DMSP F-17 and F-18 satellites have a story to tell, are we listening?

[Elthy]

1 hour ago, cantab said:

We will all adapt. The very fact that we have an internet connection, a device, and the free time to be on this forum and presumably to play Kerbal Space Program too, means that we are plenty rich enough to handle whatever the climate does. It's the other 90 percent of the world's population that will suffer.

An those will "make" everyone suffer, too (due to wanting to survive). Again, the european refugee crisis is childsplay against that, i dont see a lot of ways this wouldnt result in a nuclear war.

[PB666]

3 minutes ago, Elthy said:

An those will "make" everyone suffer, too (due to wanting to survive). Again, the european refugee crisis is childsplay against that, i dont see a lot of ways this wouldnt result in a nuclear war.

But some economist have been arguing that the arab spring has a climate forcing component, rising local food prices coupled with declining production and water hoarding have increases inter-tribal, group, ethnic competition. 

Overall the africa/middle east reached highest production/technology shortly after the climate maximum and has been in a relative decline since. The problem is that forcing CO2, rising particulates and low pan evaporation rates in the Indian ocean and lowering relative to climate optimum in the glaciation cycle spell particularly bad for the Southwest Asian for almost all of Africa north of the equator. The instability has been rising in African region for more than a decade, its not a recent problem. High fertility rates, the lack of investment in manufacturing economy and long term problems are the base cause of the Syrian issue. 

The fact is that in its current state many of these countries cannot economically support themselves withou a large impoverished population. 

[Darnok]

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

There isn't enough land to provide a viable plot of land to 8 billion people at anything near western standards of living. Look up "ecological footprint". The average european requires 5 ha of land to support their standard of living, which, if extended to the world population, is more than is available. Americans need 10ha. There are only 2.1 global ha of bioproductive land available per capita. 

Last time I've checked in Australia was enough space for everyone to live in small house with small garden, so taking rest of the World as farms would be enough. Also changing style of life means less consumption... how many thing you really need? iphone? tablet? pc? tv? We don't really need so many devices.

 

Quote

So either you have to reduce the population or reduce the standard of living. Of course, you'll have less chance of convincing Western populations to reduce their standard of living than to reduce their CO2 emissions, so it's a lost cause.

Reduction doesn't work in long term... so it is wrong way.

 

Quote

Besides, if every person was to become a farmer of their own land for their own subsistance, you lose efficiency in production. Also, you can't have a modern society where everyone is a farmer. You need a much wider variety of skill sets for a society to be productive.

And I said not every piece of land is good for farming... which means we would need people with different skill sets.

 

Quote

And if everyone is handed 2.1 hectares of land, and that land happens to get flooded, polluted, or not viable, then "adapting" is going to mean moving somewhere else, potentially taking someone else's land. That is surely going to end well.

Like right now it would be different.

Quote

Global problems require global solutions. Climate change and pollution doesn't care about borders. If you decide to take measures to adapt, and those measures are defeated by neighbours who choose to ignore reality, then you're screwed. This is where either diplomacy kicks in or you go to war.

That is empty statement and reason where things started to go wrong way. Since global corporation started to produce so many not needed products and tons of garbage and pollutions. You can solve this problem going back to local societies.

So you wouldn't oppose if someone would told you what you can buy/build/or manufacture? We should, in first place, respect independence of each nation. Then we should worry about climate or we end up in world full of slaves.

 

Quote

Once the effects of climate change start hitting economical interests, there is no more scientific research. When major cities are flooded, industries are shut down, populations are displaced, and demographic tensions arise, your society switches to survival mode.

10 or 20 years simply isn't enough for our societies to adapt. 

So when this apocalyptic flood is going to start? Is it going to be at same time all over the world?

 

2 hours ago, cantab said:

We will all adapt. The very fact that we have an internet connection, a device, and the free time to be on this forum and presumably to play Kerbal Space Program too, means that we are plenty rich enough to handle whatever the climate does. It's the other 90 percent of the world's population that will suffer.

And making limits on fossil fuels for developing countries is going to let those poor people make more money and improve their style of life? Or they are going to stay poor over longer period of time, because their poor countries are not allowed to get cheaper energy from coal or oil?

 

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

If i am reading Darnok correctly, thats what he wants, a seventh of the world deserves their fate because they lack the proper adaptive mutations, CO2 is more or less a convinient reason for institutional genocide. Namely they did not crawl out of their mud huts and eliminate all the coal miners, burners and feed lot technicians when they had the chance, survival of the fitest. There was a term for this in the early 20th century, though i forget the name.

I want solution that would allow poor countries to develop faster and cheaper... which will improve life standards of those poor people.

Meanwhile most of you wants to use, just like you said, early 20th century ideologies to FORCE them and put limits on their developing rate. Because you are part of smarter and better developed society and you have RIGHTS to say what those poor people are allowed to do on their land and with their resources.
That is totally WWII German ideology, back then Germans also thought they are smarter than other nations in Europe and they have rights to all lands they want... and they have rights to create laws for all nations.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Darnok

[Elthy]

Leaving developing countrys using coal like central europe in the 19th century is simply no option and has to be prevented. There are other ways to help them get power, renewables are one option. The prices are falling that fas that its only a matter of time until the are cheaper than coal, until then richer countrys could fund the power with developement funds. If someone still want to use coal the price of coal is apparently not high enough, so force by economical or even military means should be applied.

