.87 %
5 Brazil 4.17 %
6 Japan 3.61 %
7 Indonesia 2.31 %
8 Germany 2.23 %
9 Korea 1.75 %
10 Canada 1.57 %
11 Iran 1.57 %

[jimjam]

Last year, the United States suffered more than $300 billion in damage from weather disasters, breaking the previous record by more than 40 percent. Nearly $1.5 trillion in real estate sits within an eighth of a mile of the coast, and rising tides are beginning to claim it. “There are already indications in places like Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Norfolk, Virginia, that homes subject to recurring flooding may become unsellable,” says the report. “Risk portfolios in the housing finance, municipal bond, and insurance industries may need to be adjusted.”

I don’t know what your information is based on, but China was #1 the last I heard.Should the US quit raising food for export?Should we allow immigrants who increase their carbon footprint 10 fold?

My information is based upon the past few decades. What time span is your information based upon?

Carbon footprint of immigrants I suspect doesn't hold a candle to immeasurable clouds of fossil fuel crud rising up from the USA.

Food exports? I suspect that in due time food supply will diminish as population increases and in the heartland, we parch the earth. Climate change has dried out soil across the country. A 2017 drought caused $2.5 billion in damage. A 2015 drought cost twice that. A 2012 drought cost $33 billion, destroying crops across the Plains and the Midwest. Livestock losses from heat stress are approaching $2 billion per year. The Fourth National Climate Assessment report issued on Friday says major portions of the Ogallala Aquifer, a huge area that stretches from South Dakota to Texas—and covers states that produce one-fifth of the country’s corn, cotton, and wheat—“should now be considered a nonrenewable resource.”

[One Degree]

Last year, the United States suffered more than $300 billion in damage from weather disasters, breaking the previous record by more than 40 percent. Nearly $1.5 trillion in real estate sits within an eighth of a mile of the coast, and rising tides are beginning to claim it. “There are already indications in places like Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Norfolk, Virginia, that homes subject to recurring flooding may become unsellable,” says the report. “Risk portfolios in the housing finance, municipal bond, and insurance industries may need to be adjusted.”


My information is based upon the past few decades. What time span is your information based upon?

Carbon footprint of immigrants I suspect doesn't hold a candle to immeasurable clouds of fossil fuel crud rising up from the USA.

Food exports? I suspect that in due time food supply will diminish as population increases and in the heartland, we parch the earth. Climate change has dried out soil across the country. A 2017 drought caused $2.5 billion in damage. A 2015 drought cost twice that. A 2012 drought cost $33 billion, destroying crops across the Plains and the Midwest. Livestock losses from heat stress are approaching $2 billion per year. The Fourth National Climate Assessment report issued on Friday says major portions of the Ogallala Aquifer, a huge area that stretches from South Dakota to Texas—and covers states that produce one-fifth of the country’s corn, cotton, and wheat—“should now be considered a nonrenewable resource.”

I don’t know what the dollar losses have to do with our carbon footprint, but yes I agree all these problems exist. Our carbon footprint is ultimately dependent upon our population. Animal populations also add to it.

[Steve_American]

@jimjam, @One Degree,
It seems to me that jimjam said it clearly and 1 Deg. misunderstood.
The US has burnt a lot of coal and oil over the last 200 years. China just started burning them in a big way about 70 years ago.
The huge head start that the US had has not yet been overcome by the fact that China burns more now.
And 1 Deg. ignores the per capita amount of CO2 added to the air by the 2 nations. China has [what?] 1.3 B people = 1300M people and the US has [what?] 330M people. 1300/330 = 3.939, so China has 4 times as many people and adds 1.5949 = 1.6 times more CO2 to the air. It seems like the US is 'losing' on both fronts. More total CO2 released since 1850 and more per person.

