Global Warming Debate

If we do accept that the world is heating up, are people here honestly suggesting that there are any practical measures that can be done by mankind to reverse this?
Even if everyone stopped using cars, flying etc, and we all went back to some luddite vision of a society do you honestly believe that global warning will reverse?
There is nothing that can be done about it. All the triple glazing, new technologies etc, will never reverse it. Climate change has always been with us and always will.
There is a strong scientific view that global warning will eventually cause the next ice age do to the inteference with sea currrents in the North Atlantic, etc. There are a whole range of views and scientific debate on this and to believe that a few measures such as banning fossil fuels (due to run out anyway) triple glazing, banning air travel or making it more expensive or reducing C02 emissions will have any major impact on climate change is naieve at best.

Don't know if can reverse but I suppose we can slow down the changes. However for every environmentally concerned Western Nation there will be 2 third world countries polluting twice as much. Just look at Chinese Industry. BBC News did report on most polluted city in Europe which was in Romania last night & will take decades to clean that up.

Increased price of oil is all the only thing that will make individuals & states change.

As pete said, it's not about preventing global warming, it's about stopping the acceleration caused by humans and the normal cycle being pushed out of sync. Since when in the past has there been such burning of fossil fuels?

Our choices on fuel and energy sources will in the end be dictated by economics as fossil fuels run out not by regulation. Trying to stop climate change/global warning in any shape or form is almost impossible and we are effectively asking the 2nd and 3rd worlds to stay poor and stop developing.

If we are going to spend money on environmental areas then we are better off promoting and financing the alternatives, making them cheaper and more economic and stop trying enforce ridiclous measures/regulation which are costly and have no long term benefit and do little to reduce or decelerate climate change.

Recycling and the benefits of that are questionable, banning fossil fuels is a non starter, so all other measures are only tinkering around the edges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebs23

Our choices on fuel and energy sources will in the end be dictated by economics as fossil fuels run out not by regulation. Trying to stop climate change/global warning in any shape or form is almost impossible and we are effectively asking the 2nd and 3rd worlds to stay poor and stop developing.

---

Since when were they developing? Nigeria, the country that is richest in fossil fuels in Africa certainly isn't. A small national elite in the pockets of Royal Dutch Shell ensure that all the wealth in that country is exported without any benefit for the general population.The majority live without electricity or even tarmaced roads. The mud roads turn into rivers of mud in the rainy season. Russia, with its immense mineral wealth is if anything regressing, Oh it might be keeping a Chelsea in superstars but the majority of the population are living in squalor. The proliferation of fossil fuels benefits only a tiny minority who control this wealth. For 2nd and 3rd world countries they have brought nothing but misery. We need to develope alternative's within the next 20 years. Thats a liberal estimate. In all probablity we have less time than that. Is that a price you are willing to pay? The anhilation of thousands of years of civilisation? The possible extinction of our species? Its that bloody serious.

"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know." James Hansen

Scary... The world is definatly changing, there's no doubt about that. Its global warming, there's definatly no doubt about that either. It might be too late already, even if all CO2 emissions were drastically cut today to save the planet. We have already triggered a chain of reactions which will ultimatly lead to our demise... The melting of the polar ice caps cannot be stopped now and the effects of this on europe are scary. Most of europe's warmth comes from the north atlantic drift, or "gulf stream", a warm current of water stemming from the warm equatorial gulf. If/when this stream is interupted by the cool/freezing water being created by the melting of the arctic, europe would become as cold as russia/siberia which is of the same latitude as us... As i said, scary because its happening in front of our very eyes. :o
(in short, we're fuked, not enough is being done. drastic times call for drastic measures to be taken, which they are not...)

Recycling has the benefit of less landfills of which no one wants next door to them. I am suspicious of recycling as i suspect some of the whats collected for recycling is actually dumped in landfils. Combined with incineration we could eliminate landfills almost completely. I see advert in todays paper saying we now recycling 35% which is 8 years ahead of target. Does not say much for the target initially.

Nigeria is a tribal basketcase. Might have been optimistic to think Russia could move from communism into democracy so easily & now in sort of quasi one party state again.

I've no doubt some elite making out like bandits but the increased price of oil & gas can't help but filter some money down to the masses. Whatever situation they in they better than communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

. Whatever situation they in they better than communism.

---

Quite clearly not Pete if you are talking about Russia. I have produced figures over and over that shows that despite the corruption and bureaucratic mismanagement of the Soviet Union, the majority were materially better off than they are now. I won't harp on about it here because its the wrong thread but for reference:
Previously on foot.ie...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

I won't harp on about it here [/URL]

---

That would be a first!:)

Farming 6% of the argi land in the USA could provide all the USA's needs for fuel , Reducing its dependancy on oil to 0% by switching to this Bio-fuel . Ford and the american military consider this natural oil the best for machine parts .This plant grows anywhere in the world , with out the needs of pesticides (50% of all pestisides are sprayed on cotton plants ) .

