The latest GEO report is pretty grim. The word is that we need to stop pouring carbon into the sky, to the tune of 70-80% reductions, as of now, or irreversible changes in the environment will be reached. We haven't, since Kyoto, done anything realistic about even levelling off, instead every country has taken note of the meeting, marched out of the conference room and carried on as usual, while making various noises about the "problem" the world faces. But there isn't just one problem, there's a whole heap of problems, or if there is just one, it's us. Or it's our ability to exploit the environment, which doesn't seem to include the ability to preserve it. Or we think we can keep using everything at an increasing rate, like forever, there is no limit to human growth - planet Earth isn't going to hold us back, dam the torpedoes and more coal on the bunkers. I don't personally believe anything is going to extricate us from the feedback that our rampant success will be delivering, sort of in fits and starts, over the coming decades. We won't do anything because: 1) It's too late anyway, so it doesn't matter. We can't stop digging under the big rock, because there's something we need to dig up, we'll all starve, the economy will go into recession, we won't be able to afford that house in the Seychelles, etc etc. 2) We're at least 30 years too late, in terms of the needed public inertia - if we had been as aware globally, back then as today, we might have a real chance of not plowing into that iceberg up ahead. We know we need to turn the ship, but we can't damp down the boilers, because the first-class guests want to get there on time. It's important to their economic circumstances - we can't have any of this slowing down business. 3) About half the world's population probably hasn't heard of Kyoto or the IPCC. The half that has maybe thinks about it now and then, but they're all still driving around. We really aren't doing a thing - installing low-power bulbs is like changing the deck chairs around, in terms of actual effect on energy use. So, how long 'til the boat tips over, or the rock starts rolling down the big hill, or we hit the iceberg, you think?
OK, so you're saying these are two things that might help us turn the tide, or you think technology is going to replace the oil industry, and we're going to drive hydrogen-powered cars?
Carbon dioxide is GOOD for the environment. Plants need it for photosynthesis and of course we all know photosynthesis is necessary in order to breathe oxygen. Carbon dioxide was here before the first car was made and it will be here long after the last car is gone. Less than 1% of CO2 is man made. I wish someone would pay me to write a bullshit report. At least it would have a few scientific thoughts in it.
I agree. I don't know how long, but I do know the only thing that could save the environment is to get rid of at least 90% of the human population. Better still, get rid of them all.
How long until we're so far past the "tipping point" that people stop bitching about it? Until we've released so much carbon for so long without apparent ill effect that the environmental alarmists will admit that the sky isn't falling?
This is the kind of statement that, for me, pretty much defines evil. It seems to be quite pervasive throughout the environmental movement. You openly wish for the death of every man, woman and child on earth and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously. Be happy no one takes you seriously. Because, if we did, we'd lock you up in prison before you did something to bring about your desire for the extermination of the human race. If you want anyone to listen to you, you'd be much better served to keep your dreams of genocide to yourself.
According to the Georgia Guidestones, the first commandment is to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Eerie, isn't it? I wonder how that goal is to be achieved. What's even weirder is that the stone tablets were financed by a mysterious man who went by the pseudonym, "Mr. R. C. Christian".
I don't want it, and it is quite unrealistic that anything of the sort will ever happen. I just think it would be the only solution to the problem. Needless to say I have given up hope.. we're doomed. Yes 'we', destruction of the environment eventually spells the destruction of the human race. Edit: I don't want it, but I would do it if given the power. I rather sacrifice one so the rest can live, than to do nothing and let all die.
Geez Enmos, can you imagine turning to your mother and saying to her face, "Mom, I've been given the power to kill every human on Earth, including you and me, and I'm going to do it"?
Yes. Sorry, I must be evil. But it will never happen Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I can whip up an analogy if you want..
Thanks for pointing out the Georgia Guidestones. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'd never heard of them. As I said, these ideas are pervasive throughout the environmental movement.