A Bigger Threat Even Than The Debt Crisis?

[Guest anorthosite]

Here's a challenge; can you give me three FAVOURABLE developments that warming could bring?

1. London is underwater.

2. No more threads like this one.

3. Bush looks even sillier.

[PopGun]

As sure as death, taxes, and asset bubble crashes, the earth will change. As it always has done for millions of years.

Humans should really get over themselves. They're maybe some argument that mankind has accelerated the process, but that is it. We should be preparing for the change, not dreaming up follies for preventing the inevitable.

Yet, this is another unchallengeable dogma, from the book of the new testament that is science.

Renewable energy isn't just about saving the planet maannn, it's also common bloody sense. Whether the oil/gas runs out or not, we don't want to be forever at the mercy of foreign despots.

[PopGun]

1. London is underwater.

2. No more threads like this one.

3. Bush looks even sillier.

Looks like a win win outcome for me.

[Kurt Barlow]

Here's a challenge; can you give me three FAVOURABLE developments that warming could bring? So far a slight warming is going to;

* flood the earth

* destroy the Ocean ecosystem

* bring about an Ice Age

* re-elect Gordon Brown

Seriously, it's just sooooooo eco-warrior in the blackness.

Oh, and "Northern Siberia and Northern Canada are not particularly productive - wood - thats about it as most of it is swamp for 3 months and frozen for the other 9." is a nice geography lesson but I thought it was going to get warmer?

We lose 70% of the worlds productive agricultural land?

That will solve CCC's population conundrum

[Kurt Barlow]

Here's a challenge; can you give me three FAVOURABLE developments that warming could bring? So far a slight warming is going to;

* flood the earth

* destroy the Ocean ecosystem

* bring about an Ice Age

* re-elect Gordon Brown

Seriously, it's just sooooooo eco-warrior in the blackness.

Oh, and "Northern Siberia and Northern Canada are not particularly productive - wood - thats about it as most of it is swamp for 3 months and frozen for the other 9." is a nice geography lesson but I thought it was going to get warmer?

It is - instead of dwarf birch / downey birch you might get to grow pine trees instead.

Anyone for pine cone fritters?

[bogbrush]

We lose 70% of the worlds productive agricultural land?

That will solve CCC's population conundrum

Thought not.

EDIT: And you can't imagine this warmer land being able to be cultivated by 21st century farming? Oh boy, no wonder you're so miserable! Cheer up, there's a bounty to be had if those northen lands defrost.

Anyway, long past boring now. Signing off from this one confident that this nonsense will take a back seat for a while as we have real things to worry about.

Edited December 28, 2008 by bogbrush

[ccc]

Well if everyone washes their hands of responsibilty as easily as you do then no, we won't be in control.

Are you having a laugh ? I never knew I had responsibility for the temperature of the Earth. Someone really should have told me !!

I AM NOT IN CONTROL

YOU ARE NOT CONTROL

=GET OVER IT !!!

[Kurt Barlow]

Thought not.

Anyway, long past boring now. Signing off from this one confident that this nonsense will take a back seat for a while as we have real things to worry about.

Bye!

Oh - another reason why Northern Canada / Siberia won't cut it as 'liberated' agricultural land

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podzol

[ccc]

As sure as death, taxes, and asset bubble crashes, the earth will change. As it always has done for millions of years.

Humans should really get over themselves. They're maybe some argument that mankind has accelerated the process, but that is it. We should be preparing for the change, not dreaming up follies for preventing the inevitable.

Yet, this is another unchallengeable dogma, from the book of the new testament that is science.

Renewable energy isn't just about saving the planet maannn, it's also common bloody sense. Whether the oil/gas runs out or not, we don't want to be forever at the mercy of foreign despots.

Couldn't agree more. If they just concentrated on the common sense aspect of being cleaner and more efficient (Which I totally agree with) and left out the 'stopping climate change' nonsense I would be with them and chaining myself to a tree !!

[Guest anorthosite]

Looks like a win win outcome for me.