[Darnok]

9 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Leaving developing countrys using coal like central europe in the 19th century is simply no option and has to be prevented. There are other ways to help them get power, renewables are one option. The prices are falling that fas that its only a matter of time until the are cheaper than coal, until then richer countrys could fund the power with developement funds. If someone still want to use coal the price of coal is apparently not high enough, so force by economical or even military means should be applied.

So you want to FORCE people to use technology you allow them to use, in their own countries? And you want to forbid them to use resources that are available in their countries? So they would have to pay more for "clean energy" and be poor for longer time?

What about freedom and independence? Are we going to forget about those values, because today America doesn't need them.. today America needs clean air... so it is time to enslave people?

Now imagine how USA would react if someone would try to force them in 20th century to use technologies that were not profitable... You would get few nukes on your face just for saying that on public

Edited May 18, 2016 by Darnok

[PB666]

16 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I want solution that would allow poor countries to develop faster and cheaper... which will improve life standards of those poor people.

Meanwhile most of you wants to use, just like you said, early 20th century ideologies to FORCE them and put limits on their developing rate. Because you are part of smarter and better developed society and you have RIGHTS to say what those poor people are allowed to do on their land and with their resources. That is totally WWII German ideology, back then Germans also thought they are smarter than other nation in Europe and they have rights to all lands they want... and they have rights to create laws for all nations.

Well for example I have a problem with Coal use anywhere not just in the developing countries. Coal burning transfers the energy needs of one generation to other innocent bystanders and to the next generation who do not burn coal. Indochina is an excellent example, they have shifted the Pan-evaporation rates and thus are consequential in the famines affecting africa. But in the world court do starving Africans have a right to sue? We see a generation of malnurished kids that with little future potential as a source of the next generation of unrest. The brown cloud that waifs over Japan an blankets the Northern Pacific is responsible for lung disease in Fukuoka, and for La Nino affects on the US plains states, do they have a right to sue China. The mercury produced from Lignite coal in Texas poisoned the waterways and resulted in mercury poisoned fish, in many lakes no fish over a foot are safe to eat and in the estuaries fish over 30 inches are not safe to eat. Yeah, so no I don't think a power plant in East Texas has the right to burn lignite Coal, nor do tree burners in and Coal plants in India have the right to cause droughts in Africa, nor do Chinese have the right to choke Japanese. Everyone talks about clean coal, but cleaning up coal even in 1st world countries takes decades, and coming from a refining cities and interacting with people in those industries I can tell you all they ways they have found to cheat the system, like releasing their most toxic emissions on rainy or foggy days. In the dev world corruption would allow this to go on all the time. Fortunately in my state, the farmers who had a backbone stood up and said no more lignite coal power plants, it makes sense because the mercury devalues their crops. But a tribesman in Africa cannot stand up to a municipality in India and say the same thing. Thats is a form of institutional discrimination. The second thing, many of these coal plants are simply inefficient, replacement of which would pay-off in a few years.

[Darnok]

3 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Well for example I have a problem with Coal use anywhere not just in the developing countries. Coal burning transfers the energy needs of one generation to other innocent bystanders and to the next generation who do not burn coal. Indochina is an excellent example, they have shifted the Pan-evaporation rates and thus are consequential in the famines affecting africa. But in the world court do starving Africans have a right to sue? We see a generation of malnurished kids that with little future potential as a source of the next generation of unrest. The brown cloud that waifs over Japan an blankets the Northern Pacific is responsible for lung disease in Fukuoka, and for La Nino affects on the US plains states, do they have a right to sue China. The mercury produced from Lignite coal in Texas poisoned the waterways and resulted in mercury poisoned fish, in many lakes no fish over a foot are safe to eat and in the estuaries fish over 30 inches are not safe to eat. Yeah, so no I don't think a power plant in East Texas has the right to burn lignite Coal, nor do tree burners in and Coal plants in India have the right to cause droughts in Africa, nor do Chinese have the right to choke Japanese. Everyone talks about clean coal, but cleaning up coal even in 1st world countries takes decades, and coming from a refining cities and interacting with people in those industries I can tell you all they ways they have found to cheat the system, like releasing their most toxic emissions on rainy or foggy days. In the dev world corruption would allow this to go on all the time. Fortunately in my state, the farmers who had a backbone stood up and said no more lignite coal power plants, it makes sense because the mercury devalues their crops. But a tribesman in Africa cannot stand up to a municipality in India and say the same thing. Thats is a form of institutional discrimination. The second thing, many of these coal plants are simply inefficient, replacement of which would pay-off in a few years.

Can you answer me those simple questions... forcing limits on fossil fuels for developing countries is going to let those poor people make more money and improve their style of life?
OR they are going to stay poor over longer period of time, because their poor countries are not allowed to get cheaper energy from coal or oil?

What problem you want to solve? Economical in poor countries? You want clean air all over the World at cost of poor people lives? Because making limits, because of global warming, leads to poor people being poor for longer period of time.

