Slashdot Mirror

None of the countries you listed are in the top 50 most arable countries in the world. Of the ones you did list, here are the figures: for the amount of arable land per country:
United States - 19.13 %
Russia - 7.33 %
Australia - 6.55%
Canada - 4.96 %

Here is some leftist scare-mongering "propaganda" about the population vs arable land scarcity documentation, but it does seem to have a list of credible references and appears to be written by a sane organisation/peoples.

Here's some juicy bits:


The combination of FAO data on arable land with UN population estimates for 125 countries with populations of more than 1 million illustrates the decline in per capita arable land between 1960 and 1990. Incorporating UN medium population projections for 2025 suggests an even more rapid decline over the next 30 years, and the acceleration is projected to continue through at least the middle of the next century. The decline can be seen more clearly through the lens of the scarcity benchmark. ...

Until now, arable land scarcity has not been much of a problem. Four countries were experiencing arable land scarcity in the early 1960s: Kuwait, Singapore, Oman and Japan.

Now it's more than 125, with more to come.

I actually come from a farming family. I'm an Australian. We were forced off our farm in the 80s. Google for "salinity", perhaps "pyramid salt" , a government scheme where they turned a previously productive farming area that become a wasteland due to rising watertables, into a fucking SALT MINE. If that doesn't scare the living shit out of you, then you're a moron. As an Australian who lives in one of those "big wide open spaces just waiting to be farmed", I invite you to just try and come here and try and grow any crop at all anywhere in the least-arable half of Australia's land mass. You will find a significant proportion of Australia will not even let you grow so much as a blade of grass.

I am by no means a "greeny leftist", god forbid they actually they actually have the "foresight" to protest about something I actually care about (which would in effect trivialise the issue "oh look, protesters, it must be pointless").

Jesus christwagons. I cannot believe your utter blissfull, utopian ignorance of the shrinking amounts of fertile farmland on this earth. You justify our hilariously unsustainable resource consumption on the premise that Star Trek writers are going to invent an actual protein resequencer?. You've really made me so angry; I've used bold type like 5 times now!! ARRGH!

OPEN LAND IS NOT EQUAL TO FOOD. There are in fact VERY FEW areas in the countries that you mention that are good for farming, for christ's sake. China? It's rapdily turning into a desert. 1.5 million square kilometers is classified as desert, growing at a rate of 1000 sq. km per year. They physically do not have enough farmland to feed themselves and are importing more and more significant amounts of their staple foods just to live.

God... I can't believe you could be so BLIND... just travel somewhere, OK? Have you ever even seen a desert? Or even a farm, in your own country? At all? Christ... imagine trying to grow sorghum in Sibria... I'm going to be angry for hours...

Wrong. If actually read the article you posted, it states that American produces more CO2 per Capita than Canada. Canada does produce significantly more than most other countries, however it still is not close to the USA, with regards to emissions. Even per Capita it is .5 (although I think its more 5.2, while the US is at 5.7 or 5.5 I believe)difference (using your stats alone) is significant. Overall, this means a reduction is necessary by both to meet `standards`, a .1 per capita difference is more significant in a country with a larger population and significant emissions.

Also, CO2 tables clearly show the USA as being number 1 in all emissions tables. I could post more statistics or you could read your own. It disturbs me that you seem unable to assimilate the information you yourself find, but maybe this is a form of collective denial.

http://www.cnie.org/pop/intros/globalclimate2.htm
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/fa cts_and_figures/co2emissions_7.cfm
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transport ation_statistics/2003/html/table_04_49.html

You're way off. In 1994, the U.S. alone produced over 1.3 billions tons of carbon (not CO2, just carbon; the CO2 weighs even more than that).

while about 500 million tons were produced by natural causes.

Natural causes do not "produce" CO2. They merely recycle carbon. The CO2 emissions of living organisms have no net effect on the global carbon balance, because all they are doing is moving it around, from the atmosphere into the biosphere and back again.

It is true that methane emissions from cows are an issue. This is because methane is many, many times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat. But the net amount of carbon still remains the same.

Solution: Build more nuclear plants.

What about avoiding wasting energy in the first place ?

read this : CO2 emissions per capita
and see that there is lot of potential for improvement.
The USA emit as much as 25% of all CO2 emissions, and while they do not have a higher standard of life than Canadians and Germans they emit respectively twice and 2.7 more CO2 per capita than those countries.

