Climate change accelarating - Rifkin asks if we are asleep

[dapandlap]

I'm surprised surepip has not suggested killing all the world's chickens.

Why cut off the hand that feeds him?

[markdavd]

I'm surprised surepip has not suggested killing all the world's chickens.

Also, if Pubby seriously believes that CO2 is bad, he should be shutting down P.com:

 

Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time?

 

 

[AcworthDad]

Why cut off the hand that feeds him?

 

I hear you, but, we must eliminate carbon emissions regardless of the source. Shoot them chickens!

Edited June 13, 2011 by PowderSpringsDad

[markdavd]

I hear you, but, we must eliminate carbon emissions regardless of the source. Shoot them chickens!

 

I'm wondering - as far as carbon goes, one camel probably equals 1000 chickens. There are millions more human raised chickens that there are camels, so they must be a huge contributor to the problem.

 

 

They also need to shut down the internet!

 

 

[dapandlap]

Pubby should email owl Gore and inform him that the mansion on the coast he recently purchased will soon be under water.

[gpatt0n]

Actually, we are going to have address our 'meat' culture ... the monocultures associated with meat production - specifically beef but to a lesser degree chicken and fish - one way or another.

 

If we do nothing, I'm suspecting that climate change will do a good part of the killing for us, particularly of the more prized species.

 

Indeed, our intransigence on transportation and infrastructure point source emissions may make it impossible for us to maintain anything approaching a mass 'meat' market the costs of water, production (particularly feed grains) and pollution conspire to raise the cost of production so that the market actually declines precipitously leaving the meat producers broke.

 

The point is these issues are all interconnected and our unwillingness to change and in some cases change rapidly on the things that could be easily and comparatively cheap - LED lighting for instance has a five or six year payoff as well as the carbon/pollution savings today (i.e. after six years you're actually 'saving money')- might mean that 5 percent more of the population will find one bird a week an impossible extravagance ... whereas if we all got on board, chicken production, with some modifications, could be maintained for mass consumption.

 

But blatant denial will certainly doom these high-carbon cost industries as unwillingness to trade off incandescent bulbs for LED becomes a lost opportunity with the additional cost that chicken leg quarters are $33.00/lb.(and world-wide production of poultry is 1/20th of what it is now.)

 

As far as camels in Australia ... again the hubris of man and his bad ideas is demonstrated by the ill conceived transplantation of a species where it does not belong. If it tastes like beef, I'll eat it.

 

pubby

[gpatt0n]

I'm wondering - as far as carbon goes, one camel probably equals 1000 chickens. There are millions more human raised chickens that there are camels, so they must be a huge contributor to the problem.

 

 

They also need to shut down the internet!

 

 

 

I think we process a few hundred million chickens each day as there is a market for them at current prices. It would be a waste to kill them for the sake of killing as that would be stupid.

 

The idea of change, Markdavd is to avoid stupidity. Rather the idea is to modify the way we do things to minimize the aggregate change we are going to have to endure.

 

We minimize change by doing things 'smarter' not dumber.

 

But we then run into folks who insist that it is their right to do things the stupid, dumb way even thous we know that dumb/stupid way almost assures us that we'll have dramatic change that will force the killing of chickens, beef cattle and camels.

 

pubby

[dapandlap]

The sun just had a sunspot larger than Earth, look for temps to rise more, soon, along with crazy weather patterns. I think Pubby conveniently forgot about the global cooling scare of the 70s. It's all about money and how much they can get from global economies to support their claims. It's a huge income producer.

 

Normal heating and cooling aren't able to be controlled by man. Sorry to disappoint.

 

Hmmmm, 2003 was an interesting year in relation to the sun. My link

Another cause for the planet to warm would be deforestation, but that seems to be overlooked by the alarmists.

[gpatt0n]

Another cause for the planet to warm would be deforestation, but that seems to be overlooked by the alarmists.

 

Deforestation is going along as it has largely because of another 'stupid' tradition of 'slash and burn' agriculture. The justification for it is the same as that for the incandescent light bulb ... if it was good enough for grandaddy, it is good enough for me.

