Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall Worldwide In 2009

Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that the good news is that emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn and an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land. One big factor was La Niña, a natural seesaw shift in climate that takes place across the tropical Pacific every three to seven years, where the climate is cooler and wetter over large regions of land in the tropics, encouraging plant growth in tropical forests. However the bad news is that even with the decrease in emissions the overall concentration of CO2 rose from 385 ppm in 2008 to 387 ppm in 2009, as concentrations continue to rise even as emissions slip because even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas. Many countries have agreed in principle to try to stabilize emissions at 350 ppm by century's end, which would result in a 50 percent chance of holding the increase in global average temperatures to about 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels."

Comments

That's clearly impossible

[dkleinsc]

After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up.

(No, I'm not being serious)

Re:That's clearly impossible

[interkin3tic]

I just took off my jacket, so that's probably doing my part to reduce global warming. It's chilly though, so I'm going to have to turn on the heater.

Re:That's clearly impossible

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, not at all! Four years ago, it was 50 deg F and cloudy here in Seattle. Now it's 20 deg F and we have snow on the ground. Clearly CO2 emissions have been reduced too much!

Re:That's clearly impossible

[Dausha]

I know you're being cheeky, so I'm a fellow traveler.

A friend's son's research suggested that CO2 levels correlated with temperature change, but only after the temperature had shifted. So, no causation. Of course, there is also the historic data that shows that our temperature swing is not unprecedented, nor accelerated by us.

And while we're trying to create cars that somehow magically scrub CO2 from the air, the quality of air in Beijing is being given "hella bad" ratings.

I wish the focus would be on something akin to "quality of life" or "being good stewards of our environment" than some quasi-religious tilt to Gaia.

Re:That's clearly impossible

[TrancePhreak]

I totally agree with this. Air quality to me is much more important than maybe the weather will be different and we'll all have to adjust. (Seeing as most of the bigger claims have not come to be).

Re:That's clearly impossible

[bunratty]

The problem is that many coastal cities will have to adjust to being underwater. It will be an expensive adjustment to make. Perhaps we could spend some money now to prevent the problem so we don't have to spend lots of money later to deal with the problem.

Re:That's clearly impossible

[spike hay]

Actually, the thing with CO2 lagging temperature isn't true per se. It's more that in parts of the paleoclimate record, CO2 is a strong positive feedback that exacerbates Earth's other climate variations. Thus, it looks only looks like it can't be causative because it tends to lag increases in temperature from other sources, while still contributing to warming itself.

  Where you see this come up (and I think where this idea started) is that changes in orbital parameters or other factors start the Earth warming (Milankovich cycles don't themselves warm the Earth; the insolation is the same. It increases the severity of northern hemisphere winters and the albedo feedback kickstarts it). The initial cooling causes the oceans to dump CO2 in the atmosphere, and also slows reuptake. The CO2 then enhances the warming.

CO2 itself causes a temperature rise of something like 1.7C per doubling (don't quote me on that), ignoring feedbacks. This can be pretty much pinned down just by knowing how CO2 absorbs infrared. The problem is figuring out the feedbacks (which are definitely positive overall). The consensus is between 3-5C per doubling of CO2. 4.5 might be the most likely value based on what's come out recently with research on cloudiness feedbacks and other areas.

Re:That's clearly impossible

[sumdumass]

It might be expensive, but it will be spread out over time making it affordable. I mean that's how people buy homes right? They take the several hundred thousand dollar costs and increase several fold and spread it over 15-30 years.

Re:That's clearly impossible

[riverat1]

The weather is more important to you than you may think. It can have huge effects food production for instance. The Russian wheat harvest is expected to be down 27% this year because of the heat wave/drought there this past summer. It's also down in China and Canada.

Re:That's clearly impossible

[TrancePhreak]

The problem is that many coastal cities will have to adjust to being underwater

This is actually one of the claims that has been shown to be exaggerated greatly. If it's going to happen, they have a long time to save for it or to even start solving the problem now.

As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to voice my wish that CO2 levels continue to rise, and temperatures in Maine become more like those in South Carolina.

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[martas]

And temperatures in South Carolina become more like those in Maine! Wait, that's not how it works...

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[martas]

OR IS IT???????

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Reziac]

It's supposed to be 16 degrees tomorrow night, here in the southern California high desert. This is about 6 weeks before we'd normally reach such low winter temps (and most years it never gets below 21 degrees at the very worst). We've already had snow down to 2700 feet, also vanishingly rare this time of year.. in fact the first time I'd seen either in 26 years here.

Did I move back to Montana, and miss the trip??

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[ChipMonk]

Billings, MT is reporting -2 deg F (-18 deg C) as I type this. I expect 16 deg F would be a heat wave right now.

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Reziac]

Yeah, my friends along the Hi-Line were complaining about it being below zero already. Snow all over the state, too.

A few pictures for those who have no idea where we're talking about: http://www.stephenlehmer.com/Montana%20Hi-Line/Montana%20Hi-Line.html

 

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Bucc5062]

From one who lives in this state...maybe rethink that wish. Oh yes the winters are mild here, sort of, but do you really want day after day of unrelenting 95 degree temps with 80-90% humidity in the summer? Day after day of glorious sunshine that after two weeks begins to rot your brain and you ponder when did this state become a desert? Even the winter is looney here. One day 70, the next 20. Hell, I carry two types of coats just to deal with temperature ranges in a given day.

Sure, Maine's cold many months out of the year, yes, the water will freeze "junk" quicker then co2 (make the mistake of jumping in with no warning, fool of a took), but at least you don't live in a desert that fakes like it is a nice southern environment. Besides, if you get our weather, we get what? Equatorial New Guinea temps....No thanks!

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a problem for skiing lovers...

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Missing.Matter]

Wow, I wish those were wallpaper sized. They're stunning.

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[CrimsonAvenger]

Oh yes the winters are mild here, sort of, but do you really want day after day of unrelenting 95 degree temps with 80-90% humidity in the summer?

Sounds normal for where I live. Well, other than the fact that it's usually more humid than that in summer. And a bit warmer....

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[Reziac]

I think it says somewhere there that he sells prints. But.. here's a much better site for photos of the lesser-known reaches of Montana, and a good starting point for the Hi-Line area:

http://www.montanapictures.net/tiber-reservoir-montana.htm

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[riverat1]

And yet it's been raining from Anchorage to Barrow in Alaska.

Re:As winter in the norther hemisphere sets in,

[h4rm0ny]

That would be a problem for skiing lovers...

I think that should be lovers of skiing. Otherwise you could have a nasty accident.

Economic downturn

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

The temporary decrease in heavy industry (and thus, fall in CO2 emissions) due to a slow economy is another reason to take advantage of the situation and re-enter with a strong economy with renewable technologies in place. Unfortunately, not many people are down for spending the money to invest in a down economy. You can bet we'll see a sharp uptick in relative emissions over the next few years as more and more areas "rebound" with the same old technologies driving it.

Re:Economic downturn

[FooAtWFU]

Psst. The recession is a left-wing environmentalist conspiracy. Pass it on.

.

.

.

(that was a joke, son. easy with the modpoints.)

Re:Economic downturn

[commodore64_love]

>>>not many people are down for spending the money to invest

Not quite true. The U.S. Government spent almost a billion dollars to fund a solar panel factory in California. Unfortunately it went bankrupt because the chinese undersold them. Likewise the outlawing of incandescent bulbs (soon) resulted in the factory closing here, and the new CFL factory opening in china.

If we are moving towards a green economy, it will be China/India and other cheap labor areas that benefit. Meanwhile here at home the USG will throw-away a ton of money on solar and other factories that eventually die out. Yeah I know you probably think I'm being pessimistic.

I prefer to use the word "realist" and "observant". I can SEE the powershift from America to Asia.

Re:Economic downturn

[commodore64_love]

I've heard that even if mankind disappeared tomorrow and therefore our CO2 output dropped to zero, greenhouse warming would still be happening because it's already been set in motion. It's now being pushed forward by water vapor, CO2 from volcanoes, and other factors that represent 95% of the "push" behind the change.
(shrug)
As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.

So yes we can blame the Democrats, or at least the ones who were in the white house in 1997.

Re:Economic downturn

[Anonymous Coward]

Continuing to point out the obvious: as long as we have a "what's the stock price like this quarter?" economy very few companies will be spending money on "renewables".
They're expensive, and some take decades to make back the initial cost. Then there's ongoing maintenance and the likelihood that they won't provide enough power anyway.

What we really need is to start building nuclear, something on a 50-year plan to get us off our fossil fuel addiction (which took >200 years to acquire).
It would be quite amazing to see the golden age which could dawn if energy were no longer a concern.
Which is a definite possibility if nuclear became "cool" again (like it was in the 1950's).

Re:Economic downturn

[Lumpy]

Yes and no.

I do a Lot of LEED certified building programming and I can tell you some real facts about this "Green" stuff...

Solar: effective in southern climates ONLY. Solar installations in Michigan, Northern Illinois like Chicago and Detroit are nothing but dog and pony shows. The numbers given to the Building customers as to the output and savings are at least 80% higher than the readings I am getting off the equipment directly. One customer has the entire building covered in solar panels on the roof and was told the solar has a 15 year payback. After 6 months of collecting realtime data from the building, I am calculating the Solar installation payback to be over 150 years. Their projected solar days is far FAR lower than actual. PLUS you have to send a crew up to the roof on the 8th floor to clean them every 2 months. AND do it after every snowfall in the winter. Now you have workers on an icy roof cleaning snow off of the solar panels after every storm. Yay...

LEED certification is for MARKETING only. it's a "look I'm green" badge and nothing more. Load shedding and consumption reduction will do 900% more to "save the environment" than any solar or wind installation. If you use 1,000,000 watts of power and you reduce it by 10% that is 10,000 watts saved, a 10% reduction in your bill, and far more C02 saved than installing $180,000 in solar panels and wind turbines that are made with nasty heavy metals and incredibly dangerous manufacturing processes.

Skylights, lots of windows, Proper building design (no not this cookie cutter crap) proper insulation and proper design of the workspaces and building saves way more than any "lok at me I'm greeen" add on crap you can make.

Problem is it requires major changes in business culture.

Re:Economic downturn

[Eunuchswear]

it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.

Aw, shit, someone's wrong on the internet again.

Nope, that's not what happened. Sorry.

(I assume you're talking about the CRA. The majority of the bad loans were made by lenders that were not covered by the CRA.)

Re:Economic downturn

[Anonymous Coward]

Continuing to point out the obvious: as long as we have a "what's the stock price like this quarter?" economy very few companies will be spending money on "renewables".

