Carbon Releases in Asia

ninthwave writes "After previous discussions on global warning, I thought I would post some interesting research in the affects of forest fires and drought in Asia on carbon output. The Guardian has this article. More detailed information can be found in these articles from Leicester University and the BBC"

Comments

Responsibility

[crumbz]

I think it is about time that the dominant species on this planet (i.e. you and me) start taking some responsibility for climate change.

I believe that the greatest threat to the environment is over-population. While many do not agree with this, I believe that this may be the key to living in a sustainable and habitable planet for the next 10,000 ro 100,000,000 years.

What do Slashdotters think?

Re:Responsibility

[clickety6]

I believe that the greatest threat to the environment is over-population.

I believs the greates threat to the environment is over-consumption fueled by greed and selfishness and the refusla by certain developed nations to face the consequences of their own actions. Let's face it, if we go on the way we are, this planet will be wasted long before over-population becomes a problem...

Re:Responsibility

[spicyjeff]

While the environment might be threatened by over-population, it is only our environment, the one that allows humans to survive. The Earth will continue on its cycle of renewal long after the last human has passed, or before.

So while "Saving the Planet" is a noble cause...maybe people would be more responsive if they realized they are saving themselves, their loved ones, their children and their grandchildren.

Re:Responsibility

[monadicIO]

Overpopulation is just a part of the problem. The real problem is an inappropriate amount of resource usage by developed countries, in particular the US. If you compare the per-person pollution caused by the US, it is about 20 times that for India/China. Even after normalising for population (India/China have 4-5 times the population) that still gives a much higher pollution caused by US (as also Europe). The developing/underdeveloped countries (which contribute maximum to the total global population) will take years (even with the projected population growth trends) to match the pollution caused by the developed nations. I think the key to reduced population is a changing approach to consumption (giving public transport a priority, reduced paper/electricty use drives, etc)

Re:Responsibility

[scruggs_style]

So, over the course of the past 2 billion years, the temperature of the earth has not changed a few ( less than 10) degrees over a few thousand years?. Did humans cause the Ice Ages (hint: we weren't driving SUV's then, that's for sure.).

People don't like to admit that have only a fraction of data to base the concept of Global warming on, and the effects are even arguable. Our climate has self corrected before, and will again. What about the theories that there will be more vapor in the ozone b/c of warmer temperatures, and less light from the sun will get in, and the tempratures will fall back off?

One could make the argument that stopping global warming would more interrupt the natural cycle.

Re:Responsibility

[mgs1000]

The article was talking about forest fires in Indonesia.

The fires might have been started by humans, but we were not the cause. The drought and resulting dried vegetation led to the fires. If no man had ever set foot in Indonesia, those forest fires would probably have happened anyway.

How can we take responsibilty for that? What could we have done differently?

Re:Responsibility

[mfulk]

How about normalising for production?

Re:Responsibility

[stinky wizzleteats]

That would be a brilliant comment except that the third world has cornered the market on the problems of pollution and overbreeding.

Or do you believe that Nebraska farmers are clearing the rainforest to make Big Macs?

Re:Responsibility

[error0x100]

The Earth will continue on its cycle of renewal long after the last human has passed, or before

Everyone always says this, as if its indisputable fact that somehow doesn't need to be proved, but I'm going to call you on it: PROVE IT. Whats your reference?

Which aspect of the physics of planet Earth ensures that the Earth will always just have a "cycle of renewal"? Which aspect of physics will prevent the "balance" from running away in any particular direction? Is there some "magical force" in the Universe that always rebalances the Earth's climate? "Mother nature"? "Gaia"? (Hint: neither of these exist. These are pseudo-religuous inventions of our culture, self-re-assuring inventions to make us feel better. "Mother nature" is a fictional concept).

All the evidence we have suggests that the Earth is just a pile of rock and lava and various assorted chemicals and other forms of energy. There is no "magical intelligent deity" behind it. When the shit hits the fan, there will be no magical giant hand that reaches down and starts the "cycle of renewal" over. If this planet gets screwed, chances are, its screwed FOR GOOD.

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't. In fact, we have no evidence at all to suggest that it isn't purely by chance that it hasn't happened yet. Show me the scientific paper that proves, for example, that the greenhouse effect CANNOT runaway on Earth, causing our atmosphere to boil away, like Mars. What magical force prevents it from happening? None whatsoever - to our knowledge, our planet is subject to all the same laws of physics that every other planet is. No exception. If the laws of physics allow it, it can happen.

Your statements are pure conjecture. A made-up fallacy to comfort ourselves. We've all heard these arguments repeated so many times we just assume its true, but I've yet to see any proof of it.

And there is no proof of it, because man does NOT understand the Earth's climate well enough yet. We simply do not know if the Earth can "re-balance" itself. Not one human on the planet can claim to 'know' this, mankind does not have this sort of knowledge. Any such claims are tantamount to religion.