Growing of this plant because of it cleaning properties could start to reverse the greenhouse effect in as little as ten years .

i typed this as clearly with the amount of "it cant be reversed" comments no one read the link which clearly shows that it can be reversed and quite easily .

There's an easy solution to this problem. Use the UN as a big generator. There's enough hot air in there to cater for the planet's power needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anto1208

Farming 6% of the argi land in the USA could provide all the USA's needs for fuel....

---

I find this hard to believe. Got a link? How much energy does it take to process bio-fuel? Surely not this simple...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I find this hard to believe. Got a link? How much energy does it take to process bio-fuel? Surely not this simple...

---

http://www.rawganique.com/whyhemp.htm


its a little long but worth the read its quite amazing at all the plus points .

truely a gift from God :D


Also at the bottom there is a link to a second page which includes info on the essential fatty acids and oils we hear about , hemp seeds are the most healty of all plant foods .

Its a crime that humans arent using this plant to its full potential it just might save us .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Recycling has the benefit of less landfills of which no one wants next door to them.

---

Less landfills is an environmental benefit in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I am suspicious of recycling as i suspect some of the whats collected for recycling is actually dumped in landfils.

---

I would naturally be a cynic (realist), but then how do you explain the recycling bags being cheaper for households than the landfill ones? Not saying you're wrong, but if you're right we're being ripped off for the general waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Combined with incineration we could eliminate landfills almost completely.

---

The modern incinerators are very clean and also have the capability to be energy producing at the same time. I'd rather live within a mile of an incinerator than a landfill - less smell, less leakage into groundwater, less gasses released straight into the environment. Each county should have it's own facility, so then you reduce the transportation costs as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebs23

All the triple glazing, new technologies etc, will never reverse it

---

They do, however, at least reduces our contribution to global warming. Even to a right wing capalist like yourself this makes sense - fossil fuels a scarce resource, going to get scarcer, which will lead to increased costs. If we become less reliant on them now, we'll benefit economically in the future, and we have the resources to do this now. For example, It's shameful that the Government delayed the increasing insulation spec's during the greatest housebuilding years this state has seen - and for once even they can't come up with a viable excuse - it would've been bad for their developer buddies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I would naturally be a cynic (realist), but then how do you explain the recycling bags being cheaper for households than the landfill ones? Not saying you're wrong, but if you're right we're being ripped off for the general waste.

---

I've nothing back this up just a cynic too.

I live in apartment where the City Council will not collect refuse (we would have to move 20-25 large bins out onto the road which would block the entrance. Anyway waste bull is 45-50k a year with no recycling because private operator would charge an extra 20k a year to do this. I am suspicious whether they would recycle anyway as could just charge extra for & pay to dump in landfill with the rest of the waste...

Less landfills good. Without being an expert I am broadly in favour of incinerators as best of list of bad alternatives - i don't understand people who complain about as zero waste is impossible. Maybe 99% is possible but will never get that last 1 %.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I've nothing back this up just a cynic too.

---

The SP actually did some snooping on this around the time of the introduction of refuse charges and as far as I remember there was some basis to this. Info could be out of date by now though.

I guess that would explain why they're not as fussy as they might be with the recycling bags judging by what I see left out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Even to a right wing capalist ...... It's shameful that the Government delayed the increasing insulation spec's during the greatest housebuilding years this state has seen - and for once even they can't come up with a viable excuse - it would've been bad for their developer buddies.

---

A right wing capitalist.... depends on your definition of right wing. Consider myself more of a liberal, anarcho capitalist free thinker myself but anyway its only a label.

Couldn't agree more about the need for greater incentives for alternative fuels. As for one plant reversing the greenhouse effect first time I've ever heard that claim about hemp. Excellent product in may ways for fuel, clothing etc, etc and other things as well :) but as for insulation specs I know these specs have increased at twice in the last 5 years. Part M I think of the Building Regs.
The problem though is that no matter how many times you change the building regs one small gap in the cavity insualtion could really mess up your u values (method of measuring heat retention in buildings.) Very difficult to implement and police with brickies chucking up the blocks and insualtion as fast as they can to earn the big dosh they are used to.

Best U Values are achieved with other new construction technologies none of which have Irish Agrement Board Approval yet and are fiercely resisted by trade unions as they effectively would wipe out blocklaying in the housebuilding sector.

So in summary it is pointless increasing the Building Reg requirements until these new methods get agrement board approval and unions stop resisting their introduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebs23

Consider myself more of a liberal, anarcho capitalist free thinker myself but anyway its only a label.

Couldn't agree more about the need for greater incentives for alternative fuels.

---

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction there? Surely a libertarian would be against any kind of "incentives".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction there? Surely a libertarian would be against any kind of "incentives".

---

Yes but are n't there contradictions in all politics and in the end pragmatism wins out over ideology?