While I don't disagree with this opinion, all you can do is invest the way you want to invest. And once you, and all the other like-minded investors, have control of your special company's stock, you won't have to worry about the day-traders dinking with price, because none of you will be selling shares any more, right?

Re:Economic downturn

[jbengt]

They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.

Bullshit.
The Community Reinvestment Act (originally passed in 1977, long before Clinton though revised numerous times since then) made it harder to avoid making loans for housing in the same neighborhoods that the banks were getting savings from, but it never required mortgages to people who could not afford them. Most of the "sub-prime" loans were made outside of the CRA. On average, "sub-prime" loans made under the CRA fared better than loans made outside of the CRA. The CRA did not cause the investment bankers to slice and dice bad loan portfolios and package them up as "safe" investments. The CRA did not give stupidly high ratings to those bad loan packages. The CRA did not sell credit default swaps back and forth on those companies with bad loan portfolios until there was a recursive dependency with no chance of paying off in case of default.

Re:Economic downturn

[hat_eater]

Two affordable, low tech technologies that can save considerable $$ (and CO2) in an average household are flexible solar panels for heating water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating) and ground source heat pumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump).

Re:Economic downturn

[hey!]

I dunno. If the certification program *promises* internalized payback and doesn't deliver, that's a problem with the program, isn't it? If an engineer promised a 15 year payback and is off by a factor of 10x, then that's either bad engineering or fraud.

While I agree with you about building design, I'm not so puritanical about showcase solar or wind projects because somebody has to be the early adopters for any technology. Early adoption is seldom an entirely pragmatic choice. As long as the people selling the system aren't committing some kind of fraud or engineering malpractice, marketing yourself as forward looking is an entirely valid reason to install a system before it is economically practical.

Re:Economic downturn

[wall0159]

I totally agree with you. Renewable energy sources are great, but they can't compete with better efficiency (which is essentially energy for free) and simple consumption reduction. If we used energy more wisely, we could probably reduce consumption by 40% without many (if any) significant lifestyle changes.

Re:Economic downturn

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're full of shit *and* you can't do math.

Re:Economic downturn

[commodore64_love]

You know it helps if you READ instead of guess. I said *90s* not 70s, and the specific *regulation* (not law) made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it.

LINK to the specific moment that caused the housing boom:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64#t=2m10s

Re:Economic downturn

[Shakrai]

If you use 1,000,000 watts of power and you reduce it by 10% that is 10,000 watts saved, a 10% reduction in your bill

10% of 1,000,000 is 100k, not 10k.....

Re:Economic downturn

[rwa2]

As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.

So yes we can blame the Democrats, or at least the ones who were in the white house in 1997.

Hmm, I agree with most of the things you have to say... but there are plenty of other factors that filled the housing bubble. All the poor people alone wouldn't have had enough money to overinflate and overspeculate our economy to that extent :-P

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124578382 had a segment with some interesting numbers... about a third of the mortgaged properties (probably ones in "good" neighborhoods and grossly overvalued) were never even inhabited... they were simply purchased as investments, since the conventional wisdom back in the day was that real estate was always a solid investment / tax shelter.

With the artificially low interest rates thanks to the Fed Reserve, people with modest amounts of money were investing in real estate, or investing in these silly mortgage-backed securities to help rich people invest in real estate. There were even fraud rings where people would sell the same empty house to each other and pocketing the increasingly larger sums of borrowed money. The Planet Money people had at least one in their portfolio where a house that originally sold for $700K was eventually mortgaged out and foreclosed on for over $2M. And now there are all the silly strategic defaults, where lots of upper / middle class homeowners who can actually afford their mortgage want / need to sell for some reason, but of course can't find any buyers at the inflated price they bought it for, so really their best option is to go delinquent until the bank agrees to foreclose.

Anyway, if I had to pick a single thing to blame, I'd choose the Fed Reserve for artificially lowering the interest rates in a pathetic attempt to "keep the economy going", or an illusion thereof. If banks can't make money off of interest like they traditionally could, then of course they're going to have to get very creative. All low interest did was keep people speculating, because securing big loans was like free money :-P

IANAE, but I won't believe in any kind of true recovery until interest rates are back above inflation (assuming that too can hold steady at ~3% ). In the meantime, we're toying with some freaky financial system which I doubt anyone understands well enough not to get taken advantage of.

Re:Economic downturn

[sumdumass]

Yes, if everything was just this black and white.. If everything was binary and there was a simple cause for every single reaction.

The loans didn't need to be covered by the CRA, the CRA pressured Fannie and Fredie to purchase subprimes as a means to fund the CRA loans it covered. Whatch this for a little more about it.

PS, This isn't really a one sides you can blame a single person or party issue. There is a lot of blame that built up to a failing point which can be passed around.

I agree, "in principle."

[ChipMonk]

Which is just a way of telling you "go to hell" using different words.

Long Time Treehugger

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a long time treehugger and hated to see any harvesting of any forests at all. This is because I feel that trees are the best way of combating climate change - they regulate climate in the surrounding area. When the Romans attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD and cut down all the olive trees around the city for combat fortifications, the water retention of the soil was reduced significantly. The place referred to as the land of milk and honey became a desert wasteland. However, in recent years I have begun to acknowledge the importance of cutting trees as much as I hate it. The main threats to the forest now are invasive species (Think Chestnut blight, Gypsy moth, etc) and brush fires. The Forest Service's budget is TINY in comparison to the cost of these threats, and so selective harvesting of trees to make up for budget shortfalls has become a necessary evil. It is better to remove a few trees in one area and be able to fight off threats to the forest as a whole than to have an entire species (Chestnut, Oak, dogwood) die off reducing diversity.

Another plus is that any harvested trees are SEQUESTERING CO2. This is important - a dead tree either rots or is burnt in a fire RELEASING the stored CO2. As part of a dining room table, the Carbon just stays there. The answer is MORE trees and MORE harvesting of trees, as must as I hate the latter part.

Re:Long Time Treehugger

[Godman]

What exactly is it that you think happens to old dining tables?

I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Rogerborg]

But I'm 100% sure that I'd prefer to live in a world where we don't give trillions to greenie scam artists in return for them telling us that they can fix that pesky human inclination to have kids and give them a decent standard of living.

We need to lose about 3 billion people, then keep the numbers down there until we get our eggs out of this basket. Anyone not engaged in trying to find a way to achieve that solution humanely is just profiting from the problem.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[JDmetro]

And why don't you be the first to volunteer? At the very least be spayed or neutered. Or maybe you could never find anyone to have babies with so now your a bitter asshole. Or maybe you lost your job to someone in China/ India and you want to get back at that guy who got your job when MS moved their tech support call centre to India. Or why don't we start with the wealthiest 10 percent and then we could re distribute their wealth. But let me guess mr.douchebag you want to start by killing off the poor in third world countries. Then the lower classes in the first world countries hell they don't need that fancy car or big house we can put them to work on a farm or factory give them a little straw to sleep on then they won't need a car to get to work or a big house and if we castrate them no more little poor people. And shit why bother paying them they get everything they need to live, they should be happy they are so lucky. Then the people who are actually entitled to fly their private jets, or take their fancy boats to the lake can do so in the privacy they deserve. With none of us middle class assholes using up their resources or crowding them on the beach.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

>>>We need to lose about 3 billion people

You've been unfairly marked troll.

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110. i.e. From ~3 billion to 300 million. That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Feyshtey]

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!

Yes, it's sarcasm.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[cobrausn]

Wish I had mod points for you.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

>>>killing less valuable babies

Murder would still be illegal Mr.. Just because you impose a "one child per family" limit does not mean parents would be allowed to go throwing unwanted babies in dumpsters.

Of course we don't have to impose this policy. We could just let Mother Nature solve the overpopulation problem and believe me, her approach is far less pleasant (starvation, black plague, etc).

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[superdave80]

Yeah, because there is no way to tell the sex of the baby while it is still in the womb, and we don't have test to detect certain disabilities either. Oh, shit, we do have those capabilities? Well, then women can just murder their unwanted babies while still in the womb. Oh, but that isn't 'murder' to you.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[MBGMorden]

The problem there is that raw numbers are useful in military conquest - something that becomes even more likely as the planet's resources get strained.

Countries like the US and much of Europe have pretty dismal population densities compared to parts of Asia. Our birthrate is also not that out of kilter - our population isn't increasing all that fast. With that in mind, we certainly don't need, or WANT, to decrease our population down to dangerous levels at a time like this - because if/when China finally does get tired to being so crowded and wants to expand a bit, we wouldn't have the people to stop them.

37% of the world's population lives in either China or India. The PLANET doesn't have as much of a population problem, so much as a few specific countries do.

Or to be more direct - if the population density of the US (or many other sparsely populated countries) was applied to the globe, our population levels would be completely sustainable. Why should we adopt population limiting measures?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[radtea]

and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

By this standard waterboarding and Glenn Beck are "humane" because they don't actually kill anyone. Torturing people is "humane" unless you torture them to death. Rape is "humane" because nobody dies.

Seems like a pretty weird notion of "humane".

Here's an alternative suggestion, which unfortunately wouldn't let arrogant assholes dictate how many children people have: raise the standard of living for everyone by encouraging urbanization and free trade, and massively promote education for women. The world's population will fall: this is not a controversial claim. Prosperity and educated women produces dramatic reductions in fecundity.

THAT is a "humane" solution: giving people greater autonomy, not imposing someone else's choices on their bodies.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[phoenixwade]

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China! Yes, it's sarcasm.

You know, all the rhetoric doesn't quite obfuscate the basic truth there. We do need to downsize the population before some natural mechanism kicks in and does it for us. There is an upper limit on how many people this planet can support regardless of the technologies we apply to extending it, and how much of the rest of the biosphere we're willing to sacrific to make it happen. The question isn't "IF" we need to reverse population growth, it's "HOW". And it's telling that you can only see how population control is a bad thing, rather than look toward solutions that are acceptable.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[operagost]

Telling people how many children they can have isn't very libertarian. Your difficult to figure out. I guess everyone needs to troll once in a while.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

Strawman argument == fail. Address ME not your imaginary pro-abortion scapegoat.

Also now you're changing the original poster's message. He said BABIES not unborn fetuses, and that was the point I was addressing. Killing of babies is not allowed now and would not be allowed under a One Child Per Couple policy.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[guanxi]

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!

Considering that there are more women in the U.S. workforce than men, and that there are many more women in college, and that men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, it's questionable who is more valuable. Also, women are necessary for reproduction, but men are not.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

Neither is forcing people to fund an army but sometimes it becomes necessary to lose a *little* liberty in order to avert future disaster (i.e. invasion or overpopulation-induced starvation).