And this leads to less competition on new technologies, what means we have slower scientific progress and we are going to burn fossil fuels longer and we emit more CO2 and even worse pollutions. So that is what you want?

Or you want fast technological progress and end of "fossil fuel" era as soon as possible?

 

[PB666]

20 minutes ago, Darnok said:

So you want to FORCE people to use technology you allow them to use, in their own countries? And you want to forbid them to use resources that are available in their countries? So they would have to pay more for "clean energy" and be poor for longer time?

What about freedom and independence? Are we going to forget about those values, because today America doesn't need them.. today America needs clean air... so it is time to enslave people?

Now imagine how USA would react if someone would try to force them in 20th century to use technologies that were not profitable... You would get few nukes on your face just for saying that on public

Because in the 19th century the US population was smaller, the life expectancy was lower for all causes, as a relative cause of death. We can add to that we did not really understand the devasting effect of Mercury until the 'crazy-cats' incidence in Japan that was 1950's.

Fully recognized potential for many environmental toxins from 1960 onward. Coal produces a number of these. Mercury, carcinogenic particulates, other toxic and inflammatory metals.
Plant have been linked to mercury toxicity in fish eaters in Japan, United States. The coal plants particulates have been linked to increased incidences of lung cancer and rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and exacerbation of post infection sequella, increased risk of tuberculosis. We in the US now know and practice to some degree based on that knowledge. It is however below my standard and trust levels with the corporations that run these plants. 

The second issue is that problems don't show up immediately, but often take a generation. Epigenetic changes that occur in parents can affect their offspring making them more susceptible, as noted in the video, Stopping pollution of certain kinds does not translate immediately to baseline risk in those born of parents who were exposed, even if the parents were assymptomatic.

IMO, permitting the production of energy from facilities in which the risk characterizations are well know and high shows signs of ignorance more than advancement. And in the case of India, what good is the coal, if the particulates are lowering rainfall rates and lack of water means you cannot operate the plant?

 

[Darnok]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Because in the 19th century the US population was smaller, the life expectancy was lower for all causes, as a relative cause of death. We can add to that we did not really understand the devasting effect of Mercury until the 'crazy-cats' incidence in Japan that was 1950's.

More nonsense... so why you want to force countries that are on level of 19th century US to use more expensive fuels than US did at this level of their development? This is fair according to you?

Some countries are way smaller than US was back then, why you want to limit them? Read my post about independence... it is fair to abuse it?

 

You didn't answered my simple questions.. about what do you want to solve and how? Right now you condemn poor countries with low life standards to be poor for much longer period of time.

Laws should be fair worldwide, so if US in 19th and 20th century was allowed to burn cheap fuels, same law should apply today for all countries that are on those levels of development... unless it is pure hypocrisy and way of being TOP1 World industry by slowing down growing competitors.

 

[PB666]

11 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Can you answer me those simple questions... forcing limits on fossil fuels for developing countries is going to let those poor people make more money and improve their style of life?
OR they are going to stay poor over longer period of time, because their poor countries are not allowed to get cheaper energy from coal or oil?

What problem you want to solve? Economical in poor countries? You want clean air all over the World at cost of poor people lives? Because making limits, because of global warming, leads to poor people being poor for longer period of time.

And this leads to less competition on new technologies, what means we have slower scientific progress and we are going to burn fossil fuels longer and we emit more CO2 and even worse pollutions. So that is what you want?

Or you want fast technological progress and end of "fossil fuel" era as soon as possible?

If I were to build a house right now, anywhere in the world accept the arctic or Antarctica, at this very moment, I would invest in solar panels because.

1. I have control of my power supply, I am not creating dependencies that strengthen the corrupt and weaken the consumer.
2. I am not poisoning my family with agents either directly or indirectly,
3. They are relatively cheap and do not require alot of technology, the are most efficient when used locally.

If I am a country I would seek out the technological means to mine, produce and assemble the same. Which china is doing, but they are late to the game, the reinvestment in energy economy instead of the real-estate economy or other economies in China would have granted them a higher payback for dollar spent.

[Elthy]

I allready said that you could subsidise renewables or e.g. gas (way better than coal at least) with money from developed countrys. That way it would become a logical and enomocial reasonable choice, even if they arent thinking long term. Only if someone still wants to use coal for e.g. ideological reasons force should be applied...

[Nibb31]

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Last time I've checked in Australia was enough space for everyone to live in small house with small garden, so taking rest of the World as farms would be enough.

Also changing style of life means less consumption... how many thing you really need? iphone? tablet? pc? tv? We don't really need so many devices.

Isn't that it contradiction with your other claims? You want people to be free to adopt the lifestyle that they want, but you want everyone to live in a house with a garden. You want populations to advance technology, but you want to deny them access to technology. 

A small house with a garden is about the most unecological way to live:

• Domestic gardens require huge amounts of water (especially if you set them up in places like the Australian outback).
• They make urban planning and common transportation a nightmare.
• Common infrastructure has to cover much wider areas.

Cities are much more rational and efficient, and therefore more ecological. Resources and infrastructures are shared and transportation is easier because of the density and shorter distances.