[Steve_American]

Hankschannel is interesting. The 1st video is from Oct, '18. It is just his thoughts, skip the last minute or so.
The 2nd and 3rd are related. A paid shill for the Enterprise Institute was on 'Meet the Press' in late Nov., '18 and said some things that Hank just had to refute. He made 2 mistakes and did the 3rd one to correct them.
. . In the comments I point out a stronger attack on her. Namely that her 1st sentence started out with a bold face lie. Remember that she is a paid spokeswoman for the Enterprise Institute and had therefore created a script based on focus groups for what to say. We can't give her any benefit of the doubt that she was making it up on the fly and misspoke.
. . She said, “We just had the 2 coldest years, the biggest drop in temp. that we have had since the 80s, in the last 100 years.” What she did here is to plant the lie and then cover her ass with the 2nd part. The last 2 years were not the 2 coldest in the last 100 years. They were in fact 2 of the 6 warmest years on record ever. Then, she back tracks to talk about the drop in temp. That is in the noise. In the jagged graph with the upward trend she points to the low points.
. . But she started with a bold face lie. And remember in an argument the 1st and last points you make are all that most people will remember.

[jimjam]

The collapse of civilisation and the natural world is on the horizon, Sir David Attenborough has told the UN climate change summit in Poland. “Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” he said. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

In the run-up to the summit, Donald Trump expressed denial about climate change, while there were attacks on the UN process from Brazil’s incoming administration under Jair Bolsonaro. Ricardo Navarro, of Friends of the Earth in El Salvador, said: “We must build an alternative future based on a just energy transformation. We face the threat of rightwing populist and climate-denying leaders further undermining climate protection and racing to exploit fossil fuels. We must resist.”

This is no side show kids. This is the main act. Those who profit from the existing setup and the politicians they have purchased would like you to think otherwise but their greed influenced idea of leadership is becoming alarmingly evident.

[One Degree]

@jimjam, @One Degree,
It seems to me that jimjam said it clearly and 1 Deg. misunderstood.
The US has burnt a lot of coal and oil over the last 200 years. China just started burning them in a big way about 70 years ago.
The huge head start that the US had has not yet been overcome by the fact that China burns more now.
And 1 Deg. ignores the per capita amount of CO2 added to the air by the 2 nations. China has [what?] 1.3 B people = 1300M people and the US has [what?] 330M people. 1300/330 = 3.939, so China has 4 times as many people and adds 1.5949 = 1.6 times more CO2 to the air. It seems like the US is 'losing' on both fronts. More total CO2 released since 1850 and more per person.

I don’t ignore it. It is one reason I am against immigration to the US. What the US did in the past is irrelevant. It’s done. What matters is what people are doing now.
Actually, what we are doing only matters based upon the population you want earth to have. Everything else is dependent upon population, which it is not ‘nice’ to consider as a solution. Lol.
Burning fossil fuels was never a problem until our population grew and we used them at a greater rate.
Face the real problem instead of pretending the symptom (climate change) is the problem.

[Steve_American]

I don’t ignore it. It is one reason I am against immigration to the US. What the US did in the past is irrelevant. It’s done. What matters is what people are doing now.
Actually, what we are doing only matters based upon the population you want earth to have. Everything else is dependent upon population, which it is not ‘nice’ to consider as a solution. Lol.
Burning fossil fuels was never a problem until our population grew and we used them at a greater rate.
Face the real problem instead of pretending the symptom (climate change) is the problem.

They are both problems. Climate change is easier to deal with now because many people like Mormons and Catholics strongly believe that God has told them how to live. I expect that by the time the climate has done its worst and if civilization survives that almost all people will be very willing to control population growth.
. . In the NOW, the only way to reduce the pop. is to massively be killing people. Unless you [a general you] are willing to be killed as part of such a program you [again, whoever you are] can't morally be calling for such a program. If you are not willing to die then it is just an excuse to serve your own interests.
. . Decades ago I proposed a way to control population. Every baby at birth is given a license to live and have one baby from one of its parents. Every couple can have 2 children, if 1 dies the parent gets his/her license back and can have another. A nation with too many people and not enough money can gather up some of its people's licenses and sell them to whoever wants one for as much as they can get.
. . If a woman gets pregnant and has no license she can buy one. If she can't then she can't have the baby. If she has the baby anyway, then the law of the jungle applies [i.e., the mother dies and maybe the baby too]. No exceptions, any exceptions are handled by getting the mother a license to give to her baby.
. . This is done world wide, no exceptions, especially no religious exceptions.
. . I expect that with this system in place, the rich will buy licenses from the poor and have more children. Perhaps there would need to be a minimum price for licenses to keep the rich from exploiting the poor.
. . In the beginning there would be a transition period. Every fairly young childless person would be given a license. Some couples might be given 2 half licenses, and some people also half licenses.
. . Other details to be filled in later by the people alive then.