You see... you confuse libertarianism with anarchy, and they are not the same thing.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[gnesterenko]

And not being allowed to do something has always prevented people from doing that thing. Yep. I've no examples at all from anywhere or anytime that would prove that statement wrong.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

>>>You know, all the rhetoric doesn't quite obfuscate the basic truth there. We do need to downsize the population before some natural mechanism kicks in and does it for us. There is an upper limit on how many people this planet can support....
>>>

+1 diplomatic

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering india and china could each lose ~2/3rds of their populations and still be 1 and 2 most populous countries on the planet, it may be that china are off to the right start. If india could do something similar, that alone would get rid of close to 2 billion people. From there we probably don't need to actually reduce much, if at all. We don't exactly need to go back to pre 1800's 1 billion people on the planet. Whether we can sustain 3, 5, or 7 billion (or whatever the number is) depends very much on technology.

The 1 child policy is a crude blunt instrument. And mostly unnecessary in the west, where europe is close to flat lining population growth. The US, for all it's many faults, does seem to have room to grow, as does canada.

Asia is largely overpopulated. Japan is mostly declining, and everywhere else is trying to figure out how to decline. While we can provide them ideas, they get the problem enough that there's no value in us trying to help them along.

The question becomes south america and africa. Africa probably has quite a lot of room to grow as they get technology, but I really don't know. They are poor, and weak, china is rich, strong, and in need of space, and india is rapidly becoming the same (and is close), this makes for a dangerous combination. I think south america is on the cusp of hitting the standard of living that would push populations to a flatline of growth.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if we could comfortably sustain 5 or 6 billion people on earth. The world population was between about 700 million and 1 billion until 1800, but we've expanded to a lot more land, and had a lot of technological improvements since then. That's not to say we can't do better. But I think as places like indonesia, vietnamn and the indian sub continent all start to confront the challenges of dealing with massive populations they're going to start to decline naturally on their own. China is there already. Europe and Japan have been there for a while.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

>>>raise the standard of living for everyone by encouraging urbanization and free trade

Great. And what happens to that plan when oil becomes as scarce as gold and skyrockets to $1000 a barrel by 2020? It will fall apart. Depopulation is the only solution to an overpopulation problem.

Also it's not inhumane to snip a man's (or woman's) tubes after he has 1 child. It's an extremely simple and painless procedure, and not the least bit equivalent to waterboarding (suffocation).

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Feyshtey]

I don't disagree with you in this regard: There are too many people, and too few efforts to curb population growth.

What I was more interested in pointing out was that someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment. Of all the nations and peoples we should emulate, China is pretty far down on the list. A cavalier dismissal of their lack of compassion to justify social engineering is either ignorant or disgusting.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Duradin]

Assuming free trade is like assuming that invisible pink unicorns exist and that they will buy your product.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Feyshtey]

Are all of you people completely ignorant to the fact that I was criticising the use of CHINA as an appropriate source for social policy?

Are you so completely stupid that you
a) didnt understand the sarcasm disclaimer
b) actually believe I'm the one placing value on one human life over another
c) I'm supportive of any mandated regulation over my reproductive activities?

How is it, exactly, that a Mormon can be told that he has to forgo his religious teachings and stop having kids, but we need to have compassion and understanding for radical muslims who have sworn to kill us in the name of their God?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all of you people completely ignorant to the fact that I was criticising the use of CHINA as an appropriate source for social policy?

Are you so completely stupid that you
a) didnt understand the sarcasm disclaimer
b) actually believe I'm the one placing value on one human life over another
c) I'm supportive of any mandated regulation over my reproductive activities?

How is it, exactly, that a Mormon can be told that he has to forgo his religious teachings and stop having kids, but we need to have compassion and understanding for radical muslims who have sworn to kill us in the name of their God?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Other people, besides you, are ignorant, stupid and murderous, and deserve only hatred and scorn.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Feyshtey]

Doing anything to my body without my concent is inhumane. Period.

You or anyone else ever tries to 'snip' anything on me without my permission and I'll help to 'aerate' you in return.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[BergZ]

Problem: The planet's atmosphere is warming up due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Solution: Reduce carbon emissions through a combination of economic incentive programs, industrial retrofitting, and renewable energy sources in time to prevent catastrophic global warming.
Proposed Alternate Solution: Just get everyone to agree to ignore their procreation instinct! How hard could that be!?!

This is what I love about slashdot: There's always someone out there with an alternative solution to a problem that is even worse than the solution they're trying to replace.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Anonymous Coward]

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!

Considering that there are more women in the U.S. workforce than men, and that there are many more women in college, and that men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, it's questionable who is more valuable. Also, women are necessary for reproduction, but men are not.

that's a very nice straw (wo)man you have there. The same concept applies if your society hapens to value girls more than boys (parents just kill the other gender). If familys are limited to one child each there's an incetive for parents to see that any child they deem sub optimal "mysteriously stopped breathing during the night", thus allowing them to try again hoping for a more optimal baby. There are enough poorly understood ways a baby can die (sudden infant death syndrome), that it's unlikely the government can do anything to stop that practice.

The fact is that China's implimentation of a one child per family law has resulted in dead babies, which would generally offend the sensabilities of a first world country looking nto adopt a population controle system.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[mapkinase]

That measure will further increase dis-balance between productive and old parts of population.

At 2.1 per family, one feeds one, given that the productivity span equals "old age" span.

At 1 per family, one feeds two.

This is not necessarily bad, I, personally, would welcome less consumerism and more charity from productive population like myself, but the problem is the economy which is heavily consumer based and the most consuming part of populations are young.

The negative effect on economy is inevitable if this policy is accepted (don't be swayed by China's growth: first, it is due to other factors that overcame child policy factor, second, one generation was probably not enough for that factor to play, third, other factors were just stronger, but they might not be present in Europe and US).

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Anonymous Coward]

According to some people, the limit is about 50 billion. To put things in perspective, all the human population on earth needs about the size of Australia to live on, if each individual (including children) are given their own spot to build a house with a small garden in front of it. (numbers taken out of wikipedia).

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Shotgun]

>>>killing less valuable babies

Murder would still be illegal Mr.. Just because you impose a "one child per family" limit does not mean parents would be allowed to go throwing unwanted babies in dumpsters.

Really? Where do they throw the abortion victims?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Anonymous Coward]

> But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110.

Not really necessary. The US, EU, and Japan are already have population declines from existing population. The US primarily grows from immigration and recent immigrant families.

Birth rate has a negative correlation with education, industrialization, social status, etc., so really, the key is getting the world to a decent overall standard without burning up all our resources doing so. That and making sure birth control access/education isn't prevented by certain large organizations...

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>We need to lose about 3 billion people

You've been unfairly marked troll.

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110. i.e. From ~3 billion to 300 million. That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

Uh, no.
Nearly all of EU, and America have population rates around the same as China.

And at this time, China has migration outwards, while EU/America have migration inwards.

And the west's birth rate is MUCH lower than China's. If you want to lower the world population, then you would get China, India, South East Asia, and Latin America to inact AND ENFORCE 1 child / family rule.

So, lets stop with spreading the bullshit, eth mate?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Monkeedude1212]

That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

Just because no one is being killed doesn't mean it's humane.

It's been said that in China that fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies. And that's just the law enforcing it - there have also been reports of infanticide, neglect, and abandonment because of it.

Just because the law itself in theory is humane, doesn't mean it is humane in its application, or the decisions one must make to try and comply with it.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[TooMuchToDo]

Take away tax deductions for any children above replacement level (~2.2 in the US), and encourage education and development in the developing world so mother marry later and have many fewer children due to lower mortality rates.

The trick is simple. Help people lead better lives while taking away the subsidization of rampant consumption.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[superdave80]

Ha, that's so funny that you said 'fail'. Very modern-hip, internet-ish of you. Anyways, back to the topic at hand...

He said BABIES not unborn fetuses,

So, you don't consider 'unborn fetuses' to be babies? Do they magically change from fetus into baby when they move out of the womb? What is it that changes them? I'd like to know.

Whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, you can't dodge the irrefutable fact that before an abortion, there is a living baby, and after the abortion, there is a dead baby. And abortion is 100% legal in the US, so there is nothing to stop a couple from getting rid of 'unwanted' babies.

Also now you're changing the original poster's message.

No, the original poster's message is that unwanted babies (oops, sorry, 'fetuses' if that makes you feel less queasy) are killed in China, and that could also happen in ANY country where you enact a one child policy.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Monkeedude1212]

>>>killing less valuable babies

Murder would still be illegal Mr.. Just because you impose a "one child per family" limit does not mean parents would be allowed to go throwing unwanted babies in dumpsters.

Really? Because that's practically what happens. Higher than normal rates of Neglect, Abandonment, and infanticide have occured in China simply because of the 1CPF laws.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[TooMuchToDo]

Or to be more direct - if the population density of the US (or many other sparsely populated countries) was applied to the globe, our population levels would be completely sustainable. Why should we adopt population limiting measures?

Because life isn't as simple as just spreading everyone out.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[wall0159]

You're joking right? Are you really saying that climate scientists are "greenie scam artists"? If not, then please elaborate - who exactly are these "greenie scam artists" to whom you refer?

"We need to lose about 3 billion people" -- is that really your suggestion? How do you suggest we "humanely" achieve this over the kind of time-scales necessary (say, 20 years)?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm cool with that, as it takes some extreme justification to support forced sterilization (drug addicts/welfare moms on their 27th child). But I also don't think we should provide tax deductions/credits/support for every child someone has. The first two are free (replacement level). Any other children you have? You pay their true economic cost, without society as a whole having to subsidize them.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[eriqk]

Where do they throw the abortion victims?

What the hell is an "abortion victim"? Is that a woman who bled to death after a backstreet abortion went wrong?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

Of course "fetuses" are not babies, just as "toddlers" are not babies and "children" are not babies, and "teens" are not babies.

Words have meaning, and the guy didn't say "killing fetuses". He said "killing babies" i.e. the human state AFTER birth to about 2 years old. Killing babies is illegal now and would still be illegal under the One Child policy. It would be a charge of murder.

Oh and yes you committed a strawman argument.
Why?
Because you assumed I'm pro-abortion ("you think it's okay to kill unborn babies"). You assumed wrong. Damn Jew or Christ or Muslim jackass.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Shakrai]

Also, women are necessary for reproduction, but men are not.

Your new child seems to be missing 23 chromosomes....

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Shakrai]

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done

if the US and EU did that they would no longer be the US and EU. Presumably you've heard of free choice, right? You propose to muzzle it and place reproductive rights in the hands of bureaucrats? Really?

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

So the Constitution is inhumane? It forces you to fund an army and navy that kills people. (Among other things.) See the world is not black and white. From time to time we must take a *small* amount of liberty in order to promote the common defense and/or avert catastrophe.

