Setenza

Jun 1 2011, 08:40 AM

findus

Jun 1 2011, 07:57 AM

reekie

Jun 1 2011, 07:34 AM

Aw, yer dancing round that a bit, Findus.
(but to be fair, it is a specious argument, Eggs).

Although I'm with you to an extent, Findus, that we will indeed be dealt with and ultimately the planet will be fine, it's a bit selfish saying that from the comfort of a first-world perspective.
The change in climate will ravage certain parts of the world (some of the poorest, most populous bits too), so it only seems fair, in a humanitarian sense, to try to help alleviate this.

I am?

I don't live in the first world, I live in a Chinese flat-as-a-pancake coastal metropolis that will disappear if sea-levels rise. If it happens, almost everyone will have abandoned the city long before D-day. I'd imagine it will be the same story throughout the world should sea-levels rise - plenty of warning, plenty of time (years) to relocate. Maybe we'll finally look after our environment properly, should this happen.

Droughts, desertification, poisoning from pollution, war, and lack of drinking water resources are of far bigger concern to the human race as our population grows, in my opinion, yet get little exposure news-wise (except wars).

By the time it comes, China will be super rich and powerful, so will be able to afford some kind of great forcefield of china too to protect you all.

findus

Jun 1 2011, 07:57 AM

reekie

Jun 1 2011, 07:34 AM

Aw, yer dancing round that a bit, Findus.
(but to be fair, it is a specious argument, Eggs).

Although I'm with you to an extent, Findus, that we will indeed be dealt with and ultimately the planet will be fine, it's a bit selfish saying that from the comfort of a first-world perspective.
The change in climate will ravage certain parts of the world (some of the poorest, most populous bits too), so it only seems fair, in a humanitarian sense, to try to help alleviate this.

I am?

I don't live in the first world, I live in a Chinese flat-as-a-pancake coastal metropolis that will disappear if sea-levels rise. If it happens, almost everyone will have abandoned the city long before D-day. I'd imagine it will be the same story throughout the world should sea-levels rise - plenty of warning, plenty of time (years) to relocate. Maybe we'll finally look after our environment properly, should this happen.

Droughts, desertification, poisoning from pollution, war, and lack of drinking water resources are of far bigger concern to the human race as our population grows, in my opinion, yet get little exposure news-wise (except wars).

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 08:52 AM

reekie

Jun 1 2011, 07:34 AM

Aw, yer dancing round that a bit, Findus.
(but to be fair, it is a specious argument, Eggs).

No it's not. It's not an argument at all.

I'm trying to understand to what extent Findus wants the 'natural' order to have its way. So climate change isn't an issue because che sera sera, Mother Earth (that is, nature) will do as it will. If nature should be given carte blanche to do as it will, does that also include natural diseases?

reekie

Jun 1 2011, 10:34 AM

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 08:52 AM

reekie

Jun 1 2011, 07:34 AM

Aw, yer dancing round that a bit, Findus.
(but to be fair, it is a specious argument, Eggs).

No it's not. It's not an argument at all.

I'm trying to understand to what extent Findus wants the 'natural' order to have its way. So climate change isn't an issue because che sera sera, Mother Earth (that is, nature) will do as it will. If nature should be given carte blanche to do as it will, does that also include natural diseases?

Alright then. You were being a sophist. Better?

And it's que sera sera.
You a self-professed Italo-phile too...

reekie

Jun 1 2011, 10:34 AM

And it's que sera sera.
You a self-professed Italo-phile too...

findus

Jun 1 2011, 09:01 AM

If we are damaging the environment as much as we think we are, then from the perspective of Mother Earth the human race is Mother Earth's natural disease. Mother Earth deals with its diseases the way we deal with our diseases. Does that answer your question?

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 12:24 PM

Che is Italian.

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 12:31 PM

A group of humans can reduce the incidence of climate change by lowering pollution, thus removing such a need for relocation/tidal defences, etc.

Prevention (lowering smoking/pollution rates) is better than cure (radiotherapy/raising sea levels,e tc).

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 12:31 PM

findus

Jun 1 2011, 09:01 AM

If we are damaging the environment as much as we think we are, then from the perspective of Mother Earth the human race is Mother Earth's natural disease. Mother Earth deals with its diseases the way we deal with our diseases. Does that answer your question?

Not really. For a start, there is no such thing as 'mother nature's perspective'. There's no sentience behind it.

Setenza

Jun 1 2011, 01:23 PM

But can't reduce the potential for non-human caused climate change causing sea level rises, and the need for relcation/tidal defences etc.

And human caused climate change isn't caused by pollution, unless you count CO2 or methane etc as pollutants, which they're not.

Quote:

 

The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide.

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 01:37 PM

Setenza

Jun 1 2011, 01:23 PM

But can't reduce the potential for non-human caused climate change causing sea level rises, and the need for relcation/tidal defences etc.

And human caused climate change isn't caused by pollution, unless you count CO2 or methane etc as pollutants, which they're not.

Just as cancer in humans happens naturally as well, yet we still take steps to eradicate it when it does happen.

Quote:

 

The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide.

So what is it then? An emission rather a pollutant? Is there really a difference?

Setenza

Jun 1 2011, 01:42 PM

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 01:37 PM

Setenza

Jun 1 2011, 01:23 PM

But can't reduce the potential for non-human caused climate change causing sea level rises, and the need for relcation/tidal defences etc.

And human caused climate change isn't caused by pollution, unless you count CO2 or methane etc as pollutants, which they're not.

Just as cancer in humans happens naturally as well, yet we still take steps to eradicate it when it does happen.

Quote:

 

The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide.

So what is it then? An emission rather a pollutant? Is there really a difference?

I don't see how it can be a pollutant if it's been in the air since earth was formed long before man came along.

The Eggman

Jun 1 2011, 01:47 PM

This page linked (and most others you'd look at) seems to consider excessive CO2 (and other) emissions as pollutants.

Climate Change