 

Adopting sustainable technologies and techniques across board and around the globe are the only way that we'll be able to retain the good of our sophisticated modern technologically advanced society.

 

There are a multitude of moral, ethical and practical issues that surround this entire issue but it is an insult to suggest that the movement to counter global warming is only aimed at this segment of the population or that. We are all in this together whether we like it or not.

 

pubby

[surepip]

Another cause for the planet to warm would be deforestation, but that seems to be overlooked by the alarmists.

 

During the past 2 decades this has become a huge problem in Brasil. Not only deforestation, but in essence deforestation of government owned land which is then basically stolen for raising cattle and/or farming. Certification of where the cow was grown is now part of the Brasilian beurachracy. The government there is trying to crack down on it but so far they are making little headway.

 

It is also a problem where the land contains reasonable hardwoods, mahogoney, teak, and other exoctic woods which fetch a high price.

[surepip]

This is a serious item in the news and nobody in the "we're killing our plant" crowd wants to comment?

 

I wonder how much carbon can be 'saved' if we were to outlaw chicken raising? Those flocks have to put out a lot of CO2.

 

 

 

 

The so called industrial farming used to grow much of the chicken actually has done a reasonable job on reducing the CO2 and Carbon footprint. Ammonia is our biggest challenge today. In the EEC countries they do actually have filtration equipment reclaiming some of the gases released from the chicken houses.

 

The substantial change in the feed conversion numbers; pounds of feed per pound of meat, for poultry has gone from 3+ to 1.75 in the past 20 years, thus drastically reducing the foot print from a feed consumption side. Cattle and pork are more than double.

 

Based on feed conversion numbers, and tons of meat per acre, both from a grain standpoint and space for growing the animal, you will see all your beef and pork long gone from the meat markets before chicken.

 

But at the same time, the industry is indeed always striving for improvements anywhere we can find them. When you consider each poultry complex [georgia alone has 30+, not to mention egg chickens and breeders] produces 1.5million chicks a week, or 7 to 8 million pounds of meat. But we also produce waste. Just the hatchery waste is 50,000 pounds of shell, cull chicks and the unhatched eggs.....per week. We transport this material 100s of miles, squeeze it, and spray dry the liquid as a per food additive, and this costs the average poultry operation $10,000 to $20,000 per month.

 

The industry now is in the process of building some new drying plants closer to where the larger poultry complexes are located to reduce the transportation costs AND so the liquid egg can be transported chilled. The resulting high grade dried powder will be used as a feed additive for baby pigs and cows. The goals are to cut transport costs by 75% since we are paying to transport primarily water.

[lotstodo]

It's so funny to watch Pubby and Pip continue to deform the opposing opinion into something they think they can argue against.

[Thoughts from the Evil Galaxy]

And ignored are the fact that more than quite a few indutralized and 3rd world nations pretty much ignore all the talk of pollution and climate change and continue to operate while delivering rock bottom prices on cheaply made goods, produce and food stuffs...

 

I'll stand behind Global Warming non-sense, if congress agrees to tariff the sh*t out of imports from these nations...

[surepip]

And ignored are the fact that more than quite a few indutralized and 3rd world nations pretty much ignore all the talk of pollution and climate change and continue to operate while delivering rock bottom prices on cheaply made goods, produce and food stuffs...

 

I'll stand behind Global Warming non-sense, if congress agrees to tariff the sh*t out of imports from these nations...

 

Which Congress should indeed do. Especially China.

 

 

My issue is I watched how well we did in "fixing" many of our environmental issues during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. I personnally saw and was part of reaping the benefits of fishing in lakes, and eating the fish, from waterways that had been condemned. The Bald Eagle, Condor, and alligator were success stories.

 

I have watched the EEC countries pass us in the last 25 years with technologies which are much more efficient, and which do indeed address ecological problems. And I know the USA can take a leadership role again in developing new technologies just as we did when challenged to put a man on the moon safely, and bring him back 50 years ago. The Apollo, and now Shuttle programs were both huge successes which then begat a multitude of other successes in manufacturing design, materials, and computers.

