Prince Charles: 'We have less than 100 months to stop climate change disaster'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160319/Prince-Charles-We-100-months-stop-climate-change-disaster.html

Pointless joke. Sorry.

This morning ol' Newt was bad mouthing the cap and trade policy. Obviously, they can't see the forest for the trees.

The climate train wreck has been inevitable at least since the Industrial Revolution.

The idea that American politicians could have prevented a global catastrophe that has its roots in the evolved nature of the human brain is an understandable bit of hubris.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with this. Greenhouse gas emissions have experienced exponential growth:

Solar thermal power generation technology has been around for a century. During the Carter era (and following the Carter era) it was improved.

The fundamental problem of "global warming" was understood by some a century ago, during the Carter era (and following the Carter era) our understanding was improved.

Had we acted during the Reagan era; had we spent as much on alternative power sources as we did on weapons systems, we would be in a much better situation today.


The problem of overpopulation was well understood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb">in the 1960's. Congressman George H.W. Bush earned the nickname of "rubbers" in the 60's because he advocated distributing condoms to combat population growth.


No, things have been made much worse in recent decades, simply because politicians have refused to act on what we already knew.

The growth imperative has its roots in the separation and dualism that seems to be the Faustian bargain we have paid for the reasoning ability granted by our neocortex.

If the urge or at least the tendency to material growth is that deeply rooted (as I believe it is), then it's only natural that we have pursued the easiest growth mechanisms first. Since material growth depends on energy, the discovery of vast amounts of cheap, easily accessed fossil fuels made the resulting climate change possible.

The low cost and ready accessibility of fossil fuel meant that pursuing any other option once their use was established involved both higher costs for growth, and some re-engineering of modern industrial society. That's why it was not done, not because Americans refused to elect "correct" leaders or even because humanity as a whole consciously declined to do the right thing.

The fact that the entire world has for 200 years failed to grasp the nettle indicates to me that the problem is more fundamental than mere politics. We could perhaps have slowed down the march of climate change in the last 20 years, but that would not have changed the end game, IMO. To do that we would have needed to change our brains.

We like to believe that our reason is (or at least could be) in complete control of our behaviour, but it just ain't so.

If the human tendency is maximum possible growth, then logically, the "developed" nations should have much larger fertility rates than the "under-developed" nations. However, that simply is not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate


Where survival is precarious, humans have more offspring, to assure survival of the species. Where survival is more assured, humans have fewer offspring.


(Edit: Added the following)
If the human tendency is to use as much energy as possible, then the richest nations should use the most energy in their economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

I'm talking about the growth in material affluence and productivity. As technology advances, fewer labour units are needed to maintain material growth, and population growth rates decline even as affluence continues to soar. Viewed from this perspective, people are replaced by progressively lower cost, more productive technology, so population growth declines more in the regions of higher technology.

(Sorry for any confusion.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=189117&mesg_id=189235

That can be done either by using more energy or by using existing energy more efficiently (increasing the energy intensity of the economy).

The simple fact is that CO2 production has kept growing and the global GDP has been rising ever since the Industrial Revolution. Before that time the global GDP was presumably still rising, but was probably tied more to the increase in population and to the the depletion of forest cover for use as fuel. The discovery of FF decoupled those linkages, though forest cover was reduced even faster to clear land for agriculture rather than for use as fuel.

I dispute whether it was inevitable or not.

People can be persuaded to change their ways.

It took them a while, but the British Parliament was convinced that (although it was convenient) using the Thames as a sewer was a bad practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sewerage_system

The London sewer system was changed only after its disastrous impact on public health was readily apparent. In general, the changes required to prevent catastrophe are usually only made as a consequence of catastrophe.

Yes, they can.

People can be convinced when they accept the need. That usually requires an object lesson.

Signs of "global warming" were pretty clear in the 90's.

However, we had a disinformation campaign in place.

Given enough disinformation, people can ignore the object lessons. (People still take up smoking.)

A consequence is "Hey, where did Kirabati go?"
The signs were there, but the consequences weren't obvious. that's why the disinfo campaign worked so well. As soon as we have people dying like they did in London before the sewer upgrade, then we'll get action.

Too late.

They work, because the listener wants to believe.

Nobody wants to believe they'll have to give up driving or flying, so until they see that the exhaust is actually, incontrovertibly, visibly killing people, they will be eager to believe the con.

There's also the small problem of our hyperbolic discount function that is also centered on our evolved brain structure. People have a very hard time feeling any sense of urgency about distant problems.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the misfortune to turn on the ABC Sunday News. They were discussing the "Stimulus Package," and they introduced the discussion something like this, "Tonight, we are joined by Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, and ABC Senior News Analyst, George Will." (It's all about balance, right? They've got a world-recognized expert on the topic, and a guy who has a different opinion.)

The news agencies have got to stop offering the same sort of bogus balance on "Global Warming"/"Climate Change." So long as they offer "balance" people will conclude that there is some sort of debate about the facts.

"Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain't so." (attributed to Mark Twain)

He recognized his addiction. He got angry about it, and he quit. He went from 3 packs a day to 0. That was well before the Surgeon General's warning.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3402

Where, exactly, did you come up with this statement:

"If the human tendency is to use as much energy as possible"

Before a proposition can be reasonably discussed, the proposition must be reasonable. That one is not.

Let's try this one:

For years, the United Sates was accused of being the world's #1 polluter and nations greedy for their share of the American pie joined in with demands that America pay... until it was recently revealed that, in fact, China is the world's #1 polluter with India not far behind.