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Reduction doesn't work in long term... so it is wrong way.

We are going to have to reduce our reliance on burning stuff if we want to survive. It's as simple as that.

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And I said not every piece of land is good for farming... which means we would need people with different skill sets.

So why do you want everyone to have a piece of land to grow their own stuff? What about folks who don't have time or don't want a garden or don't get assigned a piece of land where stuff grows?

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Like right now it would be different.

I don't see how you plan makes anything any better. It's not adaptation, it's dictatorship and actually screwing up the environment even more.

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

That is empty statement and reason where things started to go wrong way. Since global corporation started to produce so many not needed products and tons of garbage and pollutions. You can solve this problem going back to local societies.

Ok, so you do that exactly? What's your 10 year plan?

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

So you wouldn't oppose if someone would told you what you can buy/build/or manufacture? We should, in first place, respect independence of each nation. Then we should worry about climate or we end up in world full of slaves.

Didn't you just say that corporations shouldn't be allowed to make iDevices and TVs ? And people shouldn't be allowed to buy them? 

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

So when this apocalyptic flood is going to start? Is it going to be at same time all over the world?

It's already started. Some Islands that US Marines died for during WWII are already gone. Populations are being displaced in the Tuvalu Islands.

It's only a matter of time before it hits some major European and US cities. 

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And making limits on fossil fuels for developing countries is going to let those poor people make more money and improve their style of life? Or they are going to stay poor over longer period of time, because their poor countries are not allowed to get cheaper energy from coal or oil?

Sure, it's tough, but we're all in the same boat. When the Titanic sank, it killed 1st Class passengers and 2nd Class passengers alike.

We could convince them to invest in alternative energy instead of coal or oil, so that they don't make the same mistakes we did. They can build their development on cleaner energy sources. We can also subsidize those mutations to help them. Diplomacy isn't always just threatening and forcing.

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I want solution that would allow poor countries to develop faster and cheaper... which will improve life standards of those poor people.

It simply isn't possible for our planet to support 8 billion people with the same standards of living as US or European population. It's not that we want to deny them the luxury, it's that the resources simply aren't there to allow it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day

The problem of imblanace between rich and poor is nothing new and is unrelated to the climate crisis. If anything, letting the climate run wild is only going to make it worse for those countries. Richer countries have resources and technology to adapt. The poor countries are the ones who are going to suffer the most.

It's a finite world where infinite growth is simply not possible. Either we reduce our population so that everyone can get bigger share or everybody gets a smaller share. There are no other solutions.

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Meanwhile most of you wants to use, just like you said, early 20th century ideologies to FORCE them and put limits on their developing rate. Because you are part of smarter and better developed society and you have RIGHTS to say what those poor people are allowed to do on their land and with their resources.
That is totally WWII German ideology, back then Germans also thought they are smarter than other nations in Europe and they have rights to all lands they want... and they have rights to create laws for all nations.

That is total rubbish. Nobody wants to force anything on anyone, except you. 

Either we get through the climate crisis by pulling together and acting together for our survival, or we keep on acting selfishly and get ourselves into some real trouble.

[Darnok]

7 minutes ago, PB666 said:

If I were to build a house right now, anywhere in the world accept the arctic or Antarctica, at this very moment, I would invest in solar panels because.

1. I have control of my power supply, I am not creating dependencies that strengthen the corrupt and weaken the consumer.
2. I am not poisoning my family with agents either directly or indirectly,
3. They are relatively cheap and do not require alot of technology, the are most efficient when used locally.

If I am a country I would seek out the technological means to mine, produce and assemble the same. Which china is doing, but they are late to the game, the reinvestment in energy economy instead of the real-estate economy or other economies in China would have granted them a higher payback for dollar spent.

 

Why you refuse to answer so simple questions...

You want poor countries to be poor for longer period of time and force them (abusing their independence) to pay more for "clean energy".. while, developed countries like US, won't have to lower their style of life?

So simple YES or NO?

[Nibb31]

22 minutes ago, Darnok said:

 

Why you refuse to answer so simple questions...

You want poor countries to be poor for longer period of time and force them (abusing their independence) to pay more for "clean energy".. while, developed countries like US, won't have to lower their style of life?

So simple YES or NO?

It's not a YES or NO question. And you don't go from POOR to RICH any faster by polluting more.

Development of poor countries is mainly due to rich countries exporting the dirty industries that they no longer want, to produce stuff that is shipped back to the rich countries. If there is any "forcing", it's the current situation where we are pushing them to pollute more. If there is any "slavery",  it's in the current situation where we puch those countries to exploit their workers. Any economical development is only a side-effect of our selfish outsourcing, and it probably produces more inequality and injustice in those countries with the money going into only a few pockets.

If you want poor countries to develop sustainably, then they are going to need education and clean energy, not our second-hand dirty industries.

Asking them to produce clean energy is not a matter of being fair or unfair either. The US and Europe of the 19th Century was ignorant of most of the problems that we are seeing now. It would be totally idiotic to apply the same recipes now that the consequences are known.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Nibb31

[PB666]

Just now, Darnok said:

 

Why you refuse to answer so simple questions...

You want poor countries to be poor for longer period of time and force them (abusing their independence) to pay more for "clean energy".. while, developed countries like US, won't have to lower their style of life?

So simple YES or NO?

I generally don't answer questions that beg a false dichotomy. The beggars of which are generally sophomoric in their arguments. 
I expect that non-corrupt leaders who see their place in the world will chose intelligent versus knee-jerk answers to their energy needs. Even the saudis see the need to branch away from the Oil economy, and that is one step up from Oil.

Here is your choices?

1. To pay somebody else for power in the third world  . . . .  you 'steal' power from the grid (as occurs in South asia and Indochina) they find out an unplug you or you are paying for power and the other users brown you out, or the company just randomly blacks you out (while you are writing your all important thesis or school report), you are at the mercy of their logic, and you do not know when you will be connected or disconnected. This is your suggested choice, what I would call the fools choice.

2. You have solar panels on your house, and you have a battery capacity, you have preset limits on how much you can use, therefore you live within your means, and finally you are more efficient in the long term than the coal power plant per dollar spent. The question can also be applied to folks who have wind turbines, etc. Any excess you have you can sell to your neighbors or trade for other items. If you live near an ocean you can desalinate your water and have that 'backyard garden'. You could if you were clever enough used local variation of wind power to generate hydrogen and store it for off-peak insolance power production. This is the choice for someone living in a remote region. It is also beneficial if you have an electric car or farm equipment because you break the dependency of fuel. This can be used to pump water, to process grains etc with cheaper electric machinary.

3. You supplement the power grid with your solar power production, they reward you, solar power production does not need a water coolant to operate as coal does, so if their system goes offline because of lost water, you still have some capacity. This is the smartest choice living in a moderately populated city. This can also be used to charge electric cars, or as happened in Japan after fukushima use the combination of solar power and electric cars to feed the power system. Smart cities like this because they do not have to invest in powerplants for peak demand, and the marginal supply of fuels for peak demand plants has a normally uncertain future. 3 explores many variants thereof. Note Japan has no Coal, no natural gas to speak of, no oil to speak of and yet they are technologically advanced.

 

 

 

[Darnok]

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Isn't that it contradiction with your other claims? You want people to be free to adopt the lifestyle that they want, but you want everyone to live in a house with a garden. You want populations to advance technology, but you want to deny them access to technology. 

A small house with a garden is about the most unecological way to live:

• Domestic gardens require huge amounts of water (especially if you set them up in places like the Australian outback).
• They make urban planning and common transportation a nightmare.
• Common infrastructure has to cover much wider areas.

Example with house and garden was only "example" to show you how much lands we have on Earth. And don't forget we have much more oceans than lands, so there is no overpopulation problem.

People that owns houses are making more reasonable decisions that those in cities. Because they understand how much resources you need for heat in winter, or how much water you need to make your garden green. People that owns nothing than a flat, doesn't care and doesn't know anything about it.

 

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Cities are much more rational and efficient, and therefore more ecological. Resources and infrastructures are shared and transportation is easier because of the density and shorter distances.

Right and lots of traffic makes people to burn less oil and save time? You shouldn't care about distance, but about time... if you would have a choice to travel 100km with 15 minutes or 20km with 40 minutes, what would you choose?

 

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

We are going to have to reduce our reliance on burning stuff if we want to survive. It's as simple as that.

OUR? You mean poor countries, since developed countries are developed and life standards in there is comfortable.

 

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

So why do you want everyone to have a piece of land to grow their own stuff? What about folks who don't have time or don't want a garden or don't get assigned a piece of land where stuff grows?

I don't want to force people, of course piece of land should receive only those who wants to.

 

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

 

Ok, so you do that exactly? What's your 10 year plan?

Burn as much fossil fuels as developing countries need to catch up developed countries.

 

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Didn't you just say that corporations shouldn't be allowed to make iDevices and TVs ? And people shouldn't be allowed to buy them? 

No, I said how many devices people really need, that is not the same.

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Sure, it's tough, but we're all in the same boat. When the Titanic sank, it killed 1st Class passengers and 2nd Class passengers alike.

Yes, but how many 2nd Class passengers were rescued? More than 1st Class? Or maybe most of 1st Class passengers were first on boats?

When climate changes it affects all, yes, but developed countries have more resources and better technology to support their style of life. While poor countries have nothing... so you want to condemn poor people? I want to make their chances equal, just like we all have fair chances in nature... while fossil fuel limits disrupts those fair chances.

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

We could convince them to invest in alternative energy instead of coal or oil, so that they don't make the same mistakes we did. They can build their development on cleaner energy sources. We can also subsidize those mutations to help them. Diplomacy isn't always just threatening and forcing.

You mean force them, so they would waste more money on expensive energy?

 

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It simply isn't possible for our planet to support 8 billion people with the same standards of living as US or European population. It's not that we want to deny them the luxury, it's that the resources simply aren't there to allow it:

But you are denying them luxury you have by making limits for their development rates.

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

 

The problem of imblanace between rich and poor is nothing new and is unrelated to the climate crisis.

And this problem is larger when you make laws where poor country have to pay more

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

If anything, letting the climate run wild is only going to make it worse for those countries. Richer countries have resources and technology to adapt. The poor countries are the ones who are going to suffer the most.

So making them being poor for longer time is going to help them, how?

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's a finite world where infinite growth is simply not possible. Either we reduce our population so that everyone can get bigger share or everybody gets a smaller share. There are no other solutions.

You can't see solutions, I gave you few. One more is to expand beyond Earth, but for this you need competitors in new technology and you won;t have that with few rich countries and many poor.

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

That is total rubbish. Nobody wants to force anything on anyone, except you. 

I want to remove limits from poor countries and I want to respect their independence. They should have right to do what they want with their lands. While you want those limits to keep going, making poor people poor longer... and you think you have rights to order other nations what they should do with their resources... so how I am forcing anyone to anything?

9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Either we get through the climate crisis by pulling together and acting together for our survival, or we keep on acting selfishly and get ourselves into some real trouble.

Communism or collectivism is not going to solve any problems... and once again you are saying OUR and WE. There is no WE if you are ignoring different nation independence.

[PB666]

4 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's not a YES or NO question. And you don't go from POOR to RICH any faster by polluting more.

Development of poor countries is mainly due to rich countries exporting the dirty industries that they no longer want, to produce stuff that is shipped back to the rich countries. If there is any "forcing", it's the current situation where we are pushing them to pollute more. If there is any "slavery",  it's in the current situation where we puch those countries to exploit their workers. Any economical development is only a side-effect of our selfish outsourcing.

If you want poor countries to develop sustainably, then they are going to need education and clean energy, not our second-hand dirty industries.

Asking them to produce clean energy is not a matter of being fair or unfair either. The US and Europe of the 19th Century was ignorant of most of the problems that we are seeing now. It would be totally idiotic to apply the same recipes now that the consequences are known.

Right, China will pay a heavy-heavy price for the combination of coal use and no effective anti-smoking public policies. They have yet to realize the unseen potential of lost work years do to debilitating diseases and the increased medical cost of treating half of the population for cancer.

Its not simply the problems are now known, some of these countries are far beyond the west in the numbers and proportions of people exposed to environmental toxins. The only comparable would be London in the late 19th and early 20th century. Of course then London was on top of the world, and now they are not. If you look at Central China, Calcutta, etc, now the future health problems are going to be incredibly expensive, they just don't realize it yet . . . . And the sad thing is they are not on the top of the world, my city is, and we clamped down on pollution 30 years ago and have continued to grow. My state is the largest alternative energy producers in the country even though it has the largest fossil fuel energy industry in the world. We have a whole industry treating diseases they have yet to realize in their fullest form. The body puts up with stress for a while, but as it ages the capacity to handle stress decreases. One week a worker could be happily working in a factory, the next week in bed for the rest of his life if not treated properly. Darnok as looking at the issue from a least potential analysis, he is limiting the arguement to two potentials if I purify the argument correctly

Premise. If you live in a very corrupt country where you have no alternative energy potential and you are too ignorant to know what causes lung disease, and what environemental toxins are then your choices are either

1. Burn dirty coal and accept future disease.
2. Live in a mud hut and burn cow dung indoors to heat your food.
 

[Darnok]

14 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's not a YES or NO question. And you don't go from POOR to RICH any faster by polluting more.

Development of poor countries is mainly due to rich countries exporting the dirty industries that they no longer want, to produce stuff that is shipped back to the rich countries.

So how those rich countries become rich? If not by pulling more and developing their industry faster than others?

 

14 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

 

 If there is any "forcing", it's the current situation where we are pushing them to pollute more. If there is any "slavery",  it's in the current situation where we puch those countries to exploit their workers. Any economical development is only a side-effect of our selfish outsourcing.

Excuses to justify slavery and ignore nation independence... nice approach. Very diplomatic.

14 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

If you want poor countries to develop sustainably, then they are going to need education and clean energy, not our second-hand dirty industries.

They are going to need education AND cheap energy, not expensive.

14 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Asking them to produce clean energy is not a matter of being fair or unfair either. The US and Europe of the 19th Century was ignorant of most of the problems that we are seeing now. It would be totally idiotic to apply the same recipes now that the consequences are known.

 

So why others have to pay for US ignorance and mistakes?

[Darnok]

23 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Right, China will pay a heavy-heavy price for the combination of coal use and no effective anti-smoking public policies. They have yet to realize the unseen potential of lost work years do to debilitating diseases and the increased medical cost of treating half of the population for cancer.

Its not simply the problems are now known, some of these countries are far beyond the west in the numbers and proportions of people exposed to environmental toxins. The only comparable would be London in the late 19th and early 20th century. Of course then London was on top of the world, and now they are not. If you look at Central China, Calcutta, etc, now the future health problems are going to be incredibly expensive, they just don't realize it yet . . . . And the sad thing is they are not on the top of the world, my city is, and we clamped down on pollution 30 years ago and have continued to grow. My state is the largest alternative energy producers in the country even though it has the largest fossil fuel energy industry in the world. We have a whole industry treating diseases they have yet to realize in their fullest form. The body puts up with stress for a while, but as it ages the capacity to handle stress decreases. One week a worker could be happily working in a factory, the next week in bed for the rest of his life if not treated properly. Darnok as looking at the issue from a least potential analysis, he is limiting the arguement to two potentials if I purify the argument correctly

Premise. If you live in a very corrupt country where you have no alternative energy potential and you are too ignorant to know what causes lung disease, and what environemental toxins are then your choices are either

1. Burn dirty coal and accept future disease.
2. Live in a mud hut and burn cow dung indoors to heat your food.
 

Most of China industry is in fact US industry... so who should pay for this?

You really like to scare people... while I have simple economical perspective.

Poor country of poor people with health issues and low life standards means you have more dangerous jobs and less time for living.
Rich country with rich people with better health care and those people have more time to take care about their health and more time to educate and find better jobs.

And you want to rest of the World to pay for US and Western Europe ignorance, so poor countries would be poor longer by spending more money that they, actually have to spend, on energy.

You still didn't count in that one in your "potential analysis" You are ignoring economy of poor countries!
 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Darnok

[Elthy]

Holy excrements, its useless with you. 1. China has enough money to use clean energy. 2. Countrys that dont have enough would get subsidies by richer ones. Ive said that like 3 times allready...

[PB666]

26 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Most of China industry is in fact US industry... so who should pay for this?

You really like to scare people... while I have simple economical perspective.

Poor country of poor people with health issues and low life standards means you have more dangerous jobs and less time for living.
Rich country with rich people with better health care and those people have more time to take care about their health and more time to educate and find better jobs.

And you want to rest of the World to pay for US and Western Europe ignorance, so poor countries would be poor longer by spending more money that they, actually have to spend, on energy.

You still didn't count in that one in your "potential analysis" You are ignoring economy of poor countries!
 

Because I am a firm believer that the total expenses of production should include realized cost, taxes, and the social cost of production within reason. If you call this scaring people, I call is risk-balancing cost shifting. The reason we have over-burdensome regulatory bodies like OSHA and EPA is because companies do not naturalize the internalize the social cost of their production. If the costs are assigned according to the complete risks created, then the companies that create risk will go through a minimization cost. If we say to a company, once a social cost is realized, you must either engage in risk reduction or face a product specific corporate tax or excise tax (such as we do for tires, alcohol, cigarettes). 

Lets say for example the United Nation can allow anyone to sue any other person for shifting a risk that eventually did them harm. So for example a person in Africa can then say, you caused my baby to starve to death to 1.5 billion Asians, then each of those individuals would have to pay a fraction of a penny, in proportion to their contribution. If then we took all the conflict causing and starvation and debilitating causing, then eventually those pennies start to add up. That person reaching for tree branches to burn instead of composting or the coal plant deciding to pollute eventually says I can't afford this operation, let me try something different. Eventually they seek to reduce their social cost to the minimum. In this way we maximize the efficient use of environmental resources.

Lets just suppose for instance that Beef is 10 times more expensive now, and the fat content is mainly a waste, much ends up in the landfill, most of the fat comes from feed lotting. Lets say then that we place a tax on beef fat at 20$ per pound. So then now beef cost instead of 5$ a pound for lot fed beef, 15$ per pound and grass fed beef and buffulo cost 7.50 a pound, then people will be steered to more healthy and more environmentally friendly forms of beef. The subsidizing of crops largely Maiz for the sake of feedlotting is a great social cost, not a benefit, its a windfall to a select few in the economy and a burdensome tax on everyone else. 

I'm an equal opportunity social cost analyzer. I critique both rich and poor. Lets take a look at almonds, we grow these in California, but at the expense, inevitably of depleting the rivers of Salmon and drying the climate, which has social costs in the cities, there should be a social cost for growing almonds in an area where the water supply cannot subsist the trade.

The cost of production and product sophistry is dependent of the skill of the laborer which improves over time. In a civil society we pay for kids to go to school and subsidize post parochial trade education, from the point of full employment of the skilled class we get income tax revenue, We spend 20 years for education and child welfare social infrastructure with no return on their investment. If that child lives to 40 and is debilitated at 35, then he works 15 years to pay for 20 years of education and the disabled welfare systems pays for 5 years. If the child lives to 50 he works 25 years and you have balance, if he works till 60 then you have a surplus. Therefore poverty increases until you can get the productive years up to much greater than the non-productive years. This does not spell well for countries like India and China, because they are essentially debilitating their working population and increasing the risk of debilitation in the next, unborn, generation of children. The problem is that revenue generation at the national scale is almost entirely due to industrial production on a globally average basis, some is on few, but only for a few select countries like the US and brazil. So you are not going to see revenue generation with children who only go to school for 5 years and go directly into production. As Nibb said, having billions of small farmers is not efficient, you need to have a large industrial economy and smaller numbers of efficient farms to increase revenue on the industrial scale. So therein lies the problem, you must educate to increase revenue, to do that you need healthy teachers, you must train skilled workers, for that you need professionals and artisons (healthy) and then on top of that, you need your workers to produce past the age of 55, which means you need reasonably healthy workers.

The US has paid for its ignorance, we paid once again in 2008 for a lack of assigning social cost to the businesses that generate them (in that case by relaxing the business banking practices).  We have people in the US who are debilitated at age 50 because of type-II diabetes from drinking sodas and not paying the social cost up front for health-care when they pay for soda. Those costs are shifted across society.