 

But private industry is not going to just piss away profits on pipe dream projects without governmental supports, subsidies and tax credits.

 

The number one issue I see is indeed that american arrogance of we can waste whatever we want and no one can tell us not to......until it just gets too damned expensive.

[Gone]

We are currently living between two ice ages in what is called an interglacial warm period (Holocene) and we are nearing the end of it, so enjoy while it lasts.

 

It could change within a short period of time dropping us into a new ice age.

 

Currently sun spots have been absent, and many think we could go into a 20 to 30 year cold period similar to the "Marauder minimum."

 

The Marauder minimum was during 1645 to 1715 and the Earth experienced a mini ice age with nary a Sunspot to be seen. Look it up...our last two winters resemble this period.

 

The climate on this planet has never been stable and never will.

 

Climate change is a hoax.

[lotstodo]

Yeah, those AGW skeptics are so pro pollution and anti environment. Kill all the Bald Eagles, slash and burn, set every river on fire, choke every city, fill every swamp with garbage, you know that sort of thing. Why they are just plain stupid and uneducated. How can one be so ignorant. Either that or they are rich bastards living off of the sweat of the proletariat. I haven't made up my mind which yet. Maybe both. It's just a huge conspiracy between the stupid and the rich, yeah, that's the ticket. Oh wait, the rich are paying the stupid. No. The rich are stupid. No they are arrogant uncaring bastards who know better. Well at any rate, they are all rich or stupid, and they all hate the environment, that I know for sure.

[surepip]

We are currently living between two ice ages in what is called an interglacial warm period (Holocene) and we are nearing the end of it, so enjoy while it lasts.

 

It could change within a short period of time dropping us into a new ice age.

 

Currently sun spots have been absent, and many think we could go into a 20 to 30 year cold period similar to the "Marauder minimum."

 

The Marauder minimum was during 1645 to 1715 and the Earth experienced a mini ice age with nary a Sunspot to be seen. Look it up...our last two winters resemble this period.

 

The climate on this planet has never been stable and never will.

 

Climate change is a hoax.

Do you ignore the issues your eyeballs can see with smog and general air pollution ?

 

How much worse would it be today had we not put relatively strict EPA limits on what could be dumped into the atmosphere during the past 50 years ? Scrubbers, precipitators, bag filter houses, etc., on the steel, coal burning, and other industrial users.......AND WE STILL ARE DEALING WITH ORANGE AND RED ALERTS TODAY IN METRO ATLANTA, and area with relatively little industry.

 

How much is "Climate Change" ? I don't know, and to me that is basically irrelevant. Do you pee into your well ?

 

How much common sense does it require to see, all around the world, how bad the pollution got before we started to do anything about it ? Most of the EEC has done a fantastic job of cleaning it up. We have done a pretty good job here, with still a long way to go. Brasil is to be complemented for really doing some 180 degree turn arounds the past 25 years. Getting the equivalent of a land use permit there now is next to impossible and many of their industries have been "UNGODFATHERED" and made to clean up their act.

 

Oh, and for what it is worth, the USA does indeed have import tariffs on Brasilian chickens and ethanol, to protect the USA manufacturers/producers.

 

 

 

Yeah, those AGW skeptics are so pro pollution and anti environment. Kill all the Bald Eagles, slash and burn, set every river on fire, choke every city, fill every swamp with garbage, you know that sort of thing. Why they are just plain stupid and uneducated. How can one be so ignorant. Either that or they are rich bastards living off of the sweat of the proletariat. I haven't made up my mind which yet. Maybe both. It's just a huge conspiracy between the stupid and the rich, yeah, that's the ticket. Oh wait, the rich are paying the stupid. No. The rich are stupid. No they are arrogant uncaring bastards who know better. Well at any rate, they are all rich or stupid, and they all hate the environment, that I know for sure.

 

Pretty much sums up the USA auto manufacturers and oil companies that past 25 years doesn't it ? And yes, we did a good job of cleaning up most of those burnable rivers.....but only because the EPA was standing their with the ticket pad writing up fines, and congress was mandating new standards to meet. Then we walked away and most have stuck their heads in the sand.