[One Degree]

They are both problems. Climate change is easier to deal with now because many people like Mormons and Catholics strongly believe that God has told them how to live. I expect that by the time the climate has done its worst and if civilization survives that almost all people will be very willing to control population growth.
. . In the NOW, the only way to reduce the pop. is to massively be killing people. Unless you [a general you] are willing to be killed as part of such a program you [again, whoever you are] can't morally be calling for such a program. If you are not willing to die then it is just an excuse to serve your own interests.
. . Decades ago I proposed a way to control population. Every baby at birth is given a license to live and have one baby from one of its parents. Every couple can have 2 children, if 1 dies the parent gets his/her license back and can have another. A nation with too many people and not enough money can gather up some of its people's licenses and sell them to whoever wants one for as much as they can get.
. . If a woman gets pregnant and has no license she can buy one. If she can't then she can't have the baby. If she has the baby anyway, then the law of the jungle applies [i.e., the mother dies and maybe the baby too]. No exceptions, any exceptions are handled by getting the mother a license to give to her baby.
. . This is done world wide, no exceptions, especially no religious exceptions.
. . I expect that with this system in place, the rich will buy licenses from the poor and have more children. Perhaps there would need to be a minimum price for licenses to keep the rich from exploiting the poor.
. . In the beginning there would be a transition period. Every fairly young childless person would be given a license. Some couples might be given 2 half licenses, and some people also half licenses.
. . Other details to be filled in later by the people alive then.

Admittedly there is no fair solution. I would just stop all immigration and let people work it out. The most advanced populations would decline and the overpopulated would suffer until they adjusted.

[Steve_American]

[/quote]

It came to me suddenly out of the blue that Peter Carter in this video missed a key point.
I went back to see if I was right, and sure enough, I was right.
The point is 'why is warming accelerating during the last 25 years?'
It doesn't seem to be because CO2 emissions or concentrations in the air are accelerating.
We know it isn't because the sun got hotter, because the Ice Age video shows that the sun has gotten a tiny bit cooler.
We know it isn't because of the Milankovitch Cycles. They are now in the part of the cycle when the earth is cooling and headed for another Ice Age.
It might be because Methane emissions are or have recently increased because of fracking.
Or, it might be because 1 or 2 tipping points have been crossed.
You can see the key data I'm basing my point on in this video on 3 or 4 graphs between the 3 and 8 min. marks. Two of the graphs are of time vs CO2 emissions or concentrations in the air. As I see these graphs they show that these have increased exponentially until the last 25 years; for those last 25 years they are straight or even show a slight slowing.
OTOH, the graphs for temp. or temp. increase show that temps. are increasing exponentially over this 25 year period. To see this you need to do what Peter did for the years from 1880 to 2017or18. He calculated the slope of the data 4 times for 4 different time periods; they all end in 2018. His 4 lines show an increasing slope over time.
. . . If you do this for just the last 25 years, I think you can see that, by eyeball estimate, again that the slope increases over time.

But, why is this true? One set of graphs shows that we have done a little to slow the emissions of CO2 a little. Enough to keep the line for emissions straight and for concentrations slowing a tiny bit. Emissions and concentrations are not currently (over the last 25 years) increasing exponentially. OTOH, the graphs that matter are the actual temp. vs time ones. And they are still increasing exponentially. This is very troubling.
The most likely explanation is that a tipping point has been reached and the earth is emitting something that is increasing the temps. exponentially. This can't be CO2 because we have direct measurements for its concentration presented here. Methane seems like the most likely cause.
I hope that the cause for this is fracking and not melting permafrost and methane hydrates in the Arctic.
I have seen reports that methane is 150 times worse than CO2 when it is 1st released and it drops off to 20 times worse averaged over a 100 year period [because after 100 years almost all of it has changed to CO2 and water]. The thing is that for the 1st 10 years the average is 80 times worse than CO2 [ton for ton]

[blackjack21]

The collapse of civilisation and the natural world is on the horizon, Sir David Attenborough has told the UN climate change summit in Poland.

