80 by 50

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

That is the natural order of things.

Chas

The natural order of things does not omit a species toil, I agree.
Hence we can work to change global warming weather it be man induced or not.

[merrylander]

Here in MD you don't need to trim trees, the effing white tailed lawn rats will trim them for you, They just took out $150 worth of evergreens I planted last spring.

[MikeCh]

My Quote:
Ok, maybe that's somewhat of a stretch but the end goal is equally impossible

Originally Posted by noonereal

What do you base this on?

What, being "equally impossible" or the "somewhat of a stretch" part?

Do you honestly think that adding another 200 million people or so to this country by 2050 (some peoples predictions) will create less of a carbon footprint? I personally don't think it could be done if we grew zero percent more until 2050.

Good luck convincing suv-soccer-mom that she has to tote her kids around one at a time with a bicycle and Burley cart....or that we should all take the well thought out public transportation, oh wait, we don't have the infrastructure and too much distance between places for things like trains, etc.....

What's your plan noonereal?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by MikeCh

Do you honestly think that adding another 200 million people or so to this country by 2050 (some peoples predictions) will create less of a carbon footprint? I personally don't think it could be done if we grew zero percent more until 2050.

Good luck convincing suv-soccer-mom that she has to tote her kids around one at a time with a bicycle and Burley cart....or that we should all take the well thought out public transportation, oh wait, we don't have the infrastructure and too much distance between places for things like trains, etc.....

What's your plan noonereal?

You seem to be very interested in putting forth reasons why human nature will make progress toward climate remediation impossible. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try?

It seems to me that, if you accept the consensus scientific opinion that global climate change is a real and present danger to our existence, you take whatever steps you can to mitigate its effects. That you might not reach certain predetermined goals is less important than making significant progress.

So, to answer your original question, I don't think anyone on this board knows whether the 2050 goals are achievable. I certainly don't but I think we damn well need to take this seriously and do whatever we can.

John

[piece-itpete]

Mike it's a good question, none on the signatories of Kyoto had any reduction, they all went up!

But we can feel good, pretend, and pay higher taxes

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

We've always had floods, tornados, hurricanes, volcanos, earthquakes, not to mention diseases. Seems like most of the US was underwater at one time.

Everything dies, it's the natural order of things.

Man, I just don’t agree with your approach to life. Yeah, everything dies. But you’re making a huge leap to say the implication of that is that we should not do anything to preserve life. I mean, you’re saying everything’s going to die anyway so why worry with global warming. Well, why worry with hospitals? Why worry about murder? Why worry about war? Everything is going to die anyway, so why take any steps to prevent it? I’m not a proponent of the “throw up your hands, there’s nothing you can do” school of life. That sounds a lot like giving up. And taken to it’s ultimate extreme, it sounds a lot like anarchy.

Having laid out those questions let me pose some answers. We are the product of countless eons. The Universe, the Sun and the Earth came in to being and so far as we know we’re a unique product of that process. Our children will be the legacy of that great history. I believe it is our duty as the stewards of creation to preserve this place, the only place where our kind can exist, in a manner in keeping with the journey that brought us into being. Or to state it another way, we don’t have the right to destroy our children’s future.

Ironically, from time to time when Republicans are pretending to be fiscally responsible they say the same about our National Debt. Of course they did a fine job of piling it on over the last eight years, but that’s another story. When they’re out of power they like to thump on anything they can with “how are we going to pay for it” and “we can’t leave the bill for our children”. If we can’t bother our children with a matter as petty in the scheme of the Universe as a National Debt, can we really saddle them with the prospect of a planet that no longer sustains life in the manner we enjoy?

Take care,

Ed

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Here in NY you can trim any branch over your property.

Well, there you go, Chas. Just move your house, the neighbors house and all those Walnut trees to New York, then trim the limbs.

Pig dead, soldier on!

Dave

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by noonereal

The natural order of things does not omit a species toil, I agree.
Hence we can work to change global warming weather it be man induced or not.

Man, you said that in a *lot* fewer words than I did.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by MikeCh

Good luck convincing suv-soccer-mom that she has to tote her kids around one at a time with a bicycle and Burley cart....or that we should all take the well thought out public transportation, oh wait, we don't have the infrastructure and too much distance between places for things like trains, etc.....

No one suggested anything of the kind. And I would agree that's absurd. Personally I'd like to see us move more toward an urban lifestyle and get away from the suburban sprawl. Who needs it? I live in the city and I kind of chuckle to myself every time I hear people complain about their commute. Mine takes 10 minutes.

But what to do for the Soccer Moms: I’m confidant that in 2010 we can come up with technology that’s more efficient that the internal combustion engine. Think about how the world was when cars were introduced. Can you think of anything that had advanced less? For all our GPS and 16 speaker sound, cars aren’t really so much more advanced than the Model T.

How about this- the Honda CFX Clarity. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ Runs on Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. Zero emissions. I don’t know if that’s the answer or not. I know W was keen on it. Shoot, just that makes me suspect. But I’ve long been a proponent of nuclear power. Yes, there are issues to be dealt with, but the French have made remarkable progress in recycling spent fuel rods. I’m confidant that the U.S., if we somehow found our will again, could lead the world in this kind of technology.

How about solar collectors in Earth orbit? Without the atmosphere in the way they’re far more efficient, and tests have already been done to “beam” the power back to Earth via microwave. It’s amazing what’s been discovered in the last 100 years.

Not to mention the possibility of nuclear fusion if we can grab a bit of Helium 3 from the Moon. Hell, W was keen on that idea too. What a neat way that would be to get power! And, again, if we choose to we could lead the world in that technology. Alas, I’m afraid we no longer can take as far sighted a view as is required for a project like that.

I guess, when you look at how arcane our current systems are, an appropriate question would be “how could we *not* substantially reduce our carbon output if we gave it a shot?”

Take care,

Ed

[piece-itpete]

Consider this: no matter what we will use up the earth. Fusion and space colonization is the only real solution

Pete