Global Warming is over.

[2761377]

as an aside, and maybe a diversion from character assassination, it seems oddly contradictory that none of the true believers in AGW have commented in the harbor freight lovefest thread about the evils of chinese industry.

if you want to reverse AGW it seems reasonable to boycott china as much as possible.

just sayin'



http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_prc.html




http://www.themanufacturinginstitute...Emissions.aspx

[herbivor]

as an aside, and maybe a diversion from character assassination, it seems oddly contradictory that none of the true believers in AGW have commented in the harbor freight lovefest thread about the evils of chinese industry.

if you want to reverse AGW it seems reasonable to boycott china as much as possible.

just sayin'



http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_prc.html.


http://www.themanufacturinginstitute...Emissions.aspx

Unfortunately, even if we boycotted China completely it would not reverse AGW or even slow it. We would need to completely rethink consumption and commerce altogether and so would the rest of the world to try and have an appreciable impact.

I've been to China. It is a prime example of what our country would like without any environmental regulation and industry could do whatever they want. It's absolutely disgusting

[2761377]

Unfortunately, even if we boycotted China completely it would not reverse AGW or even slow it. We would need to completely rethink consumption and commerce altogether and so would the rest of the world to try and have an appreciable impact.

I've been to China. It is a prime example of what our country would like without any environmental regulation and industry could do whatever they want. It's absolutely disgusting

so, you're saying it's not even worth the effort? did you read the link from our government site where China is the number 1 emitter of co2 in the world?

the Chinese have a proverb- 'the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'

if you the energy and conviction to provide stats and charts to prove AGW, and to vilify those who doubt it you should be able to make a personal dedication to fight it.

that would include maintaining your car's emission system to factory spec, driving as little as possible and instituting a personal boycott of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) products.

if you can't/won't make that comittment your face is in Encylopedia Brittanica under HYPOCRITE.

it is not easy- most people think my problem with Chinese products is quality. I get blank stares when i say it's political, and then the comment "well, they make everything anyway". as if that's enough reason to lay down and submit.

when it's really just an excuse to be lazy/cheap.

[herbivor]

so, you're saying it's not even worth the effort? did you read the link from our government site where China is the number 1 emitter of co2 in the world?

the Chinese have a proverb- 'the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'

if you the energy and conviction to provide stats and charts to prove AGW, and to vilify those who doubt it you should be able to make a personal dedication to fight it.

that would include maintaining your car's emission system to factory spec, driving as little as possible and instituting a personal boycott of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) products.

if you can't/won't make that comittment your face is in Encylopedia Brittanica under HYPOCRITE.

it is not easy- most people think my problem with Chinese products is quality. I get blank stares when i say it's political, and then the comment "well, they make everything anyway". as if that's enough reason to lay down and submit.

when it's really just an excuse to be lazy/cheap.

Anyone alive on this earth is consuming energy and resources. Calling people who agree with the science of AGW hypocrites for doing so is a little naive. My point was that not consuming Chinese goods will do nothing to slow global warming unless we choose to stop consuming non essential goods altogether.

[2761377]

Anyone alive on this earth is consuming energy and resources. Calling people who agree with the science of AGW hypocrites for doing so is a little naive. My point was that not consuming Chinese goods will do nothing to slow global warming unless we choose to stop consuming non essential goods altogether.

so you're too sophiscated to act with integrity? i'll continue my naive boycott and walk the walk.

ironic isn't it that an AGW skeptic is doing more than a true believer? AGW must not bother you that much, after all. one thing is for sure- if none of you do anything nothing will change.

[gwb72tii]

so, you're saying it's not even worth the effort? did you read the link from our government site where China is the number 1 emitter of co2 in the world?

the Chinese have a proverb- 'the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'

if you the energy and conviction to provide stats and charts to prove AGW, and to vilify those who doubt it you should be able to make a personal dedication to fight it.

that would include maintaining your car's emission system to factory spec, driving as little as possible and instituting a personal boycott of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) products.

if you can't/won't make that comittment your face is in Encylopedia Brittanica under HYPOCRITE.

it is not easy- most people think my problem with Chinese products is quality. I get blank stares when i say it's political, and then the comment "well, they make everything anyway". as if that's enough reason to lay down and submit.

when it's really just an excuse to be lazy/cheap.

it would also mean dedication to eating local, meaning produce/protein from local suppliers

there is nothing organic about produce flown thousands of miles from Chile or Mexico

[herbivor]

so you're too sophiscated to act with integrity? i'll continue my naive boycott and walk the walk.

ironic isn't it that an AGW skeptic is doing more than a true believer? AGW must not bother you that much, after all. one thing is for sure- if none of you do anything nothing will change.

You're quick to judge my lifestyle without knowing nothing about it. So tell me what American made electronic device are you having this discussion on? I would like to know where I can purchase one.

