Global Warming farce?

[IamKira]

Originally Posted by Ito

in sweden they plan to redouce global warming. but they are doing things in wrong wayes. making more supermarkets so people go there to shopp. buildning more highwayes for more traffic.
while we gonna redouce our global warming while we are really increasing it.
o-O experiancing more traffic now becouse people are to lazy to walk or take bike to jobs or school. hearing traffic now =(.
hugs Ito

that is inevitable... every country in the world is expanding in the way you speak of.. it is just @ a much slower rate in many countries... if we really want to reduce climate impact of humans we are really missing the one idea that would have the most impact- diminishing population

we need to get the indians to accept gay's and implement an incentive based strategy in each and every country to have one or two children per couple - with the highest incentive awarded to each couple that have 1 child. and a negative incentive if a couple has more than two children.

and yes, i agree, we need to bike more places, but we are slowly developing a widely renewable energy system and efficient, electric powered cars which will render it ok to use cars again... hopefully i will see this fully established in my lifetime

I am actually wanting to design a carbon fiber chariot that uses Yokohama's... i think bringing back horse travel would be awesome

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by IamKira

we need to get the indians to accept gay's and implement an incentive based strategy in each and every country to have one or two children per couple - with the highest incentive awarded to each couple that have 1 child. and a negative incentive if a couple has more than two children.

I'm sure science czar John Holdren would just love you as one of his followers.
With less humans on the planet we'll be able to continue to keep the population of the polar bear on the rise.

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by IamKira

that is inevitable... every country in the world is expanding in the way you speak of.. it is just @ a much slower rate in many countries... if we really want to reduce climate impact of humans we are really missing the one idea that would have the most impact- diminishing population

we need to get the indians to accept gay's and implement an incentive based strategy in each and every country to have one or two children per couple - with the highest incentive awarded to each couple that have 1 child. and a negative incentive if a couple has more than two children.

and yes, i agree, we need to bike more places, but we are slowly developing a widely renewable energy system and efficient, electric powered cars which will render it ok to use cars again... hopefully i will see this fully established in my lifetime

I am actually wanting to design a carbon fiber chariot that uses Yokohama's... i think bringing back horse travel would be awesome

Don't worry about the population.

Wars are there for a reason you know.

[Ito]

Originally Posted by IamKira

that is inevitable... every country in the world is expanding in the way you speak of.. it is just @ a much slower rate in many countries... if we really want to reduce climate impact of humans we are really missing the one idea that would have the most impact- diminishing population

we need to get the indians to accept gay's and implement an incentive based strategy in each and every country to have one or two children per couple - with the highest incentive awarded to each couple that have 1 child. and a negative incentive if a couple has more than two children.

and yes, i agree, we need to bike more places, but we are slowly developing a widely renewable energy system and efficient, electric powered cars which will render it ok to use cars again... hopefully i will see this fully established in my lifetime

I am actually wanting to design a carbon fiber chariot that uses Yokohama's... i think bringing back horse travel would be awesome

Thats awsome ^^ its good that we need to think of a way to do if wen some resources will end.

[solemnclockwork]

You do realize the earth is not over populated right? If you wanted you could fit the whole world population into Texas.

and on that, how can you set there and try to tell people how many children they have? I can set here and tell you right now, that America would NEVER agree to such a thing.

Do you know what problem china is having right now with doing such a thing? a major imbalance to the sexes.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

You do realize the earth is not over populated right?

Why do you think this?

In my country, Thailand, they've cut down almost all of their rainforests. There's literally only a small portion of jungle left here. I'd say that constitutes overpopulation.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

and on that, how can you set there and try to tell people how many children they have?

Perhaps helping them understand that if they have more than one child, that child will end up living in a world with a very poor standard of living.

[IamKira]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

You do realize the earth is not over populated right? If you wanted you could fit the whole world population into Texas.

thank you Tenchu... sure you can fit almost 7 billion people into texas, but could they live there?... no.. each human need a certain amount of land each year to support crops and livestock.. albeit in more industrialized countries this land is usually transcribed to each person by proxy... i.e. business

and that mentality of "oh no one will go for this why try it at all?" is absurd

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by clintjm

What country do you live in where you don't have any climate change regulations?

Thai people don't care for the enviroment much. Their media is too isolated from the rest of the world, and, unlike Europe where non English speaking countries still have intelligent people pushing things, there is a serious lack of education in all areas here. The people really know nothing of the big-wide-world.

Regardless, this isn't a political arguement, still. American parties present their policies on climate change and the people vote on them, but few people have little understanding about the world aside what has been pushed by the government for the sake of winning votes. Information like this is not automatically incorrect, but a lot of it is.

It would be better if we could study the world ourselves so we already know the facts before we go to the polling booth to read the pamphlets.

