IPCC Part II

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
I spotted these snippets of information from Wiki about the use of coal in China, which really highlights the scale of the problem.

Air pollution has gotten so bad that a study by the World Bank found that air pollution kills 750,000 people every year in China.[SUP][27][/SUP] Amidst growing public concern, social unrest incidents are growing around the country. For example, in December 2011 the government suspended plans to expand a coal-fired power plant in the city of Haimen after 30,000 local residents staged a violent protest against it, on the grounds that "the coal-fired power plant was behind a rise in the number of local cancer patients, environmental pollution and a drop in the local fishermen's catch."[SUP][28][/SUP]
Click to expand...

In addition to environmental and health costs at home, China's dependence on coal is cause for concern on a global scale. Due in large part to the emissions caused by burning coal, China is now the number one producer of carbon dioxide, responsible for a full quarter of the world's CO2 output.[SUP][29][/SUP] According to a recent study, "even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China’s growth alone."[SUP][30][/SUP]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_China
 
Everyone should keep buying their cheap shit to make sure their energy needs keep increasing.
 
"According to a recent study, "even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China’s growth alone"

People need to think about that one.

Technology will lead the way; eventually, the world will be green. But, the idea that we can "stop global warming" or even stem it to the smallest degree is pure, ill-informed fantasy.
 
Thing1 said:
"According to a recent study, "even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China’s growth alone"

People need to think about that one.

Technology will lead the way; eventually, the world will be green. But, the idea that we can "stop global warming" or even stem it to the smallest degree is pure, ill-informed fantasy.
Click to expand...

Faith without works is dead.

The world will only be a green place if will is applied in that direction.
 
Thing1 said:
"According to a recent study, "even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China’s growth alone"

People need to think about that one.

Technology will lead the way; eventually, the world will be green. But, the idea that we can "stop global warming" or even stem it to the smallest degree is pure, ill-informed fantasy.
Click to expand...

If China got rid of its coal fired stations or cleaned them up that would go a long way to solving the problem. There is hope though as they and India are at the forefront of thorium reactor development.
 
Rune said:
Seriously, you need to show proof of job losses or stop talking about them.
Click to expand...

I did. Unless you want me to show proof of future job losses if we do what you want - which, btw, is impossible to provide without a time machine.

Clinton's study showed 900,000 jobs lost w/ modest changes. A previous study had the # at 4 million if we had agreed to meet Kyoto's most aggressive targets.

And that's Kyoto - a modest measure.

Sheer common sense should tell you that a revolution in energy production & consumption will naturally cost jobs.
 
Dungheap said:
I also like the implicit assumption that continuing with the status quo won't have negative consequences.
Click to expand...

I don't assume that, nor would I suggest it.

Rune & I have been discussing getting off carbon by 2030. Perhaps you'd like to chime in w/ your thoughts on how that might affect our economy?
 
Thing1 said:
I did. Unless you want me to show proof of future job losses if we do what you want - which, btw, is impossible to provide without a time machine.

Clinton's study showed 900,000 jobs lost w/ modest changes. A previous study had the # at 4 million if we had agreed to meet Kyoto's most aggressive targets.

And that's Kyoto - a modest measure.

Sheer common sense should tell you that a revolution in energy production & consumption will naturally cost jobs.
Click to expand...


Covered in the other thread. Why didn't you respond to that?
 
Thing1 said:
It wasn't "covered." You dismissed it because it wasn't convenient for you.
Click to expand...

No, it really was covered. Read all my posts on the last page. I bumped it for you. I explain exactly why there will be no job losses and in fact, a manufacturing boon.
 
Rune said:
No, it really was covered. Read all my posts on the last page. I bumped it for you. I explain exactly why there will be no job losses and in fact, a manufacturing boon.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see the actual studies he is referencing. I don't believe they take into account job creation, and I believe they were not unbiased. I would like to know how much of a hand the oil and coal industries had in compiling those "facts", which are merely projections, and they were not undisputed.

In fact, there are studies projecting that Kyota would add jobs to the economy. Are they right? Who knows, that is 20 effing years ago, can we move into the modern day?

The fact is that today, there are plenty of studies and data showing that at best, we would gain jobs if we institute a comprehensive plan to lower CO2 emissions, and at worst, the losses and gains would balance themselves out.

What really amazes me is someone who doesn't deny climate change, shrugging and saying, oh well, too bad so sad, combating it would be too painful. For ME.

never mind what we are doing to the next two generations. Fuck them I guess. Wow. That is straight up immoral. Borders on evil.
 
Darla said:
I'd like to see the actual studies he is referencing. I don't believe they take into account job creation, and I believe they were not unbiased. I would like to know how much of a hand the oil and coal industries had in compiling those "facts", which are merely projections, and they were not undisputed.

In fact, there are studies projecting that Kyota would add jobs to the economy. Are they right? Who knows, that is 20 effing years ago, can we move into the modern day?

The fact is that today, there are plenty of studies and data showing that at best, we would gain jobs if we institute a comprehensive plan to lower CO2 emissions, and at worst, the losses and gains would balance themselves out.

What really amazes me is someone who doesn't deny climate change, shrugging and saying, oh well, too bad so sad, combating it would be too painful. For ME.

never mind what we are doing to the next two generations. Fuck them I guess. Wow. That is straight up immoral. Borders on evil.
Click to expand...


truly comical how the fear mongers always try to pretend contradicting data is due to manipulation by oil and gas companies. The fear mongers assume all contradicting evidence is biased... yet they at the same time pretend the fear mongering cartel isn't biased.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... what catastrophic consequences?
Click to expand...

Superfreak anyone who can ask that question is a fucking moron and not worth discussing the problem with. I have been trying to decide who is more immoral, you or Onceler. I mean, he doesn't deny the problem or its effects. (as far as I know). And he shrugs (dear grandchildren; oh well, too bad, so sad, shrug) in the face of it. You deny the looming changes and their effects.

I guess taken at face value, he'd have to be the more evil one. But I don't really take you at face value. I highly doubt you believe the shit you post about this. I think you're just as immoral as he is. I think you know. Sorry, you are not quite that dumb. I don't buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top