And it's also estimated that regarding house and water heating, using the best technologies available today, energy consumption could be reduced by as much as 50% in Europe. And it's not the only point where it's possible.

There's obviously lot of room for improvement.
Instead of rushing towards the wall, we should probably take care not wasting the resources we deal with.

No non-renewable energy source can resist to an exponentially increasing energy consumption : whatever we do, we will exhaust our resources if we continue.
So, the best solution is probably to learn to use energy efficiently and stop wasting it. We will have to do it someday, so the sooner we start, the easier it will be.

The article you cite is very strange. In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy. In other words, their emissions are still increasing, just not increasing as fast as the economy. That'd still be good, but it's curious which is right: Did their emissions decrease 17% or did they increase 18% (which is half the 36% rate of GDP growth?).

These are the kind of inconsistencies that you will constantly find in most of these articles. As the article also mentioned, this information was in rebuttle to President Bush citing the problem of emission exemptions in third world countries. Obviously they had to come back with something to rebut that. The fact is, the article itself says that since the 1980's China's emissions have increased 18%.

Regardless of whether or not they have reduced or increased emissions, the concern of the U.S. remains valid. If you slap emission restrictions on the developed world, the third world WILL pollute more. Whether or not China has done well in the last 5 years or so is irrelevant. If you chase industries out of the industrialized world with emission limits, believe me, past performance will be no indicator of future success.

as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world.

We also are the most productive. If you look at it from a per-capita standpoint, UAE pollutes more than the U.S.. If you look at it from a per capita GDP, U.S. falls way down the list. I don't have a link for that because I haven't found that information published; but simply divide carbon emissions by per-capita GDP to get a better idea of how U.S. ranks.

You can't expect the largest, and one of the most efficient economies in the world to be so without polluting. Sure, an American might pollute 20 times as much someone from Sudan, but that American probably also generates 100 times more income (these are examples, I don't have the numbers handy).

I will not dispute that the U.S. is the largest polluter. I will dispute whether that single evaluation matters. You must compare pollution on a per capita GDP basis. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

Me: We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?
You: I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it.

Sources on what? I believe I already provided a link to the radiosonde/satellite/surface record. But let me give you some links:

NASA: Radiosonde/satellite show cooling, surface record whows warming
Cooling trend found, slight warming due to strong El Niño

I'd like to provide more, but my wife is waiting so I must make this fast. Getting all these links together in one place is why I'm working on a site that will provide all this information quickly and easily without having to go to Google each time.

In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!).

Uh, the satellite/radiosonde record not coinciding with surface measurements has nothing to do with computer models. The surface record itself is inaccurate. That is to say, not surprisingly, it is much more accurate to send up electronic radiosondes and calibrated satellites than to depend on thousands of people checking thousands of different stations at thousands of different locations subject to thousands of potential anomolies.

That the computer models are broken isn't even an issue. The fact is, if you feed a working model broken (surface record) data it'll obviously break. If they want to come up with a valid model, they ought to be using valid data--and that would come from the radiosonde/satellite data. And that data shows a slight cooling trend over at least the last 23 years.

I don't doubt that the environmentalists could turn that satellite cooling trend into global warming over the next 50 years though. It's amazing what their models can produce, so leave it to them to take data that shows cooling and somehow conclude that there will be warming and rising sea levels 50 years from now.

it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future."

Can you not see the inherent bias? They are saying, "Well, here's data that shows global cooling over the last 23 years. But don't get complacent! That doesn't mean there won't be global warming." The disclaimer itself is telling.

The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!

Again, you're jumping the gun. We're not talking about computer models that are broken. We're talking about historic surface record data from the last 150 years that is the only record which suggests global warming is occurring--and that record seems to be substantially flawed when compared with what we know to be very accurate measurements of radiosondes and satellites.

If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable. If the recent surface record over the last 25-50 years isn't even reliable, are we really to believe it was any more reliable 100 or 150 years ago?

I'm not even discussing whether or not the models work or not. I'm saying that even if the models were right, the environmentalists are feeding it bad data--GIGO. If you feed the models corrupt data that shows warming in the last 23 years during a time where satellites have shown that there hasn't been any, what do you expect the models to produce?

which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing

Please re-read the article and check for yourself what "satellite record" and "surface record" refers to. The satellite record is the temperature of ALL the atmosphere (from the surface on up) as recorded accurately by satellites. The "surface record" refers to measurements made by mini-weather stations around the world subject to individual station-by-station errors, human errors, expanding cities.

