"the ocean is broken"

[iwannaretire]

The fact is that your average westerner uses far more resources than the average 3rd worlder.

I read something recently comparing two families for the impact they have on the environment, Family1 are a middle class couple living in NY with 1 kid, they live in a state-of-the art energy saving eco home, the dad bikes to work & the kid walks to school, they are not big consumers & recycled everything, even grow some of their own food ...you could say they are stereotypical eco types.

The other family lives a simple life in the South American rain forest, this couple has 8 kids who go to the local school, they grow and gather a lot of their own food, but still buy stuff from market.

Even though there are fewer people in the NY family ....their impact on the environment is fifty times great than the SA family ...I will say that once more to let it sink in: 3 people living in NY have 50 times greater impact on the environment than 10 people living in SA.

Now I'm not saying we should eradicate Americans, but...

Give 3rd world folks 45 minutes to choose from 1rst world options and they would be as bad or worse, my brother..

 

[toketronix]

Give 3rd world folks 45 minutes to choose from 1rst world options and they would be as bad, my brother..

I don't disagree, but the fact is 3rd world folks don't have 1st world options ..so this is all empty conjecture, bear in mind my post is a response to the suggestion that the 3rd world is the real problem, not the west who invented all this unnatural crap & use it more than anyone else, ....facts not conjecture.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Some former third world countries are moving up. China and India for examples, and the most populous too. They want the American lifestyle. Hey, they got to view it on TV so they know what to expect. Aren't more automobiles being sold in China now than the US? There is little hope for the biological systems of our planet, short of the rising of an international pop star messiah who preaches and converts the world with a new religion of sustainability.

And for those who say that it's OK because Gaia Earth will just evolve a new complex of species, I say that view is just like saying it's OK to burn down all the libraries because people will just write new books.

 

[gmanwho]

An friends ask why we have no kids.....

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

Credits/tax etc is a completely separate thing from the stand-alone fact that 'carbon use' is a good way of measuring the negative effects on the natural world caused by human activity.

The carbon tax system was heavily corrupted before it even got started, I read something recently about 'carbon offsetting'....carbon offset is a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases made in order to compensate for or to offset an emission made elsewhere ..& this scientist was explaining how the act of chopping down a 1000 year old tree actually had a negative carbon footprint...because of 'carbon offsetting' or the idea of the wealthy west buying carbon quotas from the 3rd world just so they can continue to do exactly as they have always done ....the whole thing is a sick joke, but none of it changes the fact that 'carbon use' is a good way of measuring the negative effects on the natural world caused by human activity.

There are probably billions of different human activities that are harmful to the natural world, you need a way of consolidating all those activities into a single concept so it's easy for people to understand, then it can be monitored, controlled & eventually reduced.

We're already there. But what has this to do with the state of the planet?

Im not disputing its a good way to measure... He simply said I cant find one reason why it could be a bad thing. So i gave him a few. Never said i was against it. But if you give the worlds governments power they always go to the extreme. Everyone looks at one side of the law and never sees the destruction of the other side. But people can hate if they want.

 

[toketronix]

Im not disputing its a good way to measure... He simply said I cant find one reason why it could be a bad thing. So i gave him a few.

I understood what you said I just didn't agree, one has nothing to do with the other.

It's like saying the downside of a littering law is the fact that people wont be able to litter.

 

[toketronix]

Some former third world countries are moving up. China and India for examples, and the most populous too.

They still have some ways to go, when we talk about China and India, we are really talking about 36.5% of the human population. Even though they produce a lot of goods for other countries they still use far less:

Country ------ Population ------ Oil Use(bbl/day)
USA --------------316,922,000-----19,150,000
China&India----2,596,190,000-----12,582,000

USA--------------4.45% of the world using 20.54% of the oil.
China&India----36.47% of the world using 13.49% of the oil.

Now use the above figures to calculate usage on a per-capita basis ...it should be obvious that China & India are not really the problem.

The 3rd world might have larger populations, but its the 1st world thats using most of the oil...

 

[trichrider]

cultures in todays world need a birthrate above 2 children per family group to sustain that culture.
without a birthrate above 2.1 per family, the culture will perish.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU

 

[RetroGrow]

cultures in todays world need a birthrate above 2 children per family group to sustain that culture.
without a birthrate above 2.1 per family, the culture will perish.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU

I'm familiar with that film, and, yes, Muslims ARE waging the "war of the womb". It is their stated goal to over run the world. That aside, I am also aware that Americans and other "first world" countries, or should I say companies, are using most of the world's resources and causing most of the pollution. However, these large population third world countries are the target of these same corporations, as they constantly need more people to sell things to. In addition, when countries, or entire continents are overpopulated, ie., Africa, the people are poaching and wiping out all the wildlife. Forests in Indonesia are being clear cut to grow more palm trees so we can have more palm oil. The Brazilian rain forest, where 20% of the world's oxygen is made, is being devastated by cattle ranchers, who are clear cutting forests so that they can grow more soybeans to feed the ever increasing herds of beef cattle. Not to mention that they are wiping out/attempting to wipe out the indigenous populations, who are staunchly against this invasion into their lands. There over a billion head of beef cattle on planet earth, and they consume more resources and are the source of more pollution than any other single industry. Think of the mountains of grain needed to feed these huge beasts, and then think of all the fertilizers and all the pesticides used to grow that grain, all of which eventually runs off into our oceans. Then you have the transport of all that grain, fertilizer, pesticides, and cattle, and you have the number one most destructive industry BY FAR. So, if you are eating burgers, you are part of the problem. I gave up all red meat many years ago when I learned of these things. And yet, McDonalds is spreading throughout the world, to all the third world countries, and their traditional diets are being replaced by our diets. I travel to Brazil regularly. Twelve years ago, there were no McDonalds. Now they are all over the place, and the prices are sky high, yet people somehow buy it. If Al Gore really wanted to do something about environmental destruction, he would stop raising beef cattle. In addition to the resources they waste, forests are being clear cut to feed them. Do a little Googling on the environmental effects of cattle ranching, and you will be shocked. Cattle consume more than 50% of the water in the western United States. Our greedy corporations are trying their best to export our culture all over the planet, and that is something that is just not sustainable. The oceans are fished out because of too many people. Japan is one of the biggest offenders. They still hunt & kill whales. China is a huge offender both in pollution and in the destruction of wildlife that is used in their traditional "Chinese medicine". Kill a rhino so we can grind up it's horns and restore a man's virility. China & India are great users of coal, which is a major source of pollution. So, although we use most of the world's resources, the great population centers of the third world are also a source of great destruction, and are also producing more mouths to feed, which means over fishing and clear cutting forests to produce more grains & oils. We have to get a handle on the world's population before things have a chance of getting better. And, of course, the giant corporations are causing devastation on an unprecedented scale, which only gets worse as populations increase. I am aware that third world people have more children because it is a source of wealth and security for them, particularly male children, however, if these people were incentivised to have fewer children who would in turn receive food, medical care, and an education, that need for more children would decrease, as each child of a "two children limit" family would be clothed, fed, educated, and have access to medical care, and so you would not have that high infant/child mortality rate, and you would have an educated, self sustaining populace after one generation. Malaria and other diseases such as dysentery would become a thing of the past.

 

[RetroGrow]

They still have some ways to go, when we talk about China and India, we are really talking about 36.5% of the human population. Even though they produce a lot of goods for other countries they still use far less:

Country ------ Population ------ Oil Use(bbl/day)
USA --------------316,922,000-----19,150,000
China&India----2,596,190,000-----12,582,000

USA--------------4.45% of the world using 20.54% of the oil.
China&India----36.47% of the world using 13.49% of the oil.

Now use the above figures to calculate usage on a per-capita basis ...it should be obvious that China & India are not really the problem.

The 3rd world might have larger populations, but its the 1st world thats using most of the oil...
View Image

View Image

Good post, but about China & India: yes they use less oil, because oil is expensive, but they are burning much more coal to make up for it, and, as you no doubt are aware, coal is a worse polluter than oil or natural gas, by far. Natural gas is cheap in the U.S., but very expensive in other countries, so the cleanest of the "big three" is natural gas, which those "third world" countries do not have access to because of our restrictive export policy concerning natural gas. If the U.S. would release our surplus natural gas, these countries would not be burning the coal they are. China also has virtually no environmental laws, and the pollution there is many magnitudes greater than anything we do. So, citing oil usage as a measuring stick for pollution is misleading. Coal is a much worse polluter, and coal usage in China & India is on the rise, plus it's "dirty" coal, not subject to the environmental regulations we have here (U.S.).

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

I understood what you said I just didn't agree, one has nothing to do with the other.

It's like saying the downside of a littering law is the fact that people wont be able to litter.

it actually is absolutely nothing like that but lets agree to disagree..

 

[RetroGrow]

I don't disagree, but the fact is 3rd world folks don't have 1st world options ..so this is all empty conjecture, bear in mind my post is a response to the suggestion that the 3rd world is the real problem, not the west who invented all this unnatural crap & use it more than anyone else, ....facts not conjecture.

Third world folks have the option of condoms/birth control, but they choose not to use them, much like the welfare mothers in our inner cities choose not to use them. The fact is, the people who can least afford to have children are having the most children. In the favelas of Brazil , 14 & 15 year old girls are having children, even though the state gives out free condoms to anyone who wants them.

 

[JRace]

Third world folks have the option of condoms/birth control, but they choose not to use them, much like the welfare mothers in our inner cities choose not to use them. The fact is, the people who can least afford to have children are having the most children. In the favelas of Brazil , 14 & 15 year old girls are having children, even though the state gives out free condoms to anyone who wants them.

One does not need to look to close to see that the lack of BC is due in large to religous beliefs threats and fear.

 

[toketronix]

True or untrue, I don't see any downside to promoting the concept of global warming.