Yes, "Saving the Planet" is a noble cause, but if you want to "preserve the environment", you're ultimately doomed to fail - there is unlikely to be room on this planet for both humans AND an "environment" during the next few hundred years. Rather, we have to be practical about it. We have focus on making life on this planet sustainable FOR US over long periods. We must accept the unfortunate that the natural world will have to be almost entirely destroyed to make room for us. BUT, we need to also accept the fact that we will need to do things like replace (for example) the atmosphere-cleaning "machine" that the rainforests are now, with some suitable large-scale replacement technology. We (humans) are ultimately in control of our own destiny. We CAN determine our future, and our ongoing success, but we have work at it, and we have to start accepting responsibility, not just sit around and wait for "mother nature" to come make everything OK.

How presumptious

[therealmoose]

How arrogant are we, to presume we can change the stability of this world, which has sustained massive volanic releases thousands of times as much carbon dioxide what we have released in a century, metorite impacts more powerful than the biggest nuclear warhead in existance, hurricanes with more force than all the power generated in the US, etc etc. We couldn't do anything to this planet if we wanted to short of using massive amounts of nuclear weapons, and even if we blew ourselves to hell with all the nukes we have it wouldn't mean jack shit it 10,000 years.

It amazes me how much people like to think they are all big and have to take care of the world all of the time.

Re:How presumptious

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't do anything to the planet.

We can destroy human civilisation!

If another ice age turns up then the planet doesn't care, its had them before and will have them again. However, agriculture as we know it and the industries that require a well fed population (i.e. all of them) will cease to work and civilisation will cease.

Sod the planet, we need to learn how to terraform nature for our own survival.

Re:How presumptious

[tomstdenis]

While I most certainly agree with the sentiment their *is* a certain level of restraint we should get used to using if we *humans* want to keep living here.

More notably stupid friggin US disposable products. Who the fuck thought up the "swiffer" or whatever its called. Ever heard of a fucking broom? Fuckin middle class idiots have probably killed more people than all of the worlds tyrants put together.

Similarly yuppies with cars, eight TVs, 6 million 40W lights, etc... [I'm guilty of some of these to an extent]. I still laugh at people with SUVs when I think of gas prices, hehehehehe

While we won't affect the existance of Earth *our* survival depends on us taking care of the place.

Tom

Re:How presumptious

[SirSlud]

Actually, we can change this planet enough to seriously affect people's health and welfare.

And thats all that matters. Not even the greenest-of-the-green is trying to say that we can destroy the planet. For that matter, what does destroying the planet mean, anyhow? I think if you stopped and tried to apply context to most people who talk about damaging the earth, you'd realize they're really talking about damaging the ecosystem and conditions _we_ need to live.

Everytime there's an environment article, someone has to go point out how we can't destroy the planet. Of course we can't, but we can and have adversely affected the environment _we_ have to live in.

Congratulations for scoring a +5 on a moot point.

Re:How presumptious

[Simon Field]

If the goal was simply to protect the earth, then you would be right.

But consider the effects on humans if we continue to change the world we evolved to live in. Our crops might survive, and we might not starve due to lack of enough food to feed billions. But as the heat expands the oceans like the liquid in a thermometer, our coastal cities become threatened. And whole island nations in the Pacific can be inundated.

The earth will survive. But I rather like it the way it is. I have an economic stake in preserving it.

So far, the change has been gradual enough that we can cope -- indeed we hardly notice. But there are positive feedback elements in global warming that cause the pace to accelerate. At some point, our abilities to cope will be overwhelmed.

Re:How presumptious

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

We couldn't do anything to this planet if we wanted to short of using massive amounts of nuclear weapons, and even if we blew ourselves to hell with all the nukes we have it wouldn't mean jack shit it 10,000 years.

The point of environmental laws isn't that we think that we are going to 'destroy' earth it is that we think we will destroy our ecosystem. The ecosystem is actually very frail and many extinctions have been tied to minor changes in the ecosystem. Wether or not the planet is here in 10,000 years is an irrelevent point in terms of how we make environmental decisions.

The Upside to All This...

[PHAEDRU5]

Yesterday I read an article in the Seattle P-I about how global warming is making it possible to use the Northwest passage for commercial purposes during certain months of the year.

You know: shorter voyages, less diesel burned, less pollution, falling amounts of carbon in the air, colder climate, northwest passage not navigable, longer voyages, more diesel burned, more pollution, rising amounts....

Pat
--
"Turn, turn, turn..."

Whats with slashdot?

[josh crawley]

I just got back to reading /. a bit... But I see a whole bunch of Enviro-spook articles. One's about the magnetic poles switching, andother's about ice melting around the Northwest (southeast?) passage. And now this...