It's not a matter of the temperature of the surface. It's a matter of how the temperature was taken. The "surface record" is not reliable.

Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.

In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday."

I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.

Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them.

True, that's why I said they were incentives and not truly "forcing" anyone to do anything.

Let's say it another way. "Incentives" are a way of making a minority (or majority) do something they wouldn't otherwise do because the "majority" (government) thinks it's right.

I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.

Actually, I haven't. I work for myself and instead of getting tax breaks I get hit with unemployment tax. I'm funding someone elses incentives, apparently. Which is why it further pisses me off when they give incentives for something I don't even agree with. They're taking MY money to push ME to do something I don't want to.

Anyway, we're drifting. My real interest is in debating global warming. The whole "how big should government be" is a topic for another thread; and actually a topic I don't usually get into because it's a matter of opinion.

No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.

Perhaps you see it as such. I haven't seen Venezuela much affect oil prices except during the coup itself. Oil prices seem much more sensitive to the middle east, war on terror, demand, etc.

Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so.

I agree. But what if the truth happens to agree with the owner? Then it's not manipulating, it's just a matter of the owner being right and the truth affecting public opinion, not "manipulating it."

the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.

First, I don't even know the Bush administration line.

Second, have you lived in Latin America? I currently live in Mexico and have for the past 6 years. I can assure you, the type of media you are describing in Venezuela is not unique to Venezuela. It's pretty much the norm for most Latin American countries because the governments are downright corrupt. It's difficult to find anything encouraging to report about any of them. And that's the TRUTH. I live here and can attest to it.

But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail.

And as such he's back in power and I accept that as much as him being out of power.

it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it.

Let me answer my own question above: It is clear you haven't lived in Latin America and don't have much knowledge about what you're talking about.

That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.

Well, we really have diverged from the global warming debate and I'm not going to put much effort into the political side of this for the reasons mentioned above.

I also want to say that I'm in favor of emocracy 100%. I think it's the greatest thing since capitalism.

That said, having lived in Mexico which is now "moderately" democratic (having finally escaped 60+ years of domination by a single "democratic" party), I can also tell you that there comes a time when it becomes clear to a society that the government is so corrupt and the voting process so fraudulent that the only way to create a democracy is to tear it down and start again.

I truly believe that. So did the founding fathers of my country. Your mileage may vary. :)

I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.

Well that happens when you have a President *coughClintoncough* taking campaign contributions from the foreign government (e.g. China). Before Clinton, China did NOT have Most Favored status EVER.

*cough* Try again. China has had most favored nation status since 1980.

The US fusion budget is nowhere close to $1 B a year.

Sorry, gross from-memory rounding on my part. The real US fusion budget amount is $250 million a year. Still surprising to me, and I suppose a shrewd long-term move. Especially when one considers how much the US economy and security depends on foreign oil.

Heck, when looked at from that angle, the US could probably re-allocate even $5 billion of its annual spending from middle-east defense to accelerating fusion feasibilty, breaking even long-term by reducing the amount of money that the US spends defending its interests there.

--LP

Okay, I don't know where he got his info from, but I did see a discovery program discussing the Right Whale and it's steady decline in population along East coast of the US due to collisions with ships. The Right Whale was named by whalers because it was the 'Right' whale to harpoon (good huntin' I believe). Now of course you want me to support my claims so I did a quick search on google and found several Right Whale pages, every page I read (10 or so) listed collisions with ships as the leading threat to Right Whales. I'm only going to include one link, but feel free to search for yourself. Ohh.. and the estimated world wide population appears to be around 1000 with 350 in the Northwest Alantic (unfortunately this is the most endangered of all the great whales). FYI: It is estimated that we will only have this type of whale for another 190 years.

As a result of the increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could
occur which is greater than any in man's history.

The top 15 energy producing States in the U.S. produce more carbon emission than the entire country of Russia

Southern U.S. States emit more carbon emissions than China

If six Northern States (Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Michigan) were an independent Country, it would be the 3rd largest carbon contributor in the world, just behind Russia and China
(source).
and still two countries between them and India: Japan and Germany.

Also, corporations pay taxes too.

Not as much as they used to.

--