[markdavd]

Do you ignore the issues your eyeballs can see with smog and general air pollution ?

 

How much worse would it be today had we not put relatively strict EPA limits on what could be dumped into the atmosphere during the past 50 years ? Scrubbers, precipitators, bag filter houses, etc., on the steel, coal burning, and other industrial users.......AND WE STILL ARE DEALING WITH ORANGE AND RED ALERTS TODAY IN METRO ATLANTA, and area with relatively little industry.

 

How much is "Climate Change" ? I don't know, and to me that is basically irrelevant. Do you pee into your well ?

 

How much common sense does it require to see, all around the world, how bad the pollution got before we started to do anything about it ? Most of the EEC has done a fantastic job of cleaning it up. We have done a pretty good job here, with still a long way to go. Brasil is to be complemented for really doing some 180 degree turn arounds the past 25 years. Getting the equivalent of a land use permit there now is next to impossible and many of their industries have been "UNGODFATHERED" and made to clean up their act.

 

Oh, and for what it is worth, the USA does indeed have import tariffs on Brasilian chickens and ethanol, to protect the USA manufacturers/producers.

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty much sums up the USA auto manufacturers and oil companies that past 25 years doesn't it ? And yes, we did a good job of cleaning up most of those burnable rivers.....but only because the EPA was standing their with the ticket pad writing up fines, and congress was mandating new standards to meet. Then we walked away and most have stuck their heads in the sand.

 

The problem with your arguments is, regardless of what the scare mongers claim, CO² is NOT air pollution.

 

You create it with every breath you take and release it with every beer, soda or bottle champagne you open.

 

 

 

SCOTUS based their decision on bad science.

[surepip]

The problem with your arguments is, regardless of what the scare mongers claim, CO² is NOT air pollution.

 

You create it with every breath you take and release it with every beer, soda or bottle champagne you open.

 

 

MD, I am not being insultory, but you show ignorance with the above statement. CO2 is a byproduct of various animals breathing in oxygen, but it is indeed a pollutant when there is too much of it. This one has gone to court no less, and SCOTUS ruled it was a pollutant.

 

SCOTUS rules CO2 is a pollutant

 

Just because it is organic, and natural does not make it safe in any quantity. For many years we used it to asphxiate cull chicks.

 

Is it toxic ? No. But too much of it is not a good thing. And add to that the worldwide deforestation and defoliation of tropical rain forests and jungles, which did the majority of the photosynthises to convert CO2 back to carbon and oxygen, and the problem worsens.

 

 

[Cathyhelms]

MD, I am not being insultory, but you show ignorance with the above statement. CO2 is a byproduct of various animals breathing in oxygen, but it is indeed a pollutant when there is too much of it. This one has gone to court no less, and SCOTUS ruled it was a pollutant.

 

SCOTUS rules CO2 is a pollutant

 

Just because it is organic, and natural does not make it safe in any quantity. For many years we used it to asphxiate cull chicks.

 

Is it toxic ? No. But too much of it is not a good thing. And add to that the worldwide deforestation and defoliation of tropical rain forests and jungles, which did the majority of the photosynthises to convert CO2 back to carbon and oxygen, and the problem worsens.

 

 

 

Hmmm. let's see if I remember 6th grade science. Things that breath oxygen release co2, things that breathe co2 release oxygen. So the answer could lie in plants and trees.

[markdavd]

MD, I am not being insultory, but you show ignorance with the above statement. CO2 is a byproduct of various animals breathing in oxygen, but it is indeed a pollutant when there is too much of it. This one has gone to court no less, and SCOTUS ruled it was a pollutant.

 

SCOTUS rules CO2 is a pollutant

 

Just because it is organic, and natural does not make it safe in any quantity. For many years we used it to asphxiate cull chicks.

 

Is it toxic ? No. But too much of it is not a good thing. And add to that the worldwide deforestation and defoliation of tropical rain forests and jungles, which did the majority of the photosynthises to convert CO2 back to carbon and oxygen, and the problem worsens.

 

Just because a judge rules something does not make it so. That decision was based on bad science.