A broadcaster reads from a script, and you think it is worthy of citation?

Ricardo Navarro, of Friends of the Earth in El Salvador, said: “We must build an alternative future based on a just energy transformation. We face the threat of rightwing populist and climate-denying leaders further undermining climate protection and racing to exploit fossil fuels. We must resist.”

Really? Right-wingers are not "friends of the Earth"? Is that the new way to purse your lips and stand akimbo?

This is no side show kids. This is the main act.

I'm nonplussed.

I expect that by the time the climate has done its worst and if civilization survives that almost all people will be very willing to control population growth.

It's the third world that needs to control birth rates. Maybe we should just stop selling them medicine. Seems like an easy fix if the end of the world is the alternative.

In the NOW, the only way to reduce the pop. is to massively be killing people.

Right. If we really believe this stuff, we should outlaw pacifism. We should all be clamoring for war, because war and the resulting famines that usually follow would be the most tried-and-true way to cull the population.

If you are not willing to die then it is just an excuse to serve your own interests.

Everyone is going to die anyway. So there doesn't seem to be a point to this?

Decades ago I proposed a way to control population. Every baby at birth is given a license to live and have one baby from one of its parents. Every couple can have 2 children, if 1 dies the parent gets his/her license back and can have another. A nation with too many people and not enough money can gather up some of its people's licenses and sell them to whoever wants one for as much as they can get.

Ok. So China followed that advice, and pretty much nobody else did. It sounds like you've had some luck convincing the Chinese. Keep up the good work, I guess.

If a woman gets pregnant and has no license she can buy one. If she can't then she can't have the baby. If she has the baby anyway, then the law of the jungle applies [i.e., the mother dies and maybe the baby too]. No exceptions, any exceptions are handled by getting the mother a license to give to her baby.

I'm guessing license fraud would be a rampant problem.

This is done world wide, no exceptions, especially no religious exceptions.

Uh huh. So how to you plan to enforce something world wide? Do you see any problems with that idea?

I expect that with this system in place, the rich will buy licenses from the poor and have more children. Perhaps there would need to be a minimum price for licenses to keep the rich from exploiting the poor.

Assuming you can get such a system in place, it seems the age-old problem of rich and poor will still be with you.

Other details to be filled in later by the people alive then.

Like what? Outlaw all homosexuals, communists, Jews, mentally retarded, mentally handicapped, etc. from receiving licenses? I imagine handing out licenses by ordinal IQ rankings would be a real hit among the world's idiots.

[redcarpet]

. . This is done world wide, no exceptions, especially no religious exceptions.

For Western societies it is absurd to make that kind of proposal. The Supreme/High court of the country will just strike it down as unconstitutional, in breach of the right to freedom of religion.

That's assuming the national legislature passes it, lol.

[Hindsite]

The collapse of civilisation and the natural world is on the horizon, Sir David Attenborough has told the UN climate change summit in Poland. “Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” he said. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

In the run-up to the summit, Donald Trump expressed denial about climate change, while there were attacks on the UN process from Brazil’s incoming administration under Jair Bolsonaro. Ricardo Navarro, of Friends of the Earth in El Salvador, said: “We must build an alternative future based on a just energy transformation. We face the threat of rightwing populist and climate-denying leaders further undermining climate protection and racing to exploit fossil fuels. We must resist.”

This is no side show kids. This is the main act. Those who profit from the existing setup and the politicians they have purchased would like you to think otherwise but their greed influenced idea of leadership is becoming alarmingly evident.

Get solar panels and wind turbines and release your stress. And don't forget to praise the Lord, then you will be fine.
HalleluYah

[Steve_American]

Steve_American wrote:
. . This is done world wide, no exceptions, especially no religious exceptions.

For Western societies it is absurd to make that kind of proposal. The Supreme/High court of the country will just strike it down as unconstitutional, in breach of the right to freedom of religion.