Such as forcing you to fund killing.
Or lock you in a room against your will, after you commit a crime.
Or isolate you in a room to prevent the spread of disease (quarantine).
Or limit you to one child, in order to prevent an overpopulation crisis (and starvation et cetera).

Now granted we haven't reached that stage yet but many areas of the world, like China and India, have and so that's why the policy was enacted in China. It's only a matter of time 'til overpopulation crisis happens in the US and EU too..... isn't it better to control population NOW rather than after it's too late? (Just as we prepared for the Y2K disaster ahead, rather than wait for all our computers to crash.)

Or we could just ignore the problem and let Nature deal with it (rampant widespread death).

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Solandri]

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110. i.e. From ~3 billion to 300 million. That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

The thing is, nearly all the world's population growth is happening in undeveloped countries. The developed nations are experiencing slow or even negative population growth. So paradoxically, the way to slow down global population growth seems to be by quickening the rate at which countries are developing.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

>>>someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment

I never said that idiot. PLEASE learn to read. I said I agree with their ONE idea that population needs to be limited (else there will be rampant starvation/plague in the US and EU). Otherwise I think China is a despicable place that mistreats its workers and citizens.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[youngone]

That's right. I lost 3 billion people once, and it really helped. Mind you, I found them again. Turns out they were behind the sofa the whole time.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[tirefire]

That alone would solve our pollution problem,

What population problem?
(See attached graph)

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Feyshtey]

Maybe engaging in activity that forces military response and gets people killed is inhumane. Asking me to fund said military just ensures a higher likelyhood that my family isnt among those who die. I'm good with that. You could also learn from Sun Tsu and The Art Of War. If you must go to war, you absolutely undeniably crush your enemy with every asset available to you as quickly as possible. Anything less is 'inhumane' because it prolongs the suffering and ensures deaths in exponentialy larger numbers over time. It also prolongs the beginning of rebuilding under unified rule and greater periods of starvation and pain. We no longer think in these terms because we must be compassionate and learn to understand and adapt to our enemies....

If you commit a crime, you forfiet your liberties. Anything less wouldn't be a punishment, now would it?

Quarantine doesnt preclude treatment. Inhumane would be shooting you at first signs of infection and burning the body. It would be selfishly irresponsible of you (and inhumane) to knowingly infect others because you dont want to be quarantined.

Limiting me to one child when I can provide plenty of food for said child, and a home, and care, is inhumane. We allow the worst people in our society to have children. The most violent, vile and evil people can have children. If you tell good, honest people that they cannot you're going to have a serious problem with their response.

And you can give me your crap about how we can ignore it and blahblahblah. Civilizations have been dealing with population controls for thousands of years. Too many people encroaching into an area they arent welcome... war. I dont condone it, I don't support it, but you can damn well bet that's what will happen before global starvation. You might not like it but that's survival instinct.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

Citation please. I don't believe the problem is as widespread as you think. The Chinese seem generally pleased with the One Child policy, and less than 0.001% do the things you claim

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Bill Dog]

You confuse libertarianism with Progressivism (an amazing feat, really, since they're basically exact opposites). Libertarians are for maximal liberty and therefore minimal external legal coerced authority over the individual. Since govt. exists to protect our rights, having to pay for the defense and policing of the govt. and the territory governed is an acceptable loss of liberty. Requiring physical involvement in it is not.

And govt. does not exist to ensure an adequate food supply vis-a-vis the population. Libertarianism is the next town over from anarchy, but on the other side of the world from Leftism and the expanded planning and control of society "for the greater good".

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[commodore64_love]

>>>Limiting me to one child when I can provide plenty of food for said child...

That's the point..... come the year 2050 when 600 million americans are present means there WON'T be enough food to go around. (Or oil which will be the cause of the food shortage.)
.

>>>Asking me to fund said military just ensures a higher likelyhood that my family isnt among those who die.

They aren't asking.
They are forcing you to fund military.
And the innocents they kill.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Golddess]

Because you assumed I'm pro-abortion ("you think it's okay to kill unborn babies"). You assumed wrong.

Um, but you are pro-abortion. You are constantly mentioning how you support a woman's right to choose in nearly every single anti universal healthcare post that you make.

Sure, you and GP may quibble over what to call it, but that doesn't mean GP assumed wrong.

And just for the record, presently I lean towards House's POV.

"Yes. The problem with exceptions to rules is the line-drawing. It might make sense for us to kill the ass that did this to you. I mean, where do we draw the line? Which asses do we get to kill and which asses get to keep on being asses. The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge."

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[TempeTerra]

Do I have to do everything for you?

without making any value judgement, 117 male births for every 100 female probably isn't chance.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Feyshtey]

So the logical alternatives to 'forcing' me to fund a military are.... what exactly?
1) You lawfully refuse to fund the military but others choose to. Who decides what the military does or how its governed? You, who put forth no investment? Or others who funded it whom you disagree with? If I fund the military but no one in your county chooses to, can I require that the military concentrate its resources defending my county and allowing yours to be overrun? Or do you plan on using the insurance of a military when -you- percieve a danger to yourself? Wouldn't it be interesting if the rich decide to fund the military and then because they paid for it, they decide how its utilized?
2) No military. -- I don't see this one working out too well, considering there are armed nations that have salivated over the thought of our extinction for generations. North Korea, Venezuala, and Iran are some of the ones at the top end of the list.

Your indignance about the military killing innocents is noble and all. But you don't seem at all concerned about the whackjobs and tyrants who murder innocent people and then deliberately imbed themselves within thier own innocent countryman so as to knowingly use them as human shields against our response. You also casually dismiss the fact that if we didn't have a military (that we're 'forced' to fund), we'd have the military forces of multiple nations and untold numbers of militant groups kicking your front door down and happily putting bullets in your kids.

One thing you've said so far has been correct; The world isnt black and white. Take your own advice and recognize that fact, can your self-righteous soapbox speech and acknowlege the fact that a military to protect a nation is a realistic requirement to maintain sovereignity. Hoping a bunch of self-entitled crybabys like you will fund it out of some patriotic spirit is about as likely as you sprouting wings. Presenting anyone with ownership over it because they funded it when others didn't is just glorified mercenary enrollment.

While you're at it, why dont you actually look up what a libertarian is. You're far from being one as evidenced in many of the things you've stated, and it's painfully obvious how uneducated you are about what that political philosophy actually is. A libertarian will believe that its no one's right to tell anyone else how to live, least of all a formalized government. A law that defines how many kids you have would be in direct contention with a libertarian's views, as would laws governing abortion, same sex marriage, alcohol and drug use and a host of other things our government wishes to regulate. It could be argued that a libertarian would be opposed to compulsory military service, but suggesting a libertarian would by definition be opposed to paying taxes that fund a military would likewise suggest that they would be opposed to paying taxes that fun road construction, and that they were even required to use roads!

It's equally apparent how little you know about what is actually in the Constitution and why its there to begin with.

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Shotgun]

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=37> abortion victim

Re:I've 75% sure that 50% chance is voodoo science

[Shotgun]

abortion victim

And the ugly new is...

[OneAhead]

According to the UN, the efforts governments are making to curb CO2 emissions are a far cry from what is needed to keep climate change within acceptable limits: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11813578

Re:And the ugly new is...

[jav1231]

The U.N. is a joke. Not a funny joke, just a joke. Mentioning them as if to lend weight to a discussion is tantamount to suddenly launching into a discussion about alien anal probes.

Re:And the ugly new is...

[jo_ham]

This from someone promoting a joke in their sig.

The "Fair" Tax.

Fair in the sense that "why is it fair that, I as a millionaire, pay proportionally equal share of my income [sometimes much less, even] than poorer people! We must only tax things that people buy, that way it is fair for all!"

Of course, it's not like purchases like food, heating, power, water make up a proportionally larger amount of a poor family's income compared to a rich person.

All the "fair tax" does is accelerate the wealth gap even further, increase the tax load so the bulk of it (proportional to income) is shouldered by the poor and reduce the total amount of tax collected by the government, forcing cuts to programs that help those same poor people, like welfare, medicare/medicaid and things like education. Of course, the military budget would be untouched.

Re:And the ugly new is...

[jav1231]

You obviously know very little about the FairTax. First of all those below the poverty line are exempt. Second, there's a pre-bate for food. Open a book.

The total amount collected by the government won't be reduced at all. Everything purchased by corporations, businesses, and yes the rich will be taxed. That's a huge amount of revenue. This idea that the Fair Tax is regressive is simply a fallacy. There's only one reason to be against the Fair Tax: Because you have a vested interested in government revenue and are therefore afraid of what it might do. The Fair Tax puts the power back into the hands of the people and forces the government to live by the same principles of fiscal responsibility we do. If things are tight and the economy is down, no more jacking up the tax rate with the idiotic notion that it will increase revenue.

Re:And the ugly new is...

[jo_ham]

Lots of good talking points there, but it just doesn't add up. Taxing income is an effective and fair method of revenue collection - if it is too high, then correct the amounts (The UK has a 55% tax bracket, for example, which could be argued to be excessive, ore because it encourages tax dodging).

There's no need to implement something that is essentially regressive at its core - where do you draw the poverty line? Then what about those in the poverty gap, who are too well off to be below the cutoff, but not well off enough to be hit hard (and face a much higher portion of the tax burden, proportionally) compared to the rich?

If you push the line up high enough that only the seriously wealthy pay anything then you defeat the point.

The current "jacking up the tax rate" that is in the works is a reversal of a tax cut that affects 0.3% of the US population, or some other insignificantly small amount. Right now, 90% of the taxable income of the US is earned by the top 10%-ish of the population, and it's those tax revenues that need to increase. Doing so will increase revenue significantly, without hurting the 90% of the rest of the population at all.

Re:And the ugly new is...

[spitzak]

Ignoring any politics, an absolutely huge problem with the "Fair Tax" is that the redistribution portion (designed so that those below the poverty line do not end up paying) would be ENORMOUS, like orders of magnitude greater than all the social security, medicare, and all other aid given by the government now. This will result is an equally enormous bureaucracy and equally enormous amounts of graft and corruption and cheating.

This appears to me to be a complete deal breaker.

Quit burning stuff

[digitaldc]

That might help reduce global warming.

Makes sense, no?

Re:Quit burning stuff

[jav1231]

Except that the largest sources of those burning "stuff" are not who the U.N. and those seeking to profit on climate change are going after, developing nations. Which makes sense on the one hand because they have little money, except for China. China was exempted from the Kyoto Protocols as a "developing country" which not only rendered the Kyoto Protocol a joke (because China has money), it revealed the true nature of the protocol, to fleece the West.