Education on real climate change has really become just as selfish as those who care nothing to prevent climate change; a massive focus is now what people can do to ensure their greedy civilization lives on through the future. The real problem I've come to notice, however, is not that our civilization is in danger, it's that our civilization has failed to begin with. It does not need to live on, it needs to be completely reconstructed. People will never understand this through political education. They need to develop proper passion, respect and affection for the natural world; something they'll only learn through unbiased and dedicated study of it.

When you do come to understand all this, you can see global warming is really only a tiny fraction of the real problem. It's really like the push to save the panda; the panda is really one of the least significant animals that is on the endangered list. The animals which really effect the enviroment are bugs and fungi and the sorts, mostly. However, we use the panda as a mascot. In saving the habitat of the panda, scientists are really only trying to save the habitat of some ugly little bug that lives there which creates a serious and real butterfly effect if it's destroyed.

Global warming is the new panda; if the world were to increase in temperature, it would have a massive effect on coastal lines and human farming, but a lot of the natural world would really be fine. But global warming is instead used as a mascott; given people can relate to the threat of Sydney sinking, or of Australias farms drying up, enviromentalists can then push for other little things inbetween in an attempt to save other things, such as using the panda as a mascott to save the ugly bugs.

This would be fine; most people are stupid, that's a fact. Most people are seriously dumb. If they're unable to relate to something personally, they just don't care about it. They cannot think for anyone but themselves. But the problem has become that governments have now capitalized on global warming. Global warming has now become a mascott for successful governments in the West, and is not much different than Ronald McDonald the clown. No one gives a fuck about the real enviroment/clown; everyone's just trying to sell their product.

It really backfired. Instead of people realizing there's a huge bigger picture to be sighted, people have focused entirely on global warming; trying to save only the panda simply by keeping him a zoo, kind of, and now all the bugs are dead.

The larger and real problems global warming was supposed to be a mascott for was things like over population; protection of reefs and rainforests and other delicate and massively important eco systems; prevention of deforestation and desertification.

However, there's little money to make in "not doing something". The capitilzation that has now been pushed by the government is focusing on more consumerism and selling more products; cleaner cars; new electricity methods; infrastructure renewal; green holidays/tourism. All this shit. But people being as uneducated as they are, do not realize global warming is really only a small part of a bigger problem, and that what's really need is to slow down on consumerism.

A real good example I noticed; how much does adevertising push owning a motorbike in America and Australia? Almost 0. In Thailand, every second ad on TV is trying to sell you a small scooter. Why?

When the time comes to own less destructive vehicles, why are Australians and Americans pushed just to buy a different model of car instead of being told 80% of Thai people just own motorbikes and they're fine and if you got one of them you would not need these big assed cars to lower your per capita carbon emissions, anyway. They're just trying to sell as much as they can to whatever market they have. They have a stupid market with only basic needs and a few simp[le boxes to tick.

Using this example, you can see the world is still in a massive frenzy of consumerism, and the push for global warming, the global warming mascott, has simply been picked up by governments and capitalist coporations to sew more of their fucking bullshit. It's completely backfired.

In my eyes, the world is fairly doomed. Like Egypt, Greece and Rome before it, we're about to burn for our vanity and arrogance. I do not see there's any stopping this. When the soluation becomes you have to educate these people I'm surrounded by, I already know it will fail.

[sxljk]

that is an universal problem,and some countries will be drowned.sounds horrible!

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Why do you think this?

In my country, Thailand, they've cut down almost all of their rainforests. There's literally only a small portion of jungle left here. I'd say that constitutes overpopulation.

Perhaps helping them understand that if they have more than one child, that child will end up living in a world with a very poor standard of living.

Because the worlds population is all over the place. Because we don't really take care of anything, it paints a bad picture overall.

Bashing the west again? Language issue with last post.

Cutting down the rain forest could be done to a number of reasons.

Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.

Population Control Nonsense

No that would not work in America because the notion that it does not matter your social status or poor, you CAN MAKE IT. I would even doubt seriously how much that would make it in the a western country.

Originally Posted by IamKira

thank you Tenchu... sure you can fit almost 7 billion people into texas, but could they live there?... no.. each human need a certain amount of land each year to support crops and livestock.. albeit in more industrialized countries this land is usually transcribed to each person by proxy... i.e. business

and that mentality of "oh no one will go for this why try it at all?" is absurd

I addressed that above and the issue is NOT room. Oh we could come up with the plans easily putting it into would take time because we really don't live together or haven't done so on such a massive scale. Oh it could be done though. Leaving the rest of the planet to the natural elements.

The mentality is basic human right. The reason why it would be soundly rejective in America, we have a Constitution that protects against such measures.