[2761377]

You're quick to judge my lifestyle without knowing nothing about it. So tell me what American made electronic device are you having this discussion on? I would like to know where I can purchase one.

you know what, that's right. i did jump to the conclusion that you are doing nothing to mitigate your carbon footprint. please educate me on your approach.

and of course my boycott has holes- some things are unavailable made elsewhere than china. having said that, the Dell PC this message is coming from was assembled in Mexico. don't confuse a boycott of china with a committment to only buy American- two different animals.

when i posted my message in this thread about the harbor freight lovefest i expected more than one person to reply, and that at least one person would say 'you're right- that's a conscientious program worth emulating'.

the last thing i expected was a resolute defense of inaction based on futility.

again. let me reset a couple notchs and give you credit for some action in your daily life to attempt to fight AGW. let me know it's nature, please.

[Fusion]

You would basically have to ban all trade, it's ridiculous. Or go back to ships with sails.
The fact that someone is even writing here is hipocritical, although we've grown so accustomed to these things, noone will ever be willing to let them go. That's why taxation seems to be the "solution", though fraudulant, as the EU has proven.

But anyways, the head of the IPCC has proven the title of this thread to be true, so we can be calm for now.
Or atleast until someone comes up with another excuse for taxing the hell out of everyone and everything.

[herbivor]

you know what, that's right. i did jump to the conclusion that you are doing nothing to mitigate your carbon footprint. please educate me on your approach.
.

I will be happy to give some examples, but lets face the facts that our individual efforts is so negligible that by themselves, they will have no impact. To have an appreciable impact, our entire world society will need to live much more simply and agree to abandon a capitalist economy based on consumption in exchange for one based on maintaining a very basic and simple standard of living. The lifestyle of the Amish or Bolivian mountain villagers come to mind. Until then, my efforts are futile. But to give some examples as you requested:
Our family is vegetarian, a huge personal impact on our carbon footprint.
We chose to live in a smaller house and property within walking distance to work, grocery stores, banks and restaurants rather than a larger house out in the suburbs away from work. As a result my wife and I's combined mileage is about 15k per year with most of it in her Jetta TDI.
Our house that was built in 1941 is getting renovated due to a fire. We are installing a highly sophisticated HVAC system and the best insulation. it costs twice as much as standard systems, but uses about half the energy. Our 1941 house will be about 30% more efficient than a new Energy star rated house.
We join a CSA every summer and also grow out own veggies each summer ( or try to). I only by veggies and fruit grown in the USA that is seasonably available with the exception of bananas and coffee.
We cook at home often using primarily only whole foods, with the only processed food being bread and condiments.

But again, those few things are minuscule and our carbon footprint is still much larger than any 2nd world country like most Americans. ...and we still own Chinese shit, despite our desire to own only American stuff.

[rwh11385]

You would basically have to ban all trade, it's ridiculous. Or go back to ships with sails.
The fact that someone is even writing here is hipocritical, although we've grown so accustomed to these things, noone will ever be willing to let them go. That's why taxation seems to be the "solution", though fraudulant, as the EU has proven.

But anyways, the head of the IPCC has proven the title of this thread to be true, so we can be calm for now.
Or atleast until someone comes up with another excuse for taxing the hell out of everyone and everything.

You mean like these?: http://www.gizmag.com/next-gen-ships...uel-use/22289/

Of the world's nearly 45,000 cargo ships, many burn a low-grade bunker fuel in their engines and produce pollution equivalent to millions of automobiles. To help reduce that toxic load and keep the price of shipping freight reasonable, engineers at the University of Tokyo (UT) and a group of collaborators have designed a system of large, retractable sails measuring 64 feet (20 m) wide by 164 feet (50 m) high, which studies indicate can reduce annual fuel use on ships equipped with them by up to 30%.

The trick is to read and follow tech and innovation instead of boasting ignorance. Obviously banning trade is stupid but then again, it's not simply the act of trading that is the problem but the amount of energy used and pollution created.

And China's influence on the planet isn't simply because of the fact that countries buy from it but rather also that they have a billion people, many of which are just coming out of poverty - or at least a slightly better degree of poverty. They seek lower middle class obtaining and are supported in this by subsidies to make gasoline cheaper which is quite the opposite of what the developed world is doing. Especially in Europe, gasoline is taxed to encourage better efficiency vehicles, while the US has some taxes but focus more on regulation of CAFE standards rather than market influence demanding vehicle changes. Obviously the 2008 gas price spike and sustained higher prices than in prior decades has encouraged more fuel frugal vehicles, as well as technology that has enabled modern cars with refinement and fun while sipping less gas (lightweight materials, additional turbocharging, direct injection, selective cylinder shutdown, variable valve timing, more complex ignition control and timing, better aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, etc.)