Re:Quit burning stuff

[jav1231]

Flamebait, of course. Oh wait, that's a pun? :p

Re:Quit burning stuff

[jbengt]

Not trying to defend China's abysmal environmental record, but on a per capita basis, those in the US send far more CO2 into the air than those in China. (Similarly for other developed vs developing nations.)
On a per country basis, the US is second to China's lead.

Re:Quit burning stuff

[jav1231]

I seem to recall a report some time back that noted fires and other burning in developing countries in Africa as a total caused more emissions than any of the developing nations. Of course, we're talking more than CO2. CO2 is an easy target except that it's a necessity in the environment.

I would want to know more about how this data is measured at the site above. The U.S. has consistently lowered emissions for decades. As pilots have noted, flying the skies today over the U.S. as compared to the 1970's is considerably different. Again, the U.S. is where the money is so the data may be steered that way for a reason.

Re:Quit burning stuff

[spike hay]

You're confusing regular pollution with CO2. CO2 is not even classed as a pollutant in the US because it isn't harmful to humans or the environment directly. We have reduced emissions quite a bit over the years. Catalytic converters, sulphur scrubbers in coal plants, etc. However, these innovations do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

CO2 is emitted whenever you burn stuff. In developed countries, we actually have cars, so we burn a lot more gas. We also use a lot more electricity, so we burn more coal. Some countries like Indonesia do a lot of slash and burn. It's significant, but nothing close to what power generation and cars do. The major effect from slash and burn is really the loss of the forest CO2 sink.

Re:Quit burning stuff

[jav1231]

Well I can't cite the report, though I could go digging for it. But it indeed had to do with burning and therefore, by your own premise, CO2.

It's odd that CO2 has become the new whipping boy when just 5 years or so ago it was methane. I wonder what it will be in the next 5. My guess is whatever is profitable.

Re:Quit burning stuff

[spike hay]

Actually, its always been CO2. There has never been a time when people have primarily talked about methane. You obviously have not been paying any attention whatsoever to the political debate about climate change. It's more potent than CO2, but it is released in much smaller quantities.

No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[apparently]

After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up. (No, I'm not being serious)

While you're not being serious, you are being wholly dishonest and wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents. It's akin to the Fox News assholes gleefully commenting on the storm that hit DC last winter, stating that Al Gore had been proven wrong, because it snowed. In D.C.. In the winter.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[dkleinsc]

Of course my argument is completely bogus - that was the point. The "(No, I'm not being serious)" was to indicate that I was aware of all the problems you mentioned, and was making an attempt at satirizing exactly the stupidity you describe.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[FooAtWFU]

Well, for every Fox News story stating global warming is wrong because of cold weather, there's a couple of NBC/ABC/newspaper/etc stories which discuss heat waves and the like and say that they are evidence of global warming, and two or three politicians using it to justify some measure. It may not be what The Scientists with half a brain are saying, but it's out there.

The "dishonest and wholly inaccurate portrayal" angle cuts both ways.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[commodore64_love]

>>>wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents.

Not really. I remember three years ago when Washington and Philadelphia had an unusually warm and almost snow-free winter, and NBC, ABC, et cetera had their reporters discussing how this is clear evidence that global warming is happening." And no it wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark, but repeated day after day, with an "in depth report" on the warm winter during one of those days.

So wholly inaccurate? Nope. Very accurate, because that's what actually happens. If we have a warm winter this year, just pay attention. The anchors on the National TV will be discussing how this demonstrates global warming is real, just as they did three winters ago.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[jeffmeden]

Well, for every Fox News story stating global warming is wrong because of cold weather, there's a couple of NBC/ABC/newspaper/etc stories which discuss heat waves and the like and say that they are evidence of global warming, and two or three politicians using it to justify some measure.

[Citation needed]

Seriously. I want to read them.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[tautog]

After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up.

(No, I'm not being serious)

While you're not being serious, you are being wholly dishonest and wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents. It's akin to the Fox News assholes gleefully commenting on the storm that hit DC last winter, stating that Al Gore had been proven wrong, because it snowed. In D.C.. In the winter.

Thanks for stating the obvious, Captain "Apparently".

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up. (No, I'm not being serious)

While you're not being serious, you are being wholly dishonest and wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents.

It's not dishonest to suggest that some global-warming proponents make exactly that argument. They do. There is plenty of idiocy to go around on every side of a major public debate, and global warming has got it worse than most.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[Missing.Matter]

There's a difference between television sensationalism with the sole intent of capturing the interest of ignorant viewers, and actual scientific discourse. I don't think anyone qualified to have an opinion in the matter is taking the position dkleinsc parodied.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[commodore64_love]

Yes and that's what "dkleinsc" was making fun of. Television sensationalism and other pundits.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[Lumpy]

Hey! IT snowed in Argentina last June! and we all know it's HOT down there in South America! and then it happened in the Summer months of June!!!!

SKY FALLING!!!!!!

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[operagost]

The beauty of calling it "global climate change" is that the temperature doesn't matter. We had a cold winter with lots of snow last year, and they blamed that on CO2 emissions as well.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[operagost]

Apparently, Vanessa Williams never went to Argentina. IRONY FAIL.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[commodore64_love]

Difficult to cite television shows. But just last week NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Syfy, Bravo, Telemundo, etc celebrated "green week" and it included some of those tales about how heat waves prove global warming.

I also thought it was funny when they said last winter's record snowfall proved global warming as well. Something about warmer air holding more snow. Yeah. Sure. Except it wasn't a record anywhere but Baltimore and DC. Elsewhere like PennsylvaniA the snowfall was not unusual, AND the record was set in the 1950s (5 feet).

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[shadowfaxcrx]

Well, let's keep to the scientific accuracy meme here: "Cold" does not equal "Snow." At very cold temperatures, it won't snow. Ask anyone who lives in the upper Midwest. It is only at moderately cold temperatures that you actually get snowfall. So, if a region that has historically not seen snow around Jan/Feb because it's usually somewhere around -20 or so, starts exhibiting a pattern of snow, this does not prove that the region is now colder. In fact, it's evidence that the region is now probably warmer.

While that does not in itself prove warming on a global scale, the fact (Fact, not opinion, and not television sensationalism) that the ice caps and glaciers are melting does indicate that it is warmer. That doesn't mean it doesn't still get cold, even where the glaciers are, but it means the number of below freezing days are fewer, giving the glacier more time above freezing to melt. That's really not all that hard to comprehend. What's harder for most people to understand is that we're not talking about an overall average climate change of large amounts. Average warming by just a few degrees is enough to get us in trouble.

The fact is, as will be supported by any just about any climatologist not employed by an energy company, that global warming does exist. Whether or not it's caused by man is up for a bit more debate, though it's pretty inconceivable that a species could balloon from around 600 million or so in 1700 to nearly 7 billion now, and in that time that species has gone from riding around on horses to putting billions of cars on the road, planes in the sky, ships on the water, etc, all of which burn carbon-based fuel, without having some sort of impact on the environment.

Re:No, you're just being intellectually dishonest

[riverat1]

What they said about the record snowfall in DC is that it did nothing to disprove global warming. A little different meaning than your take. As you pointed out it was not a regional record. Warmer air does hold more water vapor which can lead to greater precipitation. Have you ever noticed that it usually doesn't snow much when it gets really cold, say below 10F. The colder the air temperature the drier it is.

I don't understand the calculations

[DefenseEngineer]

"...emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell...because of...an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land." How does an increase in the uptake have any effect on what is actually emitted? Does it have an effect on the concentration? Yes, I can see that. But I can't understand how it changes what is being generated.

Re:I don't understand the calculations

[Anonymous Coward]

Because either you or the journalist are sloppy. They are describing the rate of change of CO2 which is emission - uptake. The decrease in the rate of emissions is like a deceleration. However according to the rise in PPM, emissions - uptake > 0. The confusion is equating emission with rate of change of concentration, which is incomplete.

Fox News Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

FoxNewsHeadline("[...] emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn [...]")

=>

"Bush's efforts to fight global warming continue to be more effective than anything the Democrats have done."

Whoosh.

[HeckRuler]

That's the joke. Really, you hit it right on the head. It's exactly like that. That's why it's funny. Or at least it was, till you showed up.

Re:Whoosh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Re:Whoosh.

[bunratty]

But the argument for AGW isn't like that at all. The warming was predicted from first principles over 100 years ago. The idea that burning fossil fuels will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the increase in this greenhouse gas will cause warming is pretty obvious when you know basic chemistry and physics. The fact that we've observed the predicted warming at a rate and during a time that we would expect verifies the hypothesis. Among climatologists, only a select few still won't accept that the hypothesis has been confirmed.

Re:Whoosh.

[HeckRuler]

HOLY BLOODY HELL. It was a bloody freaking JOKE. A lame one at that. I know that. He knows that. The grandparent knows that. Only wingnuts like superkendel don't know that.

Whoosh. You missed it.
WHOOSH! Do you hear that? It you missing the point. The point is over here, I pointed to it. But you're not over here, you're way the fuck over there. What are you doing over there?

Is this topic SO FREAKING SACRED that we can't joke about it? Can we not even tell people to RELAX over a joke? Seriously Slashdot, get it together!
Whooshfortheloveofgodwhooooooosh!

Re:Whoosh.

[bunratty]

The joke presupposed something that wasn't true, so it wasn't funny at all. Besides that, AGW deniers look at that sort of stuff and eat it up. It's like jokes about Al Gore inventing this and that, as if he said he invented the Internet. Those jokes aren't funny (because he never said anything like that to begin with) and also reinforce a false belief (effectively libeling the man). Anyway, hear the one about Al Gore bragging that he invented global warming?

Re:Whoosh.

[nedlohs]

The joke presupposed that people have said that "it snowed heaps this year, global warming is a crock". I'm pretty sure you'll find they have.

You mightn't find it funny, and idiots can eat up whatever they like. But it's a pretty standard joke format (take something and flip the sides around).

Re:Whoosh.

[bunratty]

Oh, okay, it makes sense when you explain it that way.

Re:Whoosh.

[HeckRuler]

. . .
Really? That's what it took?

Huh. Apparently I need to take notes. Bravo nedlohs. Still though, that was a pretty fun rant.

Re:Whoosh.

[bunratty]

Yes, explaining the joke to someone when it doesn't make sense is all it takes. I wasn't offended. It just didn't make sense. Now it makes sense.

Re:Whoosh.

[Sally Forth]

Funny that the warming leads the CO2 increase, you'd expect it to be the other way around.

Let me put it like this

[durrr]

The market sure as hell fell more than 1.3%, would we really want to have a market running at a level equal to a 20% co2 decrease?
While i will obviously be rated trolls, some would like to see this scenario enforced globally trough opressive laws today, personally i think we should let the zombies run the apocalypse, not the enviromentalists.

