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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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: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.