Now, on to your Energy intensity graph... this looks curiously like a lot of other propagandistic information I've seen because, in fact, American productivity is envied in many countries, other than ones who don't allow unions, or where unions are generally unpopular to nearly nonexistent, which of course have higher productivity than us, even as we are envious of other countries who have four day workweeks and regular goods and services interruptions and shortages along with persistent double digit unemployment and a host of other wonderful things I won't go in to now. But the point is I believe your graph presents a deliberately incomplete picture - for though America does use more energy per capita, it also provides goods and services which help drive the world's economy, as evidenced by the fact that many overseas economies had been faltering for some time, but it took the concerted efforts of our government to deliver the coup de grace and kick the legs out of everything...

Look, I regret to inform you that WIKIPEDIA is far from an unbiased source and much of what they present is fairly openly admitted as presenting quite a one sided view. If you use WIKIPEDIA as a footnote reference in a paper going to peer review... well, I just recommend you don't try it.

Take this statement as a closer: "Where survival is precarious, humans have more offspring, to assure survival of the species. Where survival is more assured, humans have fewer offspring."

I think that greatly oversimplifies what is going on. Where easy birth control and abortion on demand are available, where people have time to worry about pleasure over survival, yes, we do see a drop in birth rates. Where children are seen by many as inconvenient, yes, birth rates drop. When people want to live their lives for themselves, not some sniveling, whining brat, yes, birth rates go down. Where education levels go up, where labor proficiency goes up, where (some say, this isn't me so don't flame me for passing it on) superior cultural concepts take root, birth rates tend to drop to or below long-term population sustainability levels.

Which is a good thing, or else all those in countries making too many babies would find that strict immigration rules force them to make do in ever worsening conditions at home...

> For years, the United Sates was accused of being the world's #1 polluter
> and nations greedy for their share of the American pie joined in with
> demands that America pay... until it was recently revealed that, in fact,
> China is the world's #1 polluter with India not far behind.

This is because for years, the United States WAS the world's #1 polluter.
It is only comparatively recently that China overtook you.
Similarly, it is only comparatively recently that Americans with your
attitude have had any justification at pointing at *anyone* else in the
world and saying "Them first!".

:hi:

Gee, the way I always experienced it (I worked closely with environmental agencies) we were on the cutting edge of environmental activism. It can be argued that Europe just did some nice moves, for largely economic reasons, it turns out, in that area of late... and the only reason certain "other countries" weren't revealed as the polluters it is clear they always were is because of their obsessive secrecy - typical in authoritarian and other closed societies.

Nobody here is pointing at anyone and saying, "Them first" - but don't you find it odd that nobody is saying all that much, compared to what some idiots are still saying about America, that is, about all the coal mines, and all the dirty coal fired plants for their high-sulfur coal, that are current and planned projects in China?

So, please, enlighten me:

1) Exactly what years was America the #1 polluter?
2) Exactly what pollutant(s) are you talking about?
3) So, though I don't admit your contention is based on fact as personally applied to me, you do admit nevertheless that America in general does have a valid right, even an obligation, to point at others and say, not as you put it "them first", but rather, "You too in your fair share"!
and finally...
4) Where, exactly, are you from, where exactly do you live with your high & mighty attitude? Say, you're not Al Gore are you? The guy who always tells us how we all have to live as he runs around the world in his private jet spewing the carbon of 40 men in his wake every waking moment?

OK, so here's a nice graph from the EPA. You be the judge on how long the US was the #1 polluter:

... have just seen that he's been tombstoned ...

China's increased greenhouse gas emissions are a direct result of satisfying increased US demand:
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/chinas_top_trading_partners

Essentially, we "outsourced" our greenhouse gas production to China.

Stop buying "made in China crap" as my favorite chef used to always say...

If we didn't keep buying the junk, they wouldn't keep shipping it to us...

I like the way they show Hong Kong, which is part of China, as a customer of China... second behind the US, according to them.

I notice they don't give the figure for how much the Chinese buy from China... other than Hong Kong, that is...

But if one city buys almost as much (well, say, 3/4 as much, roughly) as we do, what does that suggest for the rest of that massive country?

You wouldn't, by chance, be one of those anti-union people who keep talking about how unions have priced American goods out of world markets to the point where we're vulnerable to a flood of cheap foreign knockoffs made in dismal conditions overseas by virtual slave labor and mostly children working long hours in dark, dangerous, dirty factories for pennies a day, are you?

I mean, why is it that Americans can't make cheap, quality products, in your opinion, such that we aren't forced to go to China for, say, our shoes if we want to get a pair for $30 instead of $300?

I was buying American before it was cool.

But, keep tryin'

I don't think anyone wants to admit that in many areas, we've already crossed that point.

I fear that at this point, the problem is no longer stopping global warming, but from keeping the consequences from being worse than what they would be had we done nothing.

Thanks, Dubya! :sarcasm: Thanks, Dick :sarcasm:

:grr: :grr: :grr:

They don't like hearing truths about anything.

Who's gonna go to all those tropical and subtropical rain forest countries and give them the bad news: That bonnie prince Chuckie says "STOP CUTTING DOWN THOSE TREES, OR ELSE!" and, when they ask, "or else what?"

Sheesh, is Lady Di's ex vying for an Oscar, a Nobel, or both?

with the last ones to buy in left holding the bag. That would be us and our immediate offspring. If you doubt it, I've got some credit default swap derivatives I can let you have, cheap.

(sarcasm smiley not needed, except by the terminally clueless)