Re:Let me put it like this

[bunratty]

You're presupposing that the only way carbon dioxide emissions could fall is by a declining market. There are surely other ways, such as switching to alternative energy sources. So, yes, you're being deliberately dense, so it's no surprise if you're modded down as a troll.

Re:Let me put it like this

[durrr]

such as switching to alternative energy sources.

Yup, because the investment to switch 20% of our energy needs to renewable would be FREE! and the $/kwh would be the same after that switch too, because the powercompanies decides to care more about the enviroment than the profit, thus it would have zero effects on our economy!
You said something about being dense?

Re:Let me put it like this

[bunratty]

One of the easiest ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions is by increasing energy efficiency. This not only cuts carbon dioxide emissions, but also saves money! In the case of switching over to alternatives to energy, we're building coal plants all the time. If we build an alternative energy plant instead of a coal plant, we're effectively cutting carbon dioxide emissions for free, as long as the alternative plant doesn't cost more to build and operate than the coal plant. Yes, you're still being dense. Exceedingly dense. And argumentative. Thus, you're being modded as a troll. Gee, isn't it fun when we solve mysteries?

Re:Let me put it like this

[durrr]

I suggest you go and build your Tautology Plant which obviously is free if it doesn't cost any money.
It's probably green too as there's no such thing fulfilling your specifications for the "alternative energy plant" in the real world. Or perhaps you've got a goverment supressed zero-point generator in your garage you wish to market?

Re:Let me put it like this

[bunratty]

And he wonders why he's modded troll. I guess you really are that stupid, huh?

Re:Let me put it like this

[TooMuchToDo]

Annual amount of US dollars sent to petro countries for fossil fuels: $900 million

Amount of that money we could keep in the US if we powered electric vehicles with renewable energy systems maintained in the US: $900 million

It's almost like there is some sort of.......return on investment or something like that.

Re:Let me put it like this

[TooMuchToDo]

Texas produces so much power from wind energy at the moment that they're racing to build high voltage lines to export it. I'd say that's pretty successful.

Re:Let me put it like this

[durrr]

Care to quote where i wonder why i'm being modded troll? I was quite clear from the start that i will be modded as a troll, but i have some spare karma and well, someone have to voice the inconvenient truth.

Re:Let me put it like this

[bunratty]

Why would you be modded troll for posting the truth? You're being modded a troll for trolling, as I've explained.

Re:Let me put it like this

[durrr]

It's sucessful if consider the total MW of installed wind, 9410MW of wind as according to wiki is quite impressive.
But there's other factors to consider, starting with that the wind is not blowing all the time at the proper speed to keep them generating electricity all that time, a 40% uptime is a generous estimate(the plants around where i live only manage a puny 25%).

Now of course a bad uptime wouldn't be all that bad if wind were cheap, but it isn't, or well, it is cheap in that it enjoys heavy subsidies, but that's just a way to hide the cost, someone is paying.

That building of high voltage lines is also not all too optimal, as well, they'll certainly come to use during a nice windy day when the wind generation peaks, but those still days, they'll sit entirely unused.

I'm not a big fan of enormous subsidies when the equivalent energy could be had cheaper(nuclear, coal(with carboncapture if you want to be green)), so i'd not consider wind(as it works today) to be a sucessfull form of energy.

Re:Let me put it like this

[TooMuchToDo]

Just because you don't consider wind successful doesn't make it so. Coal is heavily subsidized, and doesn't have to pay for the radioactive material it emits into the atmosphere (which, by the way, is more radioactive material than a nuclear power plant emits).

Someone advocating for cheapest power at all costs (without taking externalities into account) does us all a great disservice.

LOL nice lobby work

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of bullcrap article is this. China's emissions increased by 8%, India's by 6%. So not slashdot worthy.....

atomospheric CO2 still increased

[peter303]

More carbon is being released than absorbed by the biosphere however. The last time atmospheric CO2 decreased year-to-year (there is a slight seasonal decrease every year) was in 1992 due to massive volcanic eruption. Its acids scrubbed out some of the CO2.

Re:atomospheric CO2 still increased

[IrquiM]

You're saying that it's going to come down this year as well because of Eyafjellajökul? Finally, the Islandics did something they can be proud of!

Re:atomospheric CO2 still increased

[peter303]

The 1991 Pinatubo eruption was the largest in the past century and much larger than Iceland and the largest since daily CO2 measurements began. Here is a list of large eruptions.

you know somebody's going to say it...

[Thud457]

recession -> CO2 emmissions drop,
so,
mandate CO2 emmissions drop -> recession

Re:you know somebody's going to say it...

[commodore64_love]

I've heard that even if mankind disappeared tomorrow and therefore our CO2 output dropped to zero, greenhouse warming would still be happening because it's already been set in motion. It's now being pushed forward by water vapor, CO2 from volcanoes, and other factors that represent 95% of the "push" behind the change.
(shrug)

As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.

So yes we can blame the Democrats, or at least the ones who were in the white house in 1997.

Re:you know somebody's going to say it...

[riverat1]

If human CO2 output from fossil fuel burning dropped to zero tomorrow it would take 50 or 100 years for temperatures to stabilize, mainly because of the large heat sink of the oceans. It could take 500 or 1000 years or more for all of the effects such as ice melting to be fully realized.

What is this regulation that makes it illegal to deny a mortgage application from someone not qualified to receive it? I've never heard of such a thing. Please provide a citation.

Re:you know somebody's going to say it...

[commodore64_love]

LINK to the specific moment that caused the housing boom. The regulation made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64#t=2m10s

Good news and bad news, and no news

[rickb928]

"primarily because of the global economic downturn"

So a friend shares with me that the company cafeteria is proud of the reduction in paper napkin use in 2009, and promotes this as a collective effort and wonderful. Of course, the company laid off >20% of the workforce at the end of 2008. Yeay team! Good job reducing napkin usage! Next, we work on reducing electricity consumption by shutting down even more cubicles! And we're saving! We're saving!

Well, at least CO2 went down, apparently. I know my commute was a lot easier, should I be thinking that was a good thing?

"One big factor was La Niña, a natural seesaw shift in climate that takes place across the tropical Pacific every three to seven years, where the climate is cooler and wetter over large regions of land in the tropics, encouraging plant growth in tropical forests."

Ok, so which is it, global warming, global climate change, or climate cycles? I'm so confused.

"However the bad news is that even with the decrease in emissions the overall concentration of CO2 rose from 385 ppm in 2008 to 387 ppm in 2009, as concentrations continue to rise even as emissions slip because even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas."

Ok, so emissions are down but the level is up. Again, Im so confused.

Let me summarize again:

Emissions were reduced due to economic decline.
Atmospheric levels were reduced due to a climate cycle that increased absorption.
Atmospheric levels actually increased due to increased emissions.

So emissions went down and up, and levels went down and up. All in the same year.

Science. We could use some here.

Re:Good news and bad news, and no news

[Gadget_Guy]

Emissions were reduced due to economic decline.
Atmospheric levels were reduced due to a climate cycle that increased absorption.
Atmospheric levels actually increased due to increased emissions.

So emissions went down and up, and levels went down and up. All in the same year.

Science. We could use some here.

I see why you are getting confused. The climate is a complicated system. There isn't just one mechanism controlling the global temperature. The one you always hear about in the news is CO2 (which is a complicated system of its own), but as you have learned here today, there are other factors like the variations in the sun's output and La Niña & El Niño. El Niño was the reason that 1998 was so hot (which is why if anyone tries to use that year to argue either for or against climate change then you know that they are being deliberately misleading).

To explain how CO2 emissions can go down and yet the temperature can go up (ignoring the other factors), imagine that you have a bath filled with water. If you pull the plug then the water level drops. But if you turn on the tap to pour in the same amount of water that is going down the drain, then the water level will remain steady. It is not that the water stops going down the drain, but that the lost water is being replaced. This represents the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various means, and more is emitted into the atmosphere from various sources - some of which are man made.

Back to the bath, what happens if you turn up the tap so that more water is going into the bath than can go down the plug hole? The water level rises. If you put in an extra 5% of water then the level will increase by that amount because it simply has nowhere else to go.

So does the water level go down if you reduce the water emissions by 1.3%? No, because you are still adding in 3.7% more water than the equilibrium. That is why your quoted text said "even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas".

That quote is a bit misleading, because as I said before there are many sources of CO2, so it is not just the amount pumped out by humans that is causing the problem. Some people have tried to use this fact as a reason for not doing anything about global warming, saying that it is not man's fault. It is a dubious argument, and in the end a pointless one. If we want to control the environment then the easiest solution is to adjust the portion of CO2 that is generated by man.

Re:Good news and bad news, and no news

[rickb928]

Thanks for the explanation. I actually didn't even bother to reference temperature, since the article was well into explaining how emissions were reduced but levels were still up, that emissions were down because of diminished economic activity and that levels were reduced because of cooling that inspired vegetation which absorbed more CO2 than usual, and the apparent conclusion that levels increased because generation and absorption both increased, all because while generation was down, it was actually up.

Yup. It made no sense to me either. The answer is to trust them.

Re:Good news and bad news, and no news

[jbengt]

You need some practice in reading comprehension (as do most news reporters and slashdot submitters).
It's easy:
The rate at which we added CO2 to the atmosphere went down.
The rate at which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere went up.
Those two changes combined were not enough to lower the rate of pumping CO2 into the air below the rate that nature can remove it, so the actual amount of CO2 in the air went up.
Science, it's already being used here.

Re:Good news and bad news, and no news

[rickb928]

Not that actually writing an understandable article has any purpose here.

I don't think the author really meant for us to understand.

This is getting creepy common

[HeckRuler]

We need to lose about 3 billion people,

I'm sorry, but this line right here makes you evil. Plain old fashioned evil. The type of evil megalomaniac that wants to KILL OFF THREE BILLION PEOPLE.

Now now, I guess I have to take that back. If you're willing to make a show of good will, and volunteer to be one of the first of the 3 billion, then I guess you're not evil.
Well?

Re:This is getting creepy common

[Duradin]

People die on their own. Life has a 100% mortality rate. Wait a while, don't replace 3 billion people that died of natural causes (i.e. life) and you've lost 3 billion from the total population without actively killing anyone.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[Lumpy]

Not kill them, I think what his point is we do too much to make it safe for the stupid people.

WE don't "cull the herd" anymore. The complete morons of the world are protected from danger. And the ones that do hurt themselves from being stupid, they are saved from death.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with stopping that "dumb" breeding you smartie.

President Comacho: I thought your head would be bigger.

or

Secretary of State: But Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[HeckRuler]

Well that's true, but when claiming that we need to "lose" half the populace, I'd appreciate a little bit of a disclaimer least people get all eugenicsy.