In a somewhat related topic, ASME's magazine had a great article on the dynamics and control technologies in PHEV's and BEV's and where the technology is headed in the future - super capacitors and fuel cells potentially... but I know you in your wisdom claim that this isn't actually technology because of laptop batteries prior existence? The continued development of gas efficient technologies and refinement of designs will help cut waste, inefficiency, and pollution, as well as continued research into advanced biofuels (Joule Unlimited's, etc.) If their commercial production facility is a success then they won't need any subsidies and will be competitive in the market, especially with Audi backing to certify the fuel. There won't be a need for taxing people to change, but rather technology to provide win-win's for the world. But you have to be open-minded and in tuned with innovation to be informed about this stuff.

The greatest solution won't be to fight any country or ban trade or tax all the things, but develop technology that reduces the drain on the world to live the way we want. This would support developing nations and while reducing their pollution and reduce their costs to have electricity or transportation. Especially in Africa were they have toxic lamp fumes in their houses, solar or kinetic powered lamps can do a lot of good, as well as advances in on-site and solar powered toilets. They can sustainably grow - not being limited by a desire to reduce greenhouse gaes, but rather empowered by it. The last thing they ought to want to do is develop in the footsteps that the Western world has - with fossil fuel sources that are no longer cheap like they were when they supported great growth in our world. Technology development isn't slowing down or stopping and likewise, the United States shouldn't be left behind in some stubborn obsession with dinosaur juice or protest of green / sustainable ideologies because of a short time piece in which the hottest decade on record hasn't surpassed a very hot one year outlier.

[rwh11385]

Unfortunately, even if we boycotted China completely it would not reverse AGW or even slow it. We would need to completely rethink consumption and commerce altogether and so would the rest of the world to try and have an appreciable impact.

Indeed, but in some ways I think some people are slowly reconsidered their consumption practices - when it doesn't relate to phones. (They constantly upgrade and chase new, and think it's ridiculous I've kept mine for nearly 6 years now) But we still have a long ways to go in this regard. It will take more effort on the part of businesses to grow their service business instead of encouraging replacement with new products, as well as the mindset of the consumer. Fortunately, Kaizen and lean production has encouraged manufacturing to adopt zero landfill and recycle what they can in some industries.

[herbivor]

You mean like these?: http://www.gizmag.com/next-gen-ships...uel-use/22289/


.

I like the cut of your jib:up:

I agree that one vital path is through technological innovation, but i don't think it can be the only path. We must adopt a different philosophy of consumption, which is sometimes counterintuitive to technological innovation. Technological improvements also creates consumption of resources and energy. Should I go buy a new BMW i3 at the end of the year and buy some solar panels to put on my roof to charge it, or keep my old E30? Which is better for the environment?

[rwh11385]

I like the cut of your jib:up:

I agree that one vital path is through technological innovation, but i don't think it can be the only path. We must adopt a different philosophy of consumption, which is sometimes counterintuitive to technological innovation. Technological improvements also creates consumption of resources and energy. Should I go buy a new BMW i3 at the end of the year and buy some solar panels to put on my roof to charge it, or keep my old E30? Which is better for the environment?

Indeed. The true sustainable integration of new technology is through attrition (total losses from accidents, uneconomical repairs, or uneconomical continued use). Keeping old cars running well and for a long time is very sustainable, especially if you do the Top Gear Prius analysis on shipping pollution, etc. But at the same time, even under the best maintenance and service, nothing is immune to crashes, rust, failure, etc.

But what isn't good is stupid government programs that trash perfectly fine engines to promote new demand... [*cough* cash for clunkers *cough*]

In the same way, it is sometimes possible to retrofit technology into older systems. Fry grease an old Mercedes, fill your new low rolling resistance tires with nitrogen on your old car, add AirTab fuel savers or other tricks to for hypermiling. Doing the best with what we have while we have it. (You not building a new house but upgrading your current one)

Likewise, we can change some of the degree of our consumption but also need to improve how we do it. We can live closer to work and bike or carpool to use less fuel, but also need more efficient transportation when we can't substitute our demand. Obviously better mpg might encourage us to drive more if fuel prices remain the same, but slightly reducing our demand as possible while decreasing the fuel used for a given trip we doubly reduce our impact. There's some consumption that can't or won't go away but we can still do our best to make it the least amount of waste creation as possible.

People are going to eat fast food most likely and that food won't likely be grown in-house at the restaurant, but at least can make sure the transportation has reduced impact: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/tran...ery-trucks/600

McDonald’s said the biodiesel initiative was part of their larger plans in the UAE, which is trying to establish itself as a leader in renewable energy, even though the country is rich with oil.

McDonald’s has previously run its vehicles in England and Austria on biodiesel, but this is the first time any company has tried to do it in the Middle East.

Like I mentioned in the last post, companies themselves can be a beacon for improvement - not just consumers. They are sometimes going green for marketing and connecting with their target consumer... and other times are just doing it for the savings. With all the refrigerators at the warehouse superstores, using solar panels to power them makes financial sense. As technology improves, so will adoption and the benefit to society/world.

[Cliche Guevara]

http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart