-
1
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial g
One word. Climategate.
I'm all for conservation and not polluting the environment with
persistent toxins and heavy metals, but I'm distressed that even
after the lid blows off of the climate change movement that
people are putting their hands over their ears yelling "I'm not
listening! I'm not listening!"
We need to stop and take account of what's going on here
before we take even one more step towards global climate
taxes and world government based on the premise of CO2
emissions.
-
2
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Think outside the box
or in the case... the earth.
It really surprises (well... not really), how lacking in vision most
of the "climate visionaries" are. When examined closely, their
"visions" are nothing more than a declining future of less and
less for succeeding generations.
They completely ignore the limitless (or nearly so when talking
about current projected human needs) resources of the solar
system that are literally just lying there for the taking.
The future of man's survival is in space, not on earth. Because
that's where the resources and opportunities are. Both are
limited here.
Life on earth is fragile not because the earth is fragile, but
because the earth can be inhospitable to all life. So much so, it
(the earth) has nearly extinguished it on several occasions.
Even if mankind totally ceased every form of pollution, to stay
on earth is to sit around and wait for the inevitable. Caused by
forces we do not and can not control, true climate change will
not be altered/stopped by human efforts. To think otherwise is
simply arrogant beyond imagination.
-
3
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
Can you completely agree and disagree with a story at the same time?
I compare the rapid growth companies to the processor speed race a few years back. It finally got to the point that a faster processor made the computer slower because the bus and other components of the PC couldn't keep up. If the companies can switch their focus to the limiting factors they can continue to grow. If not, they fail.
God made the planet to do a great job of regulating itself. The more CO2 the better plants grow so the more O2 is produced. We could probably mess up enough of the planet to do the things some scientists are claiming we are doing, but I think we would have actually try.
The best environmentalists I know are farmers who work with the land daily and not some scientist who is fishing for government grants and/or fame.
-
4
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Have you not heard about Climategate?
To pretend Climategate doesn't exist and bury your head in the sand is a sad commentary. If you want to be considered seriously, you need to address the implications of what looks like the greatest scientific fraud since Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings were declared fraudulent and he was convicted by a jury of his peers of fraud.
No one is going to believe in sustainable growth until Climategate is dealt with. Bite the bullet and address the issue or forever remain irrelevant.
-
5
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
Ironically, its the government's cheap credit policies which drives consumer spending and the purchases of trinkets shipped across the sea, subsidies for housing loans which drives even larger houses, subsidies for road building which drives more energy usage and pollution.
So I agree that government is the problem. But we don't need an "economic policy." We just need to get the government out of this role entirely and into the role of protecting rights. Politicians are highly subject to being bought and to populist pressure for jobs if they have the power to dictate economic policy. They cannot have this power.
I believe it was James Fenimore Cooper who said that nothing corrupts like public office.
-
6
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Maximum potential? File it with these statements . . .
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
- Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents, 1897
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
- Decca Records, rejecting the Beatles, 1962
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home."
- Ken Olsen, CEO, Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"640k ought to be enough for everybody."
- Bill Gates, CEO, Microsoft, 1981
Whatever happened to "Necessity is the mother of invention?"
Do these people really believe that newer, more efficient ways to produe goods and services will never be found again?
-
7
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Important development that needs to accellerate
I've wondered about these very same questions for several years, though without the benefit of any training in economics 
While there clearly is much room for "growth" of a kind in most parts of the world, and yes, still here in good old USA, too, the "growth" indicator that has been used (GDP) seems woefully inefficient. It seems to me what we as a collective might truly care about is not growth (meaning expansion) but the level of economic activity and overall efficiency.
-
8
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
Yes, I share the same agreement. Unless there is another technology breakthrough, otherwise Earth cannot sustain growth in long term.
One of the ways raised to reduce carbon emission is to impose taxes or via carbon credit trading. However, I wonder whether this is going to be effective or not?
I quote the following paragraph from
http://sgenterprise20.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-hopenhagen-project-how-to-reduce.html
The correct way to bring about lower carbon emission is to encourage instead of penalizing people. It is not feasible to slap higher fuel taxes to reduce fuel usage. Does it mean when taxes are applied on oxygen, people will be breathing less oxygen? People will still need to travel to work and goods still need to be moved. While it is possible to pay extra at the moment, are we going to increase the taxes or the price of the carbon credits if emission still continues to grow?
-
9
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
This article clearly represents the state of current groupthink on Climatology. As the above posters have pointed out, the lid is off, the cats out of the bag, and other appropriate idioms, regarding the integrity of the so called global warming. The article does not even mention the problems that the recent disclosures have created. For those of you with your heads in the sand on the issue, the credibility of the researchers and data collection methodology has been revealed to be nonexitant. Yet the devotees of the global warming religion continue to ignor the growing crisis in hostesty and integrity amongst the researchers, choosing instead to blather on about a theory now mired in controversy, hoping that by sheer volume of drivel the credibility will be restored. Thank goodness the flat earthers didnt have the internet to bury the opposition.
-
10
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
America cannot afford anymore bad decisions by the greedy, short sighted children in charge!
The real reason Cap & Trade is being foisted on the world is it creates a 3 trillion dollar commodity market for you guessed it: hot air. Finally politicians have found a way to put a price on their most abundant resource! And for politicians there is no downside as nothing has to be actually produced.
The real beneficiaries are the rich special interest who will get wealthier setting up and trading in this new commodities market. But citizens will pay more taxes to operate new regulatory bureaucracies and more for goods as business passes the cost along.
And all this is based on the premise that operating automobiles is resulting in global warming. Question: did Fred Flintstone?s truck fleet cause the last period of global warming or is global warming a cyclical event that is more affected by sun spot cycles. The Earth has had multiple tropical and glacial ages over the millennia. The most recent news is that the oceans of the world will be cooling for the next 25-30 years.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the most prevalent hot house gas is water vapor. Should citizens of earth try to stop the rain cycle?
And if we are going to implement Cap and Trade who will decide what the optimal CO2 carrying capacity of Earth is?
And there are questions about how to implement financial controls and reliably audit such a system. Will every person and business on the planet be issued C02 permits? Is the permit an asset a business can liquidate when it goes out of business? If a business in California goes out of business and sells its CO2 permit to a company in England, will a new company in California have to find another seller to open his business and replace lost jobs? After all, if there is an optimal CO2 carrying capacity then an increasing population of people and businesses means a lower standard of living and reduced CO2 allotment for each new person or business.
Upon their death can Mom and Dad leave their CO2 permits to their children? Should Mom and Dad be limited to having two children?
What about the countries that do not subscribe to Cap & Trade. Will multi-national companies export new construction and jobs to 3rd world non-subscribing countries? And the flipside, will the people of the Amazon miss out on new opportunities because an American company bought 1000s of acres to be left unused to acquire carbon sequestration credits.
I am against Cap and Trade in the best of times but it is national suicide to consider implementing this costly new program when America's economy is teetering on the brink! The only Cap and Trade I will vote for is handing their Caps to politicians who vote yes on the issue and trading them in for new representatives!
Germany fought WWII with gasoline made from coal. It is proven technology developed in 1917.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal with 1/4th of the deposits on the planet. The US could eliminate American dependence on foreign oil.
And reducing America?s trade imbalance would keep money, technology and jobs here in America. It is estimated that every billion in trade deficit equals 13,000 US jobs lost. And we could quit sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.
But coal is rich in CO2. Isn?t the timing interesting? The world is in recession, US unemployment figures are hovering around 10% and the EPA determines CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated.
SO WHO BENEFITS FROM CAP AND TRADE AND KEEPING AMERICAN COAL IN THE GROUND:
The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Algiers Declaration Algiers, Algeria, 4-6 March 1975
In this context, they emphasize the necessity for the full implementation of the Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its VI Special Session, and accordingly they emphasize the following requirements [excerpt from full declaration]
"With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC?s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries"
A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [Excerpt from declaration] Read sections 10 and 11]
-
11
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
These Malthusian arguments would be amusing if they were not so widely accepted by those in power. Arthur C. Clarke pointed out in 1962 in "Profiles of the Future" that too often scientists and pols suffered from the "failure of imagination" (no, the 9/11 Commission Report didn't invent that phrase! 
) He cites many of the earlier claims along the lines of Jar2 above, regarding the limits to speed trains could go before you couldn't breathe, how the electrical foolishness of "our cousins across the oceans" was decried in Parliament, etc. One of my favorites was IBM founder Thomas J. Watson saying the world just needed 5 computers.
The one factor that is always overlooked in doomsday scenarios is adaptability and ingenuity. What happens during the Little Ice Age? You go somewhere warmer or put on a coat... The history of Civilization is the history of adapting to the environment, yet somehow we have lost that ability today?
-
12
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
We are destined to go back to certain aspects of the pre-industrial age. The fact that we will run out of oil in the foreseeable future will put an end to air travel as there is no alternative fuel. Ships will probably have to revert to sail combined with some other sort of renewable energy.
Unfortunately the real driver of climate change/future unsustainability is unbridled human greed. Cure that and you are over the hump.
It mystifies me how the nexus between climate change and the exhasution of non-renewables is rarely made. Even if the focus of these arguments was to be 100% shifted to the renewables argument, the impact on climate change would still be as effective. However, the argument from those content to continue to cut off the branch we are sitting on would be - like our lifestyles - unsustainable.
Neil
-
13
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Billions of lives depend on continued growth
It's America's amazing ability to produce such an amazing amount of
food off of fewer acres of farmland that has allowed global
populations to swell as they feed off our agricultural surplus.
Imagine for a second the following scenario; what I think is the
inevitable consequences of the doom-n-gloom crowd's dream of reigning
in our economy for the sake of reducing CO2:
Farming would become far less efficient (due to reduced use and
availability of energy-using machinery and transport. More acreage
would be required to produce less food, and a higher percentage of
the population would be required to harvest it. (currently, less
than 2% of us are actually farmers) This would result in starvation
by billions of the planet's "have nots" as surpluses disappear and we
keep more of our own food for ourselves. And at least for a time,
it's likely that as America becomes less affluent, population trends
will reverse and our population will actually rise, consuming even
more food. Eventually, billions will starve.
Of course, inevitably that will mean fewer people on the planet
consuming and spewing CO2. But it will be messy.
-
14
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Completely wrong conclusion and ass-backwards thinking
Chasing growth makes it incredibly difficult to chase climate goals, too. So what we urgently need is an economic system that doesn?t rely on growth. Right now, the one we have is undermining the ability of governments to function properly.
How stupid is that?
We cannot chase growth because the climate goals might not be met?
AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
So then, humankind would have to cease economic growth just to meet some stupid climate goals? Never mind that the whole of climate change "science" has been exposed as fraudulent.
Furthermore, governments are being "undermined in their ability to function properly"???? The opposite is true: government is undermining the ability of the private sector and humankind to function properly.
Reduce government intrusion in the wealth creation process and the world will see boundless economic growth.
-
15
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Good Grief
This presentation was ...
NOT.... about the validity of climate research reported.
Science is not a stationary truth.. it is our constantly changing understanding of nature.
Not... about the limits of technology or human imagination.
Not....about the adaptability of humans.
Not....about the sad quality of our leadership (sigh)
Not....about jobs in the US (the gov really doesn't control this)
Not....about alternative energy (directly).Yea, there was some references to some environmental think tanks with specifics on present limitations.. but that wasn't the point.
The very good question raised ....
Can any system be sustained ...that REQUIRES extreme growth rates?
my answer: I don't know...
but in the context of this subjects in this forum, I doubt it.
reason:
What I have observed about humanities's ability to accept extreme rates of change.
Sometimes ..I am astonished by how fast some people can accept change... (new generations that have never known life without cell phones)
other times, dismayed by how stubbornly some people fight change (Taliban .. wanting to live in the 13th century)
It really isn't about technology or earth's limitations.... it's about earth's societies (in general) limitations.
The basic truths:
- All things of this existence are either growing or decaying
- Underlying purpose of society is to forever advance.
- Change cannot be stopped...
but rates of change are often limited or controlled.
This doesn't mean:
- have unlimited population growth.. just growth within the means of the technology / society / resources at that time... (someday, we will likely migrate to the stars).
in the meantime.. we CAN create people faster than we can solve the problems that come with them...sad to say.
- create lifestyles or expect lifestyles of everyone on earth to be beyond present resource and technology availability. (we can't extract more oil/metals/energy/etc... "at the drop of a hat").
- change present economic models overnight... (not without a lot of pain)
- change society's expectations/assumptions overnight...(highly un-likely)
We should be attempting to plan/anticipate the rates of change.
otherwise .. we have anarchy (chaos).. with much un-needed suffering.
so.. "escalate discussions of this sort to the next level" !
Now where did I leave that bottle of helium-3?
-
16
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
With all due respect to the previous posters, "climate change" is NOT a fraud. Everything has natural cycles, such as the Sun's sunspot cycle (about 22 yrs. for a full cycle). The fraud is how much human activity is contributing to the changes.
With those changes, we will need alternatives to oil for energy, just to maintain life. Forget growth. Unless there is a radical change in energy usage, or there are new discoveries in energy technology (production), the growth we have had for the last 50 years will not continue.
Man has always been an explorer. Our oldest ancestors struck out into the unknown looking for better conditions than what they were leaving behind. This has never changed and hopefully, never will. Marco Polo, Colombus, Lewis & Clarke, and so many others have shown us the way to "boldly go where no one has gone before". The technology that will be needed for that exploration will ultimately benefit all of us in more ways than can be imagined.
After all, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Are we meek? Or bold?
-
17
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial growth?
No shortage of hot air here.
-
18
12/04/09 | Report as spam
RE: What if the planet has sustained our maximum potential for industrial g
As was mentioned by several other posts, thinking people know that the
"climate change" mythology has been exposed as the hoax it is. As with
all previous doomsayers' predictions, this one will be overcome by
events as many developments, large and small, both technical and non-
technical come to fruition. Not to worry. However, by all means, all
of you true believers in the climate catastrophy run for the hills and
await the end while the rest of us move on with our lives.
