Slashdot Mirror
IEA Warns of Irreversible Climate Change In 5 Years
iONiUM writes "As a follow up to the previous slashdot story, there has been a new release by the International Energy Agency indicating that within 5 years we will have irreversible climate change. According to the IEA, 'There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn (£250.7bn).'"
For example, in the linked article.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Tell you what - take a tour of what used to be the USSR some time... the vast majority of the ecological damage there (esp. what used to be the Aral Sea) was done by a decidedly non-capitalistic government, hell-bent on a 'glorious revolutionary future'.
Or, you can drop the sophomoric and faux-intelligent 'OAMG teh capitalizm is teh nexus of 3vilz!' act.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Actually, as their own standard of living has risen, their own birth rate has fallen in proportion. If the current rate of change is maintained, third world countries will not have high birth rates for much longer.
Good Lord, look at that graph. In the past I would say something like, "China's per capita emissions are still 1/4 of ours, even though we exported all our heavy industry there." But look at that graph! Scientists are saying we need to immediately make major reductions, and instead the curve is headed almost straight up. We are so screwed.
Most tariffs (tax on imports) have been very effective. Another example would be road tolls.
Actually, if your goal is to reduce consumption, it would be difficult to find a tax that is ineffective.
A single nation, US of A releases 25% of world's greenhouse gases. "Third world" is not even in the picture here. US beats everyone even in emissions per dollar of economic activity. I don't remember the book name, but here's a world map I found: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=299#
Sure. And the simple and well-tested way of getting lower birthrates, is by upping living-standard.
Europe as a whole is already basically reproducing at replacement-levels, USA is a little above, but much of that is due to first-generation immigrants outbreeding the average, and due to an overabundance of teenage pregnancies. (something that's fixable by reducing shame and increasing knowledge about contraception)
Actually, a carbon tax might work, if it applies to imported goods as well. Of course, China would scream bloody murder.
When has a tax ever done anything? Name one!
Apart from funding well working societies and policies[1]: Taxes affect people's behaviour by affecting demand via price. Here in Norway, it has had a large effect on alcohol and tobacco consumption - and when car taxes changed to be partially based on CO2 emissions a couple of years ago, it had a large effect on mix of cars sold: More diesel, less gasoline, smaller and more modern engines.
[1]: Sure, one can discuss some policies and the exact tax level but the main conclusion is that society is a lot better off with infrastructure, general education, police, health care etc.
I am waiting for even one of their predictions to come true. For example: ocean level has actually decreased over the last couple of years.
Over the last couple of years? Do a Google image search on "ocean levels graph" and you can see numerous versions of graphs that show the ocean levels going up and down for individual years, but the average over time keeps increasing. To choose a "couple of years" to prove that the predictions are wrong is simple cherry picking data to give a false impression of what is happening.
It isn't far removed from saying that it is cooling because yesterday was warmer than today. People do the same trick to discredit climate change by saying that over the last few years it has been getting cooler, but when you look at the temperature on a decade by decade basis, it just keeps getting hotter.
The other side of the argument falls into the same trap. You cannot point to the temperature of a single year and say that it is proof of climate change. People did that back in 1998 to make predictions of disaster, and they were wrong because it was El Nino that caused the sudden spike in that year. Similarly, anyone who uses 1998 since then to "prove" that the Earth is actually cooling is making the exact same mistake. To eliminate the spikes in a single year or group of years, you have to look at the longer term average. I am afraid that this is yet to show that the warming trends have reversed, nor have the sea levels have stopped rising.
Actually, most scientists agree it's much warmer now than during the MWP.
Here are the modern temperature reconstructions for the last 1000 years.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
If you have solid evidence that the WMP was globally warmer than today, I'd love to see it.
You oppose a scientific report [an interesting word to choose], calling it propaganda. Why? Tautologically, your answer is
You also call troll to posters who point out the strong dichotomy in your belief system; that you want a scientific view, but not a science that actually works as science. Instead, you'd prefer one that finds things that you oppose to be incorrect.
I withdraw my accusations of your profligacy with resources, your perceived selfishness, and I apologise. I now think you do not understand the scientific arguments surrounding climate change and should withdraw from further commentary.
Bingo. Studies all over the world show that a woman's level of education is negatively correlated to the number of children she has. Women with high levels of education have options and opportunity costs to raising children that don't exist for someone with low levels of education.
The problem is that people like GPLHOST-Thomas have a devout religious belief that people MUST procreate as much as possible, thus any attempt to persuade people to have fewer children is equivalent to murder in their eyes.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The details of the plan are that it's an emissions trading scheme, initially with a fixed price per tonne of CO2 emitted. Only heavy-emitting companies have to pay it - I can't remember what the threshold is, but it affects roughly 500 companies. Of course those companies will pass much of the costs onto consumers, however they will also put effort into reducing their carbon emissions to gain financial advantage. Petrol/gas is specifically exempt from the trading scheme for individuals.
The modelling of increased cost of living, which takes into account increased grocery prices, electricity prices, etc, comes out at $10 per week for the average household. The government is spending part of the money raised in the form of tax cuts and pension increases, compensating low income earners a bit more than $10 per week. If those low income earners then reduce their carbon footprints (get rid of the second fridge, buy the now-cheaper goods with a lower carbon footprint), then they come out ahead. Those earning over $80K can afford the $10 per week.
He means per capita. So China's high population would dilute the tax per person.
Unfortunately for OP, the US is not the highest emitter by that metric. Australia, Canada, and a host of other small oil-producing countries equal or exceed it. Furthermore, if you divide by average household income (ability to pay a tax per capita), the U.S. drops even further down the list.