Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall Worldwide In 2009 221
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that the good news is that emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn and an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land. One big factor was La Niña, a natural seesaw shift in climate that takes place across the tropical Pacific every three to seven years, where the climate is cooler and wetter over large regions of land in the tropics, encouraging plant growth in tropical forests. However the bad news is that even with the decrease in emissions the overall concentration of CO2 rose from 385 ppm in 2008 to 387 ppm in 2009, as concentrations continue to rise even as emissions slip because even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas. Many countries have agreed in principle to try to stabilize emissions at 350 ppm by century's end, which would result in a 50 percent chance of holding the increase in global average temperatures to about 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels."
I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'm 100% sure that I'd prefer to live in a world where we don't give trillions to greenie scam artists in return for them telling us that they can fix that pesky human inclination to have kids and give them a decent standard of living.
We need to lose about 3 billion people, then keep the numbers down there until we get our eggs out of this basket. Anyone not engaged in trying to find a way to achieve that solution humanely is just profiting from the problem.
you know somebody's going to say it... (Score:3, Insightful)
so,
mandate CO2 emmissions drop -> recession
Re:Quit burning stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
Need to edit the title on this article (Score:5, Insightful)
You can thank La Niña, the souring oceans (and dying corals), and a slight downturn in deforestation due to the bad Economy. Can we reflect on this story again next year after this "improvement" has its chance to work its magic?
Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's sarcasm.
Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is getting creepy common (Score:5, Insightful)
People die on their own. Life has a 100% mortality rate. Wait a while, don't replace 3 billion people that died of natural causes (i.e. life) and you've lost 3 billion from the total population without actively killing anyone.
Re:That's clearly impossible (Score:2, Insightful)
I know you're being cheeky, so I'm a fellow traveler.
A friend's son's research suggested that CO2 levels correlated with temperature change, but only after the temperature had shifted. So, no causation. Of course, there is also the historic data that shows that our temperature swing is not unprecedented, nor accelerated by us.
And while we're trying to create cars that somehow magically scrub CO2 from the air, the quality of air in Beijing is being given "hella bad" ratings.
I wish the focus would be on something akin to "quality of life" or "being good stewards of our environment" than some quasi-religious tilt to Gaia.
Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
"Forests naturally deal with fire quite well thank you"
Agreed, but that's not the point the gp was trying to make. The average stable forest isn't the o2 source or co2 sink that some environmentalists would have you think. Only by removing matter from the forest and using it/burying it where it won't rot will it sequester co2 thereby reducing humanity's effect.
The point being a stable forest releases co2 from wood rotting or being burnt. If it absorbed co2, then its mass would constantly increase. What is actually happening in a stable forest is that there is an almost perfect balance and therefore a healthy stable forest is more or less carbon neutral.
Now if you were to occasionally cut down the wood and put it to other uses (e.g. housing or tables as gp mentions) and allow new growth, then you have a co2 capturing scheme. If you cut it down and build concrete buildings in it's place or just let it turn to desert/scrubland then you're the human race and deserve what you'll get...
Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science (Score:3, Insightful)
You or anyone else ever tries to 'snip' anything on me without my permission and I'll help to 'aerate' you in return.
Re:This is getting creepy common (Score:3, Insightful)
+1.
People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.
People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to around 200 million by mid-century. To choose a future with unrestrained births, where millions of people will be starving is the ultimate inhumanity.
Re:you know somebody's going to say it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard that even if mankind disappeared tomorrow and therefore our CO2 output dropped to zero, greenhouse warming would still be happening because it's already been set in motion. It's now being pushed forward by water vapor, CO2 from volcanoes, and other factors that represent 95% of the "push" behind the change.
(shrug)
As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.
So yes we can blame the Democrats, or at least the ones who were in the white house in 1997.
Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science (Score:2, Insightful)
You confuse libertarianism with Progressivism (an amazing feat, really, since they're basically exact opposites). Libertarians are for maximal liberty and therefore minimal external legal coerced authority over the individual. Since govt. exists to protect our rights, having to pay for the defense and policing of the govt. and the territory governed is an acceptable loss of liberty. Requiring physical involvement in it is not.
And govt. does not exist to ensure an adequate food supply vis-a-vis the population. Libertarianism is the next town over from anarchy, but on the other side of the world from Leftism and the expanded planning and control of society "for the greater good".