Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:02 pm
spot on. heres to life on the moon. and i am being serious.
what?the carbon is going to all run out anyway
what?the carbon is going to all run out anyway
Mr Hyde wrote: Why bother reducing carbon footprint if the carbon is going to all run out anyway or someone else is going to use it? just delaying the inevitable.
Right about European nations and their "native" people in decline. Of course all the developing/3rd world nations are growing in population. A balance or offset? Me thinks offset. China is going to see one huge offset in 20 years from the decades of killing off all the female infants in favor of having sons. Their government didn't think that one through at all.Mr Hyde wrote:Nah, la load of doom mongers I reckon!- we'll all be alright!
Once materials start to become scarce capitalism means that they'll cost more money and alternatives will be found...as far as populations increasing- it'll all steady out at some point, most of W Europe is steady or in decline now.
but by current scientific understanding, by the time the natural resources run out, a tipping point will have been reached with regard to atmospheric content of 'greenhouse' gases (not just CO2), after which new triggering forces will be set in motion, after which global temperature will increase at an exponential and (more likely than not) irreversible rateMr Hyde wrote:you produce carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels, (apart from forestry) cutting your carbon footprint pretty much always relates to the burning of coal for power or oil for transport...both of which will run outpk- wrote:the carbon footprint concept has nothing to do with dwindling carbon supplies, it's all about reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
since all life on earth is carbon-based i'd say we're not in any danger of running out any time soon
government are doing something quite drastic though... the Climate Change Bill is currently passing through Parliament, and that will be setting legally binding targets of 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, which, if all nations undertook, would bring us very close to doing whats necessary. the figure needs to be more like 80%, but it most likely will end up closer to that in any caseShonky wrote:something drastic needs to be done, which businesses will not do as it affects their margins, and governments will not do because they see growth as far more important than the planet
its not about kyoto. it needs something much more drastic. its unlikely, but it certainly wont happen if people sit back and absolve themselves of responsibility*Grand* wrote:but thats if the kyoto agreement is signed by all the key players in the global economy.. and i don't that is going to happen.
elgato wrote:Climate Change Bill
what i'm getting at is the negative effects of CO2 emissions are a much more pressing issue. if they continue to rise or even stay the same, by the time peak oil becomes a major sociological problem (not environmental, after all, because fossil fuels will by their very nature eventually replenish) the environment will be completely and utterly fucked. dwindling fossil fuels aren't going to eventually solve the greenhouse effect because they're not dwindling fast enough.its not really the point i'm making tho- what is the point in reducing the amount of co2 emissions you produce when they are coming from a finite resource which much of the world is going to want to use until it is all gone....only delays the inevitable, market economics will mean that carbon fuels continue to get more expensive as they run out and you will stop using carbon as new technologies come about that are more economically viable- no need to force people to cut down supply/demand will do it for the world