True, it is quite scientific, but there's no good arguments being made. It's a Trollfuck for envirowackos.

Where is there level-headedness? Where is there impartial studies (as in NO funding to Greenpeace)? Where is the "Whole Story"? I'm sure Global warming has goods and bads.

The Cost of Putting Carbon in the Air

[snarfer]

There is a COST to putting carbon into the air. This is the cost of either cleaning it up, or the cost of the consequences. Unfortunately there is no money being set aside to cover these costs, so the cost will build up and fall on people at a later date.

A carbon tax would help a lot. If we were taxed for the amount of carbon we put into the air we would have the cash to clean it up, or the incentive to begin conserving and/or using alternatives.

So why no carbon tax?

Re:Going out on a limb !?!?

[SirSlud]

When folks yell "Save the Planet" they really mean "Save the Planet enough such that we can stay alive."

We shouldn't care about the distinction. Of course our efforts are designed to save ourselves. Folks who think humans are arrogant because we talk like we can destroy the planet (ie, not just the habitable conditions we require as a species) are simply looking for an 'out' .. a semantical justification for not giving a shit.

Of course planet earth will go on just fine without us; who cares what the words we use are, I'd just like to ensure we (or my grandkids, for that matter) don't have to wear gas masks to go to the corner store at some point in the future.

So I agree with you, but it's always confused me why people feel the need to point it out. In the end, a person either believes that we're setting ourselves up for some _serious_ human-endangering problems or not.

Think about it. When people say, "Save my house!" (lets say its on fire), nobody points out that the house doesn't have feelings or that all the molecules in the house will just end up in other places (in the smoke or in the ashes). We recognize that what the person _means_ is "Save the house I have to live in!" Same logic applies to the environmentalist's warcry.

Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!"

[nanojath]

C'mon, let's get those trolls and flames and armchair environmental scientist screeds going! Let's hear about how everybody who's anybody in science knows that global warming is totally for real and it's just the petro-electro-govermento-conspiracy that's propping up the idea there is any scientific doubt about it. Then let's hear about the doubters in the scientific field and how the Kyoto Protocol is a load of crap. Let's hear a hundred little snippets about computer models and volcanic eruptions and sequestration models that none of us are even remotely capable of really understanding, and gee, isn't it's cool, it's just like Congress, the discussion is almost completely partisan, as if our political leanings were guiding our our beliefs rather than the other way around.

And that guy that says hey, everyone, we may not know for sure but we should all start talking about the best way to deal with the whole big complex issue of energy and power consumption and pollution just in case, that kills me, it's like the twentyfirst century version of "can't we all just get along."

And when it's all over, opinions and attitudes will be changed! We will all be closer to the Truth because of the measured and well-reasoned discussion and debate! Conservatives and Liberals will share a cyber-hug, remarking that "we may have our little differences, but at heart we all want the very best for the Earth and all our brothers and sisters we share it with."

And the world will be a little bit better for it.

'Cause this is Slashdot, damnit!

Re:Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!"

[Damek]

While there is truth in your comments, they could apply to any discussion on Slashdot, not just the ones about the environment. So, perhaps we should get rid of Slashdot? Or perhaps you should just avoid stories and discussions that you feel are going to waste your time?

Personally, I did learn a couple of things from this story's discussion. That's why I come to Slashdot. Why do you?

The planet will survive , but will we?

[Viol8]

The question isn't whether we'd destroy the planets enviroment completely (unlikely) but whether we could damage it enough to make the current human population unsustainable (very likely) due to drowned land , drought and/or flodding causing food crops to fail. The asteroid that supposed to have hit the earth 65 million years ago wasn't a big deal to the planet as a whole but it didn't do the dinosaurs any favours did it?

Overpopulation is a red herring

[jdfox]

It's easy to fall into the Malthusian trap of thinking that overpopulation is the problem. I suggest you read Bookchin's classic essay Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, which lucidly and rationally debunks this idea.

In fact, the most recent estimates that I would consider objective are that post-2050, population numbers will decline significantly.

We need to stop blaming world population growth for climate change, when in fact the more static populations in the west are responsible for far more man-made pollution per capita. The focus needs to be on the real problems of pollution and climate change.

Ice age vs Global Warming

[cronus42]

Has anyone considered that the most probable ecological disaster is an Ice Age?? Our global environment has been in fluctuation between warm and cold for 900,000 years!

Maybe the CO2 will save us from the next one! Maybe we're just delaying it. Who knows how much environmental change is natural vs. mankind? I'm not sure we have enough of an observational timeline to say that we have caused any of it.

My point is that the global climate is dynamic. Maybe we should stop flipping out about every tiny variation. It's obvious that pretty extreme fluctuations occur normally!

Here is a timeline of past ice ages.