Down side is eventually it could lead to you paying for carbon credits or tax on things you do and use that contains carbon..

It's like saying the downside of a littering law is the fact that people wont be able to litter.

it actually is absolutely nothing like that but lets agree to disagree..

Absolutely nothing like that? ..in the same way that an iceberg is nothing like dinner plate? ....It would be more interesting if you could explain exactly how its different? ...you have already agreed that carbon usage is a good measure of 'negative human activity' so why would you see a restriction on carbon usage as a negative? ..if we follow the logic here, we could also say the downside to a proposed murder law is that people will end up being sent to prison for a long time ...I think it misses the point!

 

[bombadil.360]

Who the heck is "pro-global warming"?

so aside your semantic misrepresentations, now you can also go help politicians carbon tax you, while everyone else is polluting the waters unchecked.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

@ bombadil.360

Your argument is a distraction... a common use of sophistry in which it is claimed that people can only focus on one thing at a time. You're claiming that people who consider human induced climate change to be a real threat are ignoring other examples of environmental degradation. This is simply a falsehood.

Environmentally aware people can walk and chew gum at the same time. People who are concerned about climate change are most likely to also be concerned about degradation of our oceans. In fact, increased atmospheric CO2 is acidifying ocean water which will lead to extinction of many life forms that utilize calcium carbonate, such as our corals. Because I'm concerned about climate change doesn't necessarily mean that I support carbon taxing and credits either.

.

 

[bombadil.360]

@ bombadil.360

Your argument is a distraction... a common use of sophistry in which it is claimed that people can only focus on one thing at a time. You're claiming that people who consider human induced climate change to be a real threat are ignoring other examples of environmental degradation. This is simply a falsehood.

Environmentally aware people can walk and chew gum at the same time. People who are concerned about climate change are most likely to also be concerned about degradation of our oceans. In fact, increased atmospheric CO2 is acidifying ocean water which will lead to extinction of many life forms that utilize calcium carbonate, such as our corals. Because I'm concerned about climate change doesn't necessarily mean that I support carbon taxing and credits either.

.

there's no definite science on so-called global warming caused by greenhouse gases; yet, the studies are funded by the same people who want to tax you for emitting these gases.

on the other hand, we have so much empirical evidence and proof of the pollution of the oceans that it is coming out of our ears, and yet, no one has proposed any solution nor given it any attention, at least none compared to the attention to the unproven theses of global warming.

shit, if the supporters of the theses of global warming at least wanted to stop emissions for the sake of clean air to breathe, it'd make their agenda more appealing; but the goal is to form a matrix of opinion influential enough that will result in a new huge tax.

and lets not kid ourselves, all this global warming story was introduced into the popular awareness by a clueless politician; and no serious scientists that have provided the world of science and technology with meaningful input have ever placed their names behind such banner.

and those are the facts, end of story.

 

[RetroGrow]

One does not need to look to close to see that the lack of BC is due in large to religous beliefs threats and fear.

You forgot "ignorance", although I suppose that could be lumped in with "religious beliefs".

 

[Garhart]

Oct. 17, 2013
Air pollution is giving commuters lung cancer, a medical research group and the World Health Organization said Thursday.

The International Agency for Research on Cancers (IARC), in conjunction with WHO, said that when it comes to cancer, it now considers air pollution to be even more dangerous than smoking, the Associated Press reports.

The IARC has previously determined some components of air pollution, like diesel fumes, to be carcinogens. But now they are classifying air pollution as a whole to be cancer-causing. Though the risk of contracting cancer from air pollution alone is low, the main sources of pollution are omnipresent and difficult to avoid — transportation, power plants, industrial emissions and agricultural emissions among them.

Air pollution is already known to increase the likelihood of heart and respiratory disease. The new conclusion could prompt governments to embrace stricter laws to limit air pollution.

[AP]

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/10/17/report-air-pollution-causes-cancer/#ixzz2ilkyakM4

 

[thesloppy]

I pretty much detest the global warming argument, because it seems to have moved so far from personal reality.....that is, everybody engaged in the argument is telling corporations and countries what they should do, while they all ignore the question of personal responsibility. It's not uncommon to see folks from either side who are frothingly passionate about the issue, as it pertains to what-other-folks-should-be-doing, but pay absolutely zero attention to their own affect on the environment.

Case in point: In this thread we can see plenty of examples comparing the disparity pf footprints/abuse between certain individuals or groups to others, without acknowledging that growing marijuana indoors in the U.S. is probably up there with the most harmful/energy-abusive activities an individual can partake in. I walk pretty much everywhere within 5 miles, rarely travel, don't have any kids, recycle & re-use everything I can, but I still use probably 3-4 times the electricity of my individual neighbors, and as such I don't think it's fair for me to judge anybody based on their opinion on global warming. How many of y'all in this thread decrying the human stain, talking about how the rest of the world needs to wake up, and wondering what kind of world your children will grow up in, are running over 2K of lights 12 hours/day and/or feeding your plants all sorts of exotic guanos?