So I have to say this, if your argument does not realize the social costs of some process and does not seek to minimize its size relative to generating the same functional item but by a lower social cost mechanism, you are then creating an argument that is a cheat.

 

 

 

[Nibb31]

I really wish you would drop the ad-hominem attacks about slavery and totalitarism. Especially when you yourself are proposing authoritarian measures like deporting billions of people from cities into suburban gardens, banning technological devices, or allowing a a minority of countries to pollute the rest of the world.

Because some countries made mistakes when they knew no better, which has caused one of the greated crises that humanity has faced, does it mean that we should allow other countries to make the same mistakes at the expense of the rest of the world? 

Cigarettes cause cancer. Old folks knew no better, but it's our duty to prevent kids fom smoking (especially when everyone suffer from passive smoking). It's not slavery. If anything, it's liberating people from slavery to the cigarette manufacturers.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Nibb31

[Darnok]

28 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Holy excrements, its useless with you. 1. China has enough money to use clean energy. 2. Countrys that dont have enough would get subsidies by richer ones. Ive said that like 3 times allready...

I think you and @PB666 can't understand simple thing...

If rich and developed country is selling expensive products (developed from new technologies) like solar panel or wind turbines to poor countries, they are making this poor country dependant from their support!

New technology is expensive, so rich country get lots of money from poor country... even with subsidies it is huge amount of money.
And now people poor country are going to pay for energy more, than they should, so they will have less money for education, health care or for developing their own industry... since their money are transferred to rich country.

This increases economical gap between poor and rich countries, but that is not the worst part.

Transferring money from poor to rich also cause lack of jobs on poor country, because people in that country, people have less money to pay for beef or any other products. Large part of their money is going for payrolls of people who are working in rich countries, right?
So, industry is going down and people are losing their jobs, so they are going to be even poorer.

You are following me, so far? But this is not worst part yet.

By doing all this poor country is being dependant from rich country will and technology, poor country becomes colony. That is unable to develop its own technology and industry faster than this rich country. Because if they would try to do it faster then rich country is going to stop them by increasing costs of support or limiting shipment of new products. That is what makes things unfair, because poor country, even supported with subsidies will NEVER be able to grow faster and larger than rich countries that are selling "clean energy".

If international society is allowing to create such unfair law.. then try to imagine where does it lead.

[PB666]

Just now, Darnok said:

I think you and @PB666 can't understand simple thing...

If rich and developed country is selling expensive products (developed from new technologies) like solar panel or wind turbines to poor countries, they are making this poor country dependant from their support!

New technology is expensive, so rich country get lots of money from poor country... even with subsidies it is huge amount of money.
And now people poor country are going to pay for energy more, than they should, so they will have less money for education, health care or for developing their own industry... since their money are transferred to rich country.

This increases economical gap between poor and rich countries, but that is not the worst part.

Transferring money from poor to rich also cause lack of jobs on poor country, because people in that country, people have less money to pay for beef or any other products. Large part of their money is going for payrolls of people who are working in rich countries, right?
So, industry is going down and people are losing their jobs, so they are going to be even poorer.

You are following me, so far? But this is not worst part yet.

By doing all this poor country is being dependant from rich country will and technology, poor country becomes colony. That is unable to develop its own technology and industry faster than this rich country. Because if they would try to do it faster then rich country is going to stop them by increasing costs of support or limiting shipment of new products. That is what makes things unfair, because poor country, even supported with subsidies will NEVER be able to grow faster and larger than rich countries that are selling "clean energy".

If international society is allowing to create such unfair law.. then try to imagine where does it lead.

China is the leading producers of solar panels, I believe they are still considered a developing country. Argument negated by a false premise. 

[Darnok]

21 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I really wish you would drop the ad-hominem attacks about slavery and totalitarism. Especially when you yourself are proposing extreme measures like deporting billions of people from cities into suburban gardens, banning technological devices, or allowing a a minority of countries to pollute the rest of the world.

Never said things about banning devices.

 

Quote

Because some countries made mistakes when they knew no better, does it mean that we should allow other countries to make the same mistakes at the expense of the rest of the world?

No, we should make to pay countries that made mistakes. That would be fair approach.
We shouldn't punish countries that didn't do much harm so far. In law system in my country punishment comes after crime, not before.

 

Quote

Cigarettes cause cancer. Old folks knew no better, but it's our duty to prevent kids fom smoking (especially when everyone suffer from passive smoking). It's not slavery. If anything, it's liberating people from slavery to the cigarette manufacturers.

Education is key, not forcing people to do what you think is best for them, unless you want to act like WWII German people.

15 minutes ago, PB666 said:

China is the leading producers of solar panels, I believe they are still considered a developing country. Argument negated by a false premise. 

Since they are TOP1 industry with space program and many new technologies I wouldn't call them developing country

Who is developed for you if China is still developing?

EDIT: ohh and China is independent from "clean energy" of any other countries, so they are not colony, they are colonizer. That was the key of their growth... independence and ignoring limits of CO2 emissions?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Darnok