How to get men to care about the environment

Poor bowerbird, this thread has kind of blown up in her face. She wanted to link believing in AGW to caring about the environment and instead we are all talking about real world environmental stewardship which she has absolutely no clue about.

 

I can't imagine how a country of close to the USA size has our problems.

We are not a vast desert with coastal regions where humans can easily live. We do have a few substantial deserts, but those areas have different problems than the rest of the USA.

And their population of 23 million. California alone is getting close to double that.

In short, they are very near to Antarctica, they still get hotter than hades, and we lack those problems.

Their end of the globe has the world's most massive store of ice and our end the ice has diminished.

Very different problems.

We have going on 300 million more people living here.

If carbon dioxide is a problem, it puzzles me.

 

True understanding of science is gender neutral. I've done the homework and conclude that humans contribute to global warming and that the rate of global warming will be such that net benefits will occur in the next ~ 100 years. The only thing to worry about is the net harm done to the world's economy and hence the ability of humans to adapt to climate variability by global warming alarmists. And for those reasons I prefer hulking coal fired power plants to hundreds of square miles of wind turbines.

 

Speaking of macho solutions to environmental degradation one might want to look at the Chernobyl model. A nuclear melt down kicked A all over the surrounding area. The result - people cleared out and now the area is a wilderness wonderland with returning wolves and all. The implications clearly are troubling but it inevitably points to the real culprit.

 

What net benefits? When the antartic (which is mostly Australian owned) is able to support a decent population the tropics will be desert co makes some plants grow faster but kills others. And then there is destabilisation of the climate. That sure is going to help atriculture

 

Reduced mortality, greater amount of arable land, more water for irrigation, greater plant growth rates due to increased CO2, etc.. The climate will never be destalized - it is an equillibrium process. In the next 100 years the global average temperature will increase by ~ 1 deg C and the oceans will rise by ~ 12 inches. The world's economies if not hamstrung by bogus policy decisions to limit the availability and price of fossil fuels will be easily able to adapt to those kind of changes as well as develop economically competitive alternative energy sources.

The fossils found in the Antarctic are the result of tectonics - movement of the land mass from a tropical climate latitude to the south pole.

 

I tend to think that growing food stock in Antarctica isn't going to happen soon. An any arable land that opens up due to warming will be offset by the desertification of farmland now in production. And you don't even consider the loss of livelihood to existing farmers and the cost of bringing new land into production.

 

Why would you believe that existing farmland would become desert. There would be more water available for irrigation. We lose farmers (and manufacturing workers) to technology not climate change.

Who said anything about farming at the South Pole ??

 

We really don't need that many farm workers because of technology. The reason dryland farms will...and have been... turning into desert is because of soil biology. When soil temps increase the biology of the soil increases. The biology in the soil consumes the organic matter in the soil. As the organic matter decreases the soil will hold less and less water. So even when it does rain the water hits the ground and runs off. Then you have a problem with flash floods and erosion. If you observe soils in cool climates compared to soil in warm climates the difference is obvious. In cool climates you have a rich and dark soil that absorbs water. Warm climates have a lighter heavier soil that absorbs less water. And when you consider irrigation you must have a supply of water available. If the water does not percolate down into the soil you will have less ground water for irrigation and your wells will have to be drilled deeper and deeper. Biology in soil is as much a consideration as the physical and chemical properties.

 

And exactly when is this going to happen? What date do you project Antarctica to become farmland?
You show your ignorance more and more with every post.

"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers"

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

I'm opposed to it since all measures won't matter unless we end all major pollution globally from dirty power plants (China) and cars and trucks (China, India, US, Other) so I don't see the point worrying about some landfills and slapping some solar panels up when one can afford to do that which many can't or won't when they rent for example or are lower income. See its going to get worse so all we can do is adapt to it relocate people from flood prone and vulnerable areas, work on farming using methods like drip irrigation and hydroponics and wait until the technology is cheap and effective enough or out of no more choice we need to end the use of coal and oil.

 

Did you know that 30% of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture? And did you also know that the most effective carbon sequestration can be done by agriculture?

 

The real push has been to try to stop deforestation and build renewables into developing countries. But in going down the renewables route are building the technology to effect a change over to less polluting alternatives

 

If developing countries build economies with renewables as the base for energy they will stop developing. The developing countries want nothing to do with renewables. And if the liberal elite "do gooders" in the developed countries really cared about the impoverished in the developing countries they would fund fossil fuel power plants which would provide inexpensive and available electric power 24/7/365. That is one of the very key requirements for economic development.

 

Most of the research I have done lately shows me that developing countries need two things. WATER...and green landscapes. Mankind depends on two things... six inches of topsoil...and the fact that it rains. Try to develop anything without these two things.

 

The problem (one of many) with 'do gooders' is that they've already had their fun with comfort and privilege, but want to prevent others from ever having it in the first place. It's sooooo easy to signal your virtue from the air-conditioned comfort of your safe western home. What makes it really obnoxious though, is that it's air-conditioned westerners who are significantly responsible for the damage to the planet thus far. People living in cardboard boxes in India aren't the ones doing the damage.

If these do gooders actually lived like they meant it, it wouldn't be quite so laughable. Most don't.

 

Your research is either flawed or biased. Inexpensive and available electric power is the most important factor. With electric power water can be pumped and landscapes can be greened.

 

You can't pump water that isn't there. I know...I am in the middle of a drought.

 

With energy you can drill wells for it or pipe it in from distant sources.

 

Most of this water would come from underground aquifers. A non renewable source of water. It would create a crisis for the future dwellers on depleted landscapes. The system must literally built from the ground up. The people need to be able to supply their day to day needs before we bring them into our world of white elephants and widgets

 

How did the water get into these non renewable aquifers ?? You'd better alert the people living in the Palm Springs area.

 

The ogallala aquifer is a prime example. It took 6,000 years to fill and is already empty in places. And aquifers will fill even slower in a degraded landscape. Nature has been doing a very good job of building resources. In order to continue we must learn to mimic the way nature works. A good example is nitrogen fertilizers. There is enough nitrogen in the air to supply all the nitrogen needs of plants. But man continues to build nitrogen factories to sell what nature supplies for free.

 

What no food? Developing countries engage in deforestation to grow food to feed growing populations or worse yet to grow crops for ethanol to run vehicles

 

People need to eat so that we can't do all that much about that however other pollution is a big issue at 70% of the pollution so unless your going to get draconian on that and make people use mass transportation and make owning cars a luxury and redesign communities to not need cars all very unlikely I don't see the point about recycling its feel good actions that don't matter enough to bother.

If we were smart we would put pressure on the poor nations to limit procreation say giving loans and help on condition they limit children to say two per couple and only if the couple can provide for them as part of reforms.

 

Some deforestation is caused by agriculture. Some deforestation is caused by logging. Some deforestation is caused by the need for fire wood and charcoal. People in the U.S. blaming other countries for deforestation should look in the mirror. I can drive less than a mile from my home and see where the skin has been peeled off the land. Some is planted in pine and some is turned into range. But it is clear cut non the less.