And getting at a deeper issue, overpopulation is not the problem. People are a resource. They can convert food, shelter, security, and entertainment into real meaningful productive work that helps everyone more then it costs everyone. If that wasn't true, then society is a farce.
Now, pollution and emission are externalizations of factories, cars, farms, and whatnot. Those can be dealt with, but it takes real meaningful productive work.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[commodore64_love]

+1.

People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.

People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to around 200 million by mid-century. To choose a future with unrestrained births, where millions of people will be starving is the ultimate inhumanity.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[HeckRuler]

And since a future Idiocracy is a horrible world, we should only allow the smart people to breed.

OR, since the future is apparently doomed to wide-spread starvation and apocalyptic nightmares, how about we simply stop breeding all together and avoid all that misery.

But seriously, as an alternative, how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy is derived from renewable resources, pollution is kept in check, and doomsayers are laughed at. I think anyone who chooses otherwise is a little cold hearted myself. But what's creepy and evil is when you start viewing other people as a burden, rather then a resource.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[roman_mir]

Life has a 100% mortality rate.

- are you certain about that? There were about 100 Billion people on this planet, when they are all added up, but today there are about 7Billion who are still alive.

I'd say that certainty of mortality can be calculated to somewhere near 93%.

It's true, statistically speaking!

Re:This is getting creepy common

[commodore64_love]

>>>how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy

This future does not exist. When the oil becomes scarce, there's nothing to replace it. Sure we have solar but you'd have to pave-over half of the States with panels to get the same amount of energy that oil provides us, and since that's impractical, the US will be suffering an "energy drought" and have to revert to 1800s-style living (and population will shrink rapidly to ~100 million via starvation).

I'm sorry you want to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and deny this will happen, but doing that won't make it go away.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[sumdumass]

Yea, because all other human history and inherent traits would suggest that giving up is better then fixing the problem before or when it happens.

Here is a hint, most all of the things in the world as you know it today, are a result of someone fixing the problems of the past. I suspect the future would be much different then you theorize as well.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is expected to reach 310 million by 2010 and 439 million[17] by 2050."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_population

Re:This is getting creepy common

[riverat1]

While I agree with your previous post about population control I read somewhere (and don't have a citation) that it would take a solar array about 40 miles square to provide all of the worlds power. That's a far cry from paving over half the states.

Re:This is getting creepy common

[HeckRuler]

Coal. Somewhere around the $5/gallon mark, it becomes economically viable to liquify coal and feed it to cars and whatnot. Bio-fuel, Brazil has been running cars on ethanol for years. Batteries, hydrogen, or hell, even flywheels can store energy. That means grid power can move these things for us. That means coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, solarheat, geothermal, and whatever else they'll cook up. In case you haven't noticed, there's been this alternative energy thing going around. Now, oil IS going to run out. And before it does, it's going to get ludicrously expensive. When the price rises, alternatives look more and more promising. And there will always be alternatives. They may be more expensive, or more polluting, or require virgin sacrifices, but the world will go on. No trend continues forever.

But you don't like that answer. For some reason, you need to feel that the world is going to end. I've never really understood this aspect of humanity. It's been with us since antiquity, and I don't see it going anywhere. So relax, the world is not doomed. Things might change. But they're not going to change that much that fast.

Need to edit the title on this article

[hAckz0r]

It should read:

The Carbon Dioxide rate increased less in 2009 than in 2008, due to circumstance other than human intent or modification of behaviour.

You can thank La Niña, the souring oceans (and dying corals), and a slight downturn in deforestation due to the bad Economy. Can we reflect on this story again next year after this "improvement" has its chance to work its magic?

Re:Need to edit the title on this article

[rrohbeck]

2010 is on track to record territory again, despite the recession:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121160229.htm

Stabilize emissions at 350 ppm?

[bunratty]

We can't "stabilize emissions at 350 ppm". We can stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 85%. We can do this by a combination of obtaining energy from sources other than fossil fuels (nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) and using the energy more efficiently (CFL and LED lighting, increased insulation, hybrid vehicles, etc.).

Re:Stabilize emissions at 350 ppm?

[TooMuchToDo]

Your newsletter, I'd like to subscribe to it.

/electric vehicle owner
//when not doing IT, I help build windfarms

Re:Stabilize emissions at 350 ppm?

[bunratty]

Gee, I'm just explaining what seems to be incredibly obvious to me, and seems to get lost in all the denial about the issue.

Re:Stabilize emissions at 350 ppm?

[TooMuchToDo]

Who would've thought it'd be this hard?

Re:Stabilize emissions at 350 ppm?

[bunratty]

I guess it's like this when there's a truth that's too uncomfortable to bear. It's like discussing evolution with a fundamentalist. They'll twist everything around and around, even though evolution is incredibly simple and obvious once you understand it. The whole AGW "debate" has been muddied with misinformation from those who don't want to admit it's happening, so it all seems far more complicated than it really is.

Sloppy Slashdot Summary Sends Senior Screaming

[Levetron]

Short and Sweet:
* An increase in carbon-dioxide uptake does not cause emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas to fall.
* Emission units are kg/s not ppm.
* Primarily should be followed be ONE cause not TWO

kneejerk much?

[Thud457]

He didn't specify how to get the population down to that level.
Since some studies show that the birth rate drops as societies become more prosperous, maybe he's proposing to make us all rich. I could get onboard on that.

Too bad there's no real scientific method here.

[Anonymous Coward]

  Trying to correlate CO2 amounts with temperature rise to sea rise is total bullshit. There's no real science. There's only emotion fueled speculation.

  When climate scientists step away from the F.U.D. fueled power play, and generate hard, repeatable, well documented research, then people will take them seriously. And no, none of what's been done to date is well documented.

Re:Too bad there's no real scientific method here.

[TooMuchToDo]

Wait, so you're telling me I should believe you over the consensus of 1,000+ scientists? *Nelson from the Simpson's Voice* HAHA!

Really Bad idea

[SuperKendall]

Forests naturally deal with fire quite well thank you. Happily modern forestry realizes this and lets the forest cycle happen naturally, where possible... sometimes housing around an area means you have to harvest.

Re:Really Bad idea

[rufty_tufty]

"Forests naturally deal with fire quite well thank you"
Agreed, but that's not the point the gp was trying to make. The average stable forest isn't the o2 source or co2 sink that some environmentalists would have you think. Only by removing matter from the forest and using it/burying it where it won't rot will it sequester co2 thereby reducing humanity's effect.
The point being a stable forest releases co2 from wood rotting or being burnt. If it absorbed co2, then its mass would constantly increase. What is actually happening in a stable forest is that there is an almost perfect balance and therefore a healthy stable forest is more or less carbon neutral.

Now if you were to occasionally cut down the wood and put it to other uses (e.g. housing or tables as gp mentions) and allow new growth, then you have a co2 capturing scheme. If you cut it down and build concrete buildings in it's place or just let it turn to desert/scrubland then you're the human race and deserve what you'll get...

Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[ukonvasara]

Does anyone in their right mind actually consider The Christian Science Monitor a reliable source of information on any topic???? Remember these are the guys that use "e-meters" and considers them to be scientifically sound. I wouldn't believe anything they claims is scientifically proven without a RELIABLE source to back that claim up. Slashdot, I am ashamed that any of your readers are stupid enough to think The Christian Science Monitor has any scientific basis.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[bunratty]

Their news reporting is usually pretty good. In this case, however, there seem to be major problems with the article.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[gnesterenko]

Umm, you are talking about the Christian Science Monitor as if it is an outlet for Scientology (it isn't). While I will agree with you on anything and everything negative you have to say about Scientology, this isn't it.

In fact, the website publication has always made an effort to remain non-sensationalist and publish reliable information, rooted in science and not religion (IE you won't find articles about creationism in there). I wouldn't decry this article either - although it is not very well represented in the summary on this page. But at least check out the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor.

Sooo, perhaps you'd like to remove that foot from its current location?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Re:Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[bunratty]

Christian Science is also pretty goofy. Many members believe that all illness is curable by belief and prayer. One time my Dad was dating a Christian Scientist, and she initially refused to go to a doctor after she broke her leg in a skiing accident. After a few days of excruciating pain, she finally realized that having the leg set and immobilized was probably the best idea.

But, you're right, reporting from The Christian Science Monitor is usually pretty good. My dad was surprised when he realized this, of course!

Re:Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... Check your facts. You're confusing the Church of Christ, Scientist with the Church of Scientology.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[jbengt]

The Christian Science Monitor is a well respected newspaper, no matter what people think of the Christian Science religion.
And Christian Science has nothing to do with "e-meters" or Scientology.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? Really?!?!?

[spike hay]

I used to love the CS Monitor. Historically, it has been one of the best news sources around. I think the last year or two the quality of reporting has really gone downhill. It always seems dumbed down like they are trying to compete with CNN.

No, carbon emissions did not fall

[rcamans]

Total air carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels fell. Those levels are carbon emissions - carbon consumption.
Carbon consumption is done by green plants, primarily trees, and bodies of water, primarily the ocean.
        The ocean is getting overloaded.
        Forests are getting cut down without re-planting in the third world.

Carbon emissions are primarily done by man-made processes and volcanoes. The big man-made processes are:
        concrete (it emits a lot while curing), which is increasing, especially in China
        burning of forests / jungles
        coal / gas / oil burning

So your interpretation that carbon emissions are falling is probably true, but from the above, it does not make sense.

Dumb fucking mods. Holy shit!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit!! First, dkleinsc makes a lame joke and gets modded "Funny". After being questioned about it, he offers an explanation and gets modded "Insightful", instead of "Informative".

Come on, mods - are you fucking people stupid?

What's next? Are you going to mod me a troll, instead of insightful?

Enough already

[Anomalyx]

There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control. Anyone who has studied formation of tyrannies knows that it always starts with something seemingly harmless that removes previous freedoms, and just exponentiates from there.

Re:Enough already

[bunratty]

Got any better ideas? I'm sure many people would love to hear them if you've got them. Oh, right, it's easier just to criticize how someone else is dealing with a problem than it is to actually provide a better solution.

Re:Enough already

[Abcd1234]

There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control.

Educate yourself, Mr. Libertarian. Start off by memorizing the definitions of "negative externality" and "tragedy of the commons". I would then direct you to the fact that the only solution to dealing with negative externalities is to internalize them. And that means government intervention.

And before you say it, libertarians typically attack this problem through private property ownership. ie, land pollution becomes a property rights issue, and is litigated in court accordingly. Unfortunately, air ownership makes no sense, and so there's no sensible way to deal with CO2 emissions in this way.