[surepip]

Hmmm. let's see if I remember 6th grade science. Things that breath oxygen release co2, things that breathe co2 release oxygen. So the answer could lie in plants and trees.

 

Oh so true! And the fact there are not enough plants and trees to turn the CO2 back into oxygen, and hence the problems.

 

As stated, I have no idea for certain that too much CO2 causes any sort of climate change, but I do know from a purely biochemistry aspect that we have higher percentages today than we did 50 years ago, and much, much more than we had 100 years ago.

 

Like I said, the poultry industry used it as a gas for suffocating cull chicks from many years until that was deemed to be cruel.

 

Too much CO2 is just as bad as not enough. Same goes for lots of other stuff too.

[lotstodo]

MD, I am not being insultory, but you show ignorance with the above statement. CO2 is a byproduct of various animals breathing in oxygen, but it is indeed a pollutant when there is too much of it. This one has gone to court no less, and SCOTUS ruled it was a pollutant.

 

SCOTUS rules CO2 is a pollutant

 

Just because it is organic, and natural does not make it safe in any quantity. For many years we used it to asphxiate cull chicks.

 

Is it toxic ? No. But too much of it is not a good thing. And add to that the worldwide deforestation and defoliation of tropical rain forests and jungles, which did the majority of the photosynthises to convert CO2 back to carbon and oxygen, and the problem worsens.

 

 

 

 

No, No, No, a thousand times NO. The judge did NOT rule that CO2 was actually a pollutant. He ruled that CO2 fit the legal definition of a pollutant under the clean air act and that as such the EPA could regulate it. In fact the court commented that the legal definition of "air pollutant" under the CAA was quite capacious. He DID NOT, I repeat, he DID NOT rule on the voracity or the correctness of the law, and in fact, reviewed only law. He simply interpreted EPA's power and responsibility under the CAA from a legal standpoint. Judges do not decide questions of math and science, they decide questions of law.

[gpatt0n]

Markdavd:

 

And your farts are methane and they too are a natural 'gas' that our bodies manufacture.

 

But the plain fact is that while being in the presence of methane may be unpleasant, at the concentrations your dog, kid or spouse excrete them, it is not poisonous either (although I'd swear some that my dog has authored would kill a lesser man.)

 

The truth is at a certain percent of the atmosphere as measured as parts per million, methane would be deadly. So too, would C02 be deadly.

 

Where you're thinking is whacked, Markdavd, is your perception that something must either be good or bad and that it is impossible for things to be both good and bad ... or better yet, things just are. So while I'll readily concede that C02 in a diet coke or DDP is good, I can say with impunity that tons and tons of C02 pumped out of a coal-fired electric generating plant into the atmosphere every minute of every day for decades is basically benign until it is combined with the tons and tons of C02 being pumped out of 500 other coal fired plants, 200 million automobile tailpipes, 80 million lawnmowers, roto-tillers and tractors, 4,000 feed lots, bubbling up out of the formerly frozen tundra and spewing from 60 million gas furnaces, etc. etc. ... does not promise a pause that refreshes.

 

Just because we breath out C02 and it is a natural element of the atmosphere, doesn't mean that it can't be pollution.

 

I mean the world, as we sit here, is suffering from a shortage of fresh water despite the fact that the Mississippi River ran over its banks in one of the worst floods in near a century. What should we take from that? Maybe that too little water is a disaster and too much water is a disaster.

 

Fact is, whether you call it a pollutant or just an element, the same applies to C02 ... too much of it is a disaster and too little of it is a disaster but that doesn't make C02 or H20 'a disaster'.

 

Yeah, those AGW skeptics are so pro pollution and anti environment. Kill all the Bald Eagles, slash and burn, set every river on fire, choke every city, fill every swamp with garbage, you know that sort of thing. Why they are just plain stupid and uneducated. How can one be so ignorant. Either that or they are rich bastards living off of the sweat of the proletariat. I haven't made up my mind which yet. Maybe both. It's just a huge conspiracy between the stupid and the rich, yeah, that's the ticket. Oh wait, the rich are paying the stupid. No. The rich are stupid. No they are arrogant uncaring bastards who know better. Well at any rate, they are all rich or stupid, and they all hate the environment, that I know for sure.