Re:Ice age vs Global Warming

[fizban]

I agree, we can't assume that global warming is a man-made event.

But we can sure as hell do better with out environment anyway. There is no excuse for air-pollution, water-polution, encroaching upon wildlife, tearing down forests willy-nilly, heedlesly diverting natural waterways for irrigation, recklessly wasting our money on inefficient and limited energy supplies and all that other fucking crazy shit that goes on in the world today. Our lives, our health, our economy, our world and every other fucking thing we can think of will be a hell of a lot better off if we start working with mother nature, instead of against her. That means preserving the natural cycles that were already there, replanting what we take from the earth, not moving habitats around the world just because we feel like it, investing in renewable, efficient and cost-effective energy sources, and doing whatever it takes to make sure the world we live in continues to be able to sustain our quickly growing global population.

Re:Ice age vs Global Warming

[fizban]

I live in the U.S. too. If you don't see environmental havoc, open your eyes. WE is everyone in the world. Don't flatter yourself.

Re:North Am has cleanest air....Asia worst....

[gsfprez]

>USA and, suprisngly Canada are the worst in the world for energy usage (Per Person!)

how is this statistic assume that this is a "bad" thing?

Would it be better for everyone in the US to stop using all forms of power? If we went to sub-Ethiopian levels of power usage.. who, then would make drugs for AIDS patients, invent the internet, build spaceships to discover the wonders of space, or to send inordinate amounts of food to shit-hole piss poor countries like Ethiopia?

You never got a job from a poor person that could help you feed and clothe yourself.. and a person that shits in a hole, freezes in the winter, and tills the land with his own children didn't do much to help anyone else.

I am damn PROUD that we and the Canunks use the most enegery.. we do the most good for the world too.

If you don't believe it - then give back your polio shot, and start speaking German... unless you're a Jew.. then you can just go fuck yourself.

Re:carbon schmarbon....

[quantaman]

In the past forest fires wouldn't of really made a difference other than a momentary blip. The problem is that with all our consumption of fossil fuels we're adding carbon to the carbon cycle. Carbon that has been out of circulation in the form of fossil fuels for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. For the the current situation we know the carbon levels are higher than normal it's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, or more precisely (current carbon) + (carbon that has been out of circulations for a VERY long time) = (greater than current carbon). The forests have absorbed a lot of this excess carbon but the problem is that they are just displacing it temorarily, and when they burn that carbon goes straight back into the atmosphere. True we don't have a great idea of what it was like in the past (as far as I know) but the fact is that we are resonably sure about what we are doing. Given what may happen to the environment if we are right it is imperative that we take action to avoid this problem rather than sit around and whine that the science isn't exact enough to warrent the damage to our economy while we continue to see the environment degrade around us.

Re:The reverse is also true

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a nice thought, but problematic because current woody crops don't match the output of traditional crops. The articles mention converting 1/4 of the current world crop to woody crops could help balance C02 emissions elsewhere. Problem is that people are already starving at the current levels. Good luck trying to make them produce less. Woody crops also take longer to mature and produce food.

One possibility is to lock carbon into things like furniture. This has been proposed before using quick growing timber woods. The problem is that this would have minimal effect globally. But I think the idea is sound and if done on a large enough scale can be significant in reducing carbon.

Efficiency and cleanliness

[MichaelPenne]

in the long term are probably more good than harm for our economies, I would say.

We know burning oil causes health problems, and we know the supply is not going to be sufficient for the next century, so getting going with cleaner and more efficient forms of energy is a good idea.

And of course the nations that get going on this idea soonest will be the ones selling the power to the ones that just muddle along trying to find a few more barrels of heroin *cough* I mean oil...

So while orbital solar, better photovotaic ground based solar, pebble bed fission, etc. are expensive to research and get started with, the folks who get good at it can turn around and sell it to the rest of the world as the oil runs low and folks get tired of breathing gas fumes instead of air...

Re:Well,

[elakazal]

The Bush administration's handling of science is pretty simple, and has absolutely nothing to do with scientific truth. It basically goes something like this:

1. Does the Christian Right oppose {insert issue X}?

If Yes, then research has demonstrated that {issue X} is dangerous, not to mention, morally repugnant.

If No, proceed to #2.

2. Does {issue X} imply the need for action which might result in any major corporation losing money?

If Yes, then there has not yet been sufficient research on the subject.

If No, proceed to #3.

3. Does any major corporation stand to make a great deal of money because of {issue X}?

If Yes, the research has indicated that it is vital that government give vast amounts of money to the development of {issue X}.

If No, then ignore and move on to next issue.

After running through the above process, observe public opinion. If it appears that opinion regarding {issue X} is sufficiently negative to possible cost you even a severely compromised election, immediately reverse your opinion, claim that's what you were saying all along, and that the research supports your current stance.