In short: your idealized theory is about as practical, in the real world, as communism. Deal.

And emissions rise will not change until ...

[Anonymous Coward]

all nations are working on cutting them. And China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc will not cut until others do it and all are required to do so.

There is really only one way to make this happen. That is for the west to tax ALL GOODS based on emissions from where the GOOD and primary sub-component comes from. When you do that, then and only then will all nations decide that it is in their best interest to drop their emissions.
 
The other issue is that ppl think that doing emissions per capita is the way to go. That is about the stupidest idea that I have ever seen. It ranks up there with cap/trade. Emissions should be on per sq. km of land. That way a nation can decide how to attack the issue. For some in Africa and South America and Asia, they may elect to grow their forests to take up CO2. For others, they may clean up their business side. For others, their citizen side. But to do a per captia is to reward nations that lie about population, as well as it rewards those that have no birth control.

Re:And emissions rise will not change until ...

[bunratty]

When AGW deniers claim that it's hopeless to cut carbon dioxide emissions because it relies on every country doing so, I propose this idea. Of course, it's instantly shot down as also being obviously hopeless by those same deniers. It seems like it would work to me.

As far as growing forests to take up CO2 goes, that won't do much good. When the trees die and rot the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down and bury them so the carbon is sequestered. Still, it's an inefficient way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are artificial chemical processes that are about 1000 times more efficient than plants, although these have not been proven to scale up or be cost effective.

Re:And emissions rise will not change until ...

[presidenteloco]

Emissions per square kilometer will result in increased economic migration to lower population-density countries (such as, say, the entire west.)

Why should I stay around in a crowded place being held down to a lower standard of living by a lower personal emissions cap?

Emissions per capita is the only fair way to do it, unless you are saying some people, depending on their place of origin,
are inherently worth less than other people, and that they don't deserve the same rights as other people. Is that what you're saying?

Re:And emissions rise will not change until ...

[GodfatherofSoul]

Unfortunately, that won't happen with all of the pro-corporate trade laws. I think it's actually illegal to levy tariffs like this under WTO membership rules. I think the Bush administration got sued for trying to use tariffs to protect US steel manufacturing.

Re:And emissions rise will not change until ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the highest emissions land based is in the developed nations. In general, that is EU, China, Japan, and South Korea. And by being land-based, not population based, it will enable each nation to address where their emissions are the worst and easiest to control. For developed nations, that will mostly mean controlling emissions from things like Coal and/or Cars. For EU, it is mostly their coal plants. For America, it is our Car and Coal plants. But in both cases, these are easy to control.

And emissions per capita is about the most unfair way that I can think of doing it. Nations like Germany, China and America export a great deal. So, they will need to control their economic emissions. For nations like France, it will mean controlling their cars (perhaps a large move towards electric cars, which they are working at).

Finally, WRT the question of fairness, China has about 1/3 of all the REE in the world. Should they be required to GIVE away REEs? Likewise, Russia has about 1/2 of all fresh water in the world. Should they be required to GIVE it to nations like Saudi Arabia? And of course, Saudi Arabia has loads of oil. SHould they be required to GIVE it away? I mean, your point is all about 'fairness'. Right?
The answer should be that the logic of pollution per capita (esp. when nations lie, and capita move around) is the worst possible answer. It is illogical and the most unfair. Instead, it is far more logical that it be based on land mass. For starters, it means that each nation will be allowed to emit a certain amount and no more. If they are large emitters, they will be taxed by other nations. But if you tie it to per capita, then you encourage nations to allow emigration in, AND encourage population explosion.

Re:And emissions rise will not change until ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what you just wrote. It was illegal for W to impose it on IMPORTED TRADE ONLY. That is called a tariff. Oddly, China still imposes lots of tariffs and everybody ignores that.

OTH, it is totally legal to impose a tax on ALL goods as long is it applied in the same fashion. Not necessarily the same amount, but the same fashion. With this tax, some nations WILL have lower costs. For example, goods shipped from Canada to America will likely have a lower tax than goods inside of America. OTH, goods from Mexico will be higher than either of the two. In fact, more so, because many of the goods are shipped to Mexico from China, and then finally assembled there, and then shipped to America as being made in Mexico (which is why I suggested the assembly AND primary sub-competent; this approach stops such cheating)

uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[HeckRuler]

So libertarians are for the draft and enforcing birth control when they actually have to solve problems? I'm sorry, I really don't like to be the voice against moderation, but if you think that the world is overpopulated, it needs fixing, and to do that the government needs to outlaw having multiple babies, then you're not really libertarian. I know it's not an all or nothing sort of thing, but you're arguing for the draft and government control of people's reproduction rights.

Re:uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[commodore64_love]

>>>So libertarians are for the draft

Did I say that. Even once? No.

However libertarians do support the constitutional requirement that citizens must provide funding for an Army and Navy. Anarchists would call this "theft" but libertarians realize without the army/navy we could be invaded by England or Canada or Mexico or Japan, and we'd have no way to repel them.

Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane. The fact you say you would choose option 1 instead, leaving millions of 2030s Americans die of hunger because there's ~600 million of else and not enough food, makes me think you are Cold hearted.

Re:uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[HeckRuler]

Ah whoops. "Forced to fund an army", not "into". Sorry about that.

Anyway, the government control of breeding rights still stands.

Do you have any idea how much and how many people could eat for the price of one super cruiser? We could make a pipeline from a desalination plant on the Mediterranean to irrigate the middle of the Sahara for that kind of cash.

Re:uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[Bill Dog]

Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane.

Libertarians don't believe that it's your choice to make for everyone else. Nor to say what the choices are for others. Personal opinions about what might be more humane/less cold-hearted notwithstanding. You may only impose things on yourself.

You may, however, try to persuade others to voluntarily go along with what you think is important.

Re:uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[commodore64_love]

So then you believe the government has Zero authority to enforce a quarantine. The next time there's a major breakout of Flu or plague, just let people roam around freely spreading the disease.

I may be Libertarian but even I am not that stupid. Enforce quarantine. The trampling of one person's freedom to travel (i.e. lock them in a home or hospital) is a small price compared to watching millions die if said person spread the virus.

Re:uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[Bill Dog]

Libertarians believe we should err on the side of freedom. I don't think I could ever be convinced that we should ever start rounding people up like cattle. If a pandemic got really bad, close govt. offices and ask everyone to stay home. Less effective, but more respectful. And to a libertarian, the goal is not efficacy, but liberty.

To a libertarian, the goal is individual freedom, not the survival of the species. This is secondary, by philosophy. Or the earth. Or the govt. Or society. Or any other Leftist's notion of what should come first. All your "small price" to pays add up, and can add up to a death by a thousand cuts.

Re:uh.... I think you've crossed the liberty line.

[Golddess]

Some might say that their individual freedom to avoid being infected by a deadly disease is more important than someone else's individual freedom to travel.

Ko-Ko

[snspdaarf]

I'm making up a list,
Of those that won't be missed...

Is CO2 really such a problem?

[Ascylon]

I mean has anyone ever considered the cost-benefit of massive CO2 reductions? It is painfully obvious how western technologically advanced civilization is dependant on cheap, reliable and extensive power generation in the form of electricity. Since the beginning of industrialization that has been (and actually still is) fossil fuels. What would happen if all that cheap power generation capacity was replaced with expensive and unreliable wind/solar/tidal power generation capacity? Just as a hint, I recommend you take a look at what massive deployment of wind and solar has done to electricity prices in Spain and what kind of money has been thrown at it in the form of government subsidies.

Now, this is not to say that renewables may not a viable option in the future, I am just saying that with the technology that we have and with the limitations that those power generation methods have, investing in green power is an economical suicide as well as ruinous to the entire concept of western well-being and societal development. As price of electricity goes up, the standards of living and quality of life will decrease and industry will start moving to a country that seems to have a more reasonable take on the role of energy in society (read: China). I can almost see the Chinese political elite dying of laughter as they distantly observe the western society ruin itself with our eco-madness.

Next, let's look at the properties of CO2 itself. It is a trace gas, harmless to humans in concentrations of less than 1% (10000 ppm) and enhances plant growth. The only negative thing about it currently is the theory that it is the sole cause of the last 100 or so years of warming and that the warming is self-reinforcing (more CO2 warms the climate, which releases more CO2, which warms the climate more ad infinitum). It is curious why none or very little of the warming is generally attributed to natural causes or cycles, especially since in the last 10 years the rate of warming has plateaued to about +-0 degrees. As far as I understand it, even though a short interval in climatological timescales, this throws a serious wrench in the theory of ever-increasing warming due to CO2.

Another thing to consider is the 2-degree value that has been arbitrarily picked as the threshold value of warming that we should try to avoid. Why 2 degrees and not 1 or 3? Who's to say 4 degrees of warming won't be beneficial and increase the amount of farmland? Doesn't warmer climate mean higher moisture capacity and perhaps more rain? I am far from convinced that 2 degrees is some kind of magical value that we should try to stay under, especially at any cost.

And finally, nature is always changing. Why should the current state of nature be any better than a warmer one? Why does the theoretical man-made warming necessarily make nature a worse place and the planet worse off than without it? As an example, many times I hear the number of extinct species per day quoted as some kind of number to be sorry for. As species are destroyed, be it naturally or caused by humans, new (or old) ones will take their place and nature will evolve as it always has. It can of course be argued that chopping rain forests for profit is immoral and perhaps even criminal, but attempting to justify those opinions on irrelevant statistics or FUD of the destruction of Earth is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and should be pointed out as such.

Re:Is CO2 really such a problem?

[bunratty]

No, no one has has bothered to do a cost-benefit analysis. I'm so glad someone finally thought of it. Thanks so much for your valuable insight!

Glancing at the last paragraph of your post, the main reason warming is bad is that rising sea levels will put many cities underwater, and relocating the hundreds of millions of people that live there will cost trillions of dollars. This has been explained again and again, but it's awfully hard to hear when you've got your fingers in your ears shouting "Blah Blah Blah! I can't hear you!!!"

Why?

[bjk002]

"If we want to control the environment then the easiest solution is to adjust the portion of CO2 that is generated by man."

Why would you say that? CO2 extraction is not that complicated...

GaAAH! Pass me the CURVED cattle prod!

[RockDoctor]

... I'm going to ram it up the jacksey of the next person who says this :

Many countries have agreed in principle to try to stabilize emissions at 350 ppm by century's end,

Many countries have agreed etc to REDUCE their future emissions so that future CO2 concentrations (get it? CONCENTRATIONS !!) reduce to no more than 350ppm.

And even the 350ppm target CO2 concentration isn't by any means guaranteed to lead to a stable climate. Just a less wildly unstable climate.

I do pity your children more than I pity we who are making these problems for your children.