That's assuming the national legislature passes it, lol.

Redcarpet,
You like a lot of people don't get the context.
I said after 90% of the people alive today, starve or die of other AGW causes, that people will have a whole different way of looking at everything.
This sort of thing changes people. And, all of us will have died of old age so basically everyone alive today will be dead by the time the legislature takes up the question of how to keep Humanity from making such a mess of things ever again.

I am predicting that religious objections will not be allowed to stand in the way.
In the same way that right now, if someone tried to re-establish a religion that required unwilling humans to be dragged up to the top of a pyramid and their living heart cut out of their body; and then the body roasted for a cannibal feast that 99.99% of people in the West would say that that is not allowed, period.
. . Freedom of religion only goes so far, and no further.

[Steve_American]

A broadcaster reads from a script, and you think it is worthy of citation?

Really? Right-wingers are not "friends of the Earth"? Is that the new way to purse your lips and stand akimbo?

I'm nonplussed.

It's the third world that needs to control birth rates. Maybe we should just stop selling them medicine. Seems like an easy fix if the end of the world is the alternative.

Right. If we really believe this stuff, we should outlaw pacifism. We should all be clamoring for war, because war and the resulting famines that usually follow would be the most tried-and-true way to cull the population.

Everyone is going to die anyway. So there doesn't seem to be a point to this?

Ok. So China followed that advice, and pretty much nobody else did. It sounds like you've had some luck convincing the Chinese. Keep up the good work, I guess.

I'm guessing license fraud would be a rampant problem.

Uh huh. So how to you plan to enforce something world wide? Do you see any problems with that idea?

Assuming you can get such a system in place, it seems the age-old problem of rich and poor will still be with you.

Like what? Outlaw all homosexuals, communists, Jews, mentally retarded, mentally handicapped, etc. from receiving licenses? I imagine handing out licenses by ordinal IQ rankings would be a real hit among the world's idiots.

Blackjack, take your attitude and shove it.

If everyone has died than it is a moot point obviously.

Or, try reading my reply above. After 90% of people die, humans will have different attitudes.

[jimjam]

I see where Trump ,who has been acting at the behest of his handlers in the fossil fuel industry by repeatedly denying the mere existence of global warming, has recently been forced to acknowledge that the globe is indeed warming. To this acknowledgement he adds the absurd caveat, intended to appease his fossil fuel handlers and appeal to loud crowds of mentally challenged people wearing little red hats, that such warming is in no way influenced by human behavior and will, undoubtedly, reverse itself with no modification of human behavior .

Fortunately there is an actual law that mandates the periodic release of a report compiled by 13 government agencies outlining the current status of climate change. In a rather obvious attempt to minimize the effect of truth upon Donald's lie industry, the report was released at 2pm on the day after Thanksgiving. The thought process behind the timing was likely that many folks would be napping or having bowel movements at that time. The "good" news is that the effects of global warming could reduce the size of the American economy by 10% by centuries end. A loss of money indicated by a shrinking economy is the only conceivable event that may cause Donald and his fellow money worshipers to consider not killing the goose that is laying their golden eggs.

Really? Right-wingers are not "friends of the Earth"? Is that the new way to purse your lips and stand akimbo?

I could spend the rest of the day enumerating instances of right wing money worshipers fucking Mother Earth in the ass but the only thing that may change their attitude would be, , a loss of profit …… preferably caused by violence in the streets.

[One Degree]

Wait a minute. Global warming is going to devastate us but the US economy is only going to shrink 10% by 2100? What’s wrong with this picture?

[blackjack21]

Blackjack, take your attitude and shove it.

If everyone has died than it is a moot point obviously.

Or, try reading my reply above. After 90% of people die, humans will have different attitudes.

Well, if 90% of humans die, they won't have to worry about AGW. How about this: let's have a Holocaust where we kill everyone that doesn't have solar panels on their houses? That would go a long way to solving the problem. (I'm safe. He he. I'm probably the "greenest" person on this board)

How many of you people who believe in this global warming claptrap have put your money where your mouth is and bought solar panels?