 

It is not that they hate the environment, LTD; it is that they love money and figure by externalizing the costs of their pollution, production or what have you, they will bring home more money which will allow them to avoid the societal costs their profit enhancing positions create. Passing costs along to the consumer is a mantra and if the costs of selling more Hummers or growing more beef or burning more coal results in the forced migration of those in the Netherlands; hey, sorry your country flooded; glad I invested in mountain property.

 

The plain fact is that short term profits have, in our society, trumped long term investments since Gordon Gekko filled the room with his famous quote, "Greed is good."

 

You bought it as logical in a maximize your short term profit kind of way.

 

The times require we simply think longer term.

 

pubby

[surepip]

Or suffer the consequences.

[Georgia Dawg]

"Rifkin asks if we are asleep "

 

Nope. Just tired of listening to their BS.

[markdavd]

If the predictions of the second Maunder Minimum come true, we'll be doing all we can to create Co2 to increase food production in a shorter growing season.

 

Of course, the warming alarmists will still insist the Sun has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth.

[swit57]

Deforestation is going along as it has largely because of another 'stupid' tradition of 'slash and burn' agriculture. The justification for it is the same as that for the incandescent light bulb ... if it was good enough for grandaddy, it is good enough for me.

 

Adopting sustainable technologies and techniques across board and around the globe are the only way that we'll be able to retain the good of our sophisticated modern technologically advanced society.

 

There are a multitude of moral, ethical and practical issues that surround this entire issue but it is an insult to suggest that the movement to counter global warming is only aimed at this segment of the population or that. We are all in this together whether we like it or not.

 

pubby

 

Yes the new bulbs are much better, If you break one you must open all widows ,shut off ac or heating, wear protective clothing in order to clean up,

Paulding .com is nothing but left wing trash F you PUBBY

[gpatt0n]

If the predictions of the second Maunder Minimum come true, we'll be doing all we can to create Co2 to increase food production in a shorter growing season.

 

Of course, the warming alarmists will still insist the Sun has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth.

 

A new report on the state of the world’s oceans is gaining considerable attention this week. The report by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature warns that combined threats to oceans are creating conditions where there is “a high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.” Dr. Alex Rogers, scientific director of the IPSO, calls the new findings “shocking.”

 

While to some this language may seem extreme, the reality is that an unprecedented range of threats are coming together to challenge the health of oceans and underwater life. The report identifies the main drivers of these threats, including: climate change, overexploitation, pollution and habitat loss. The report also finds increasing hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and anoxia (absence of oxygen, known as ocean dead zones) along with warming oceans and increasing acidification are creating multiple stessors on the world’s oceans – and multiple stressors are, in their words, a precondition for other mass extinction events in the Earth’s history.

 

The bottom line is that these combined threats– much of it caused by human activity— are undermining the sustainability of our fragile ocean ecosystems, sea life and the value they hold.

 

I saw this reported earlier today on CNN and they interviewed Jaques Cousteau's grandson. His key point was that half the carbon dioxide that man has put into the air has been absorbed by the ocean and that is the main factor in changing its acidity.

 

He went on to say that as someone involved in Oceanography for some time, the key points including the pending mass extinction predicted is well known within the scientific community. That these concerns are just now being voiced in broader media, he felt, was overdue.

 

But of course, MD, he doesn't know what he's talking about and neither do the others in the field of oceanography,climate and all ... because, well men are incapable of impacting the environment.

 

Swit57:

 

On the subject of environment, when the swit hits the fan; there is no left and right wing. That reality informs us all that the idea that this is dispute is all about partisan politics is as big a lie and it is bad a joke. Let me assure you, if we follow stupid and let this happen, no one will be laughing.

 

pubby

[surepip]

This swit guy is another classic example of "If you are not with us then you are against us", and his choice of insults is indicative of where he is coming from. Too bad there are so many who refuse to see what we, all of us, and our mischosen habits are doing.

 

 

But, none the less, a classic example of ignorance running amuck.