I must admit these are powerful incentives to burn the rainforests.

[PopGun]

I must admit these are powerful incentives to burn the rainforests.

The way Finance/Banking is going, they'll be no one living south of Watford by then anyway.

I look forward to watching the southerners, traveling up on their bikes, for a hard days' toil in the fields.

[bogbrush]

The way Finance/Banking is going, they'll be no one living south of Watford by then anyway.

I look forward to watching the southerners, traveling up on their bikes, for a hard days' toil in the fields.

I think you meant "in t'fields"

[Guest anorthosite]

Are you having a laugh ? I never knew I had responsibility for the temperature of the Earth. Someone really should have told me !!

I AM NOT IN CONTROL

YOU ARE NOT CONTROL

=GET OVER IT !!!

No, but we all collectively have some control.

I have to admit I'm fighting the urge here to bring down the wrath of Godwin's Law upon myself.

[Scunnered]

Thought not.

EDIT: And you can't imagine this warmer land being able to be cultivated by 21st century farming? Oh boy, no wonder you're so miserable! Cheer up, there's a bounty to be had if those northen lands defrost.

There's little soil, and what there is is more or less useless for agriculture.

Anyway, long past boring now. Signing off from this one confident that this nonsense will take a back seat for a while as we have real things to worry about.

Hold on ... [riffle riffle riffle] ... it was you that started the whole thread! What were you expecting?

[Kurt Barlow]

There's little soil, and what there is is more or less useless for agriculture.

Hold on ... [riffle riffle riffle] ... it was you that started the whole thread! What were you expecting?

LOL - everyone of these threads is started by a 'Bogbrush'. 'We' act as the protagonists in the debate - and then eventually the Bogbrushes excuse themselves on the basis of - its a boring thread anyway

[bogbrush]

Hold on ... [riffle riffle riffle] ... it was you that started the whole thread! What were you expecting?

damn, drawn back in...............

To answer your question, the purpose of the thread was to discuss the economic consequences of the carbon reduction agenda. There was precious little of that, unfortunately.

[Kurt Barlow]

damn, drawn back in...............

To answer your question, the purpose of the thread was to discuss the economic consequences of the carbon reduction agenda. There was precious little of that, unfortunately.

Fair enough - factor in losing 70% of the earths productive agricultural land - from an economic perspective or the world losing 50 million tonnes of marine protein from the world food account.

Or how about the effects of a dramatic improvement in energy efficiency (to put that in perspective less than 2.5% of my income goes into home energy costs ) on the UK economy.

Or substituting a variety of imported food for home grown produce

Or substituting imported gas for home grown tidal, wind, wave, solar, even nuclear power

Or recycling a greater proportion of our waste

or shifting more freight and commuting traffic onto public transport / rail

[ralphmalph]

Fair enough - factor in losing 70% of the earths productive agricultural land - from an economic perspective or the world losing 50 million tonnes of marine protein from the world food account.

Or how about the effects of a dramatic improvement in energy efficiency (to put that in perspective less than 2.5% of my income goes into home energy costs ) on the UK economy.

Or substituting a variety of imported food for home grown produce

Or substituting imported gas for home grown tidal, wind, wave, solar, even nuclear power

Or recycling a greater proportion of our waste

or shifting more freight and commuting traffic onto public transport / rail

You keep quoting this lose 70% of the agricultural land. Do you have any links, as I am genuinley interested. I was under the impression that the politcos were worried because the changing weather patterns would mean that the world food production would be upset as they would have to move. i.e places where wheat is grown now would be unsuitable but other places would be come suitable to grow wheat. Hence the new Champagne producing area of the world would be kent not Champagne. The Sahara would move north to encompass southern Spain and ruin there farming but the southern sahara would become fertile farmland this is happening now as there is flooding happening on a regular basis in the southern sahara.

[Kurt Barlow]

damn, drawn back in...............

To answer your question, the purpose of the thread was to discuss the economic consequences of the carbon reduction agenda. There was precious little of that, unfortunately.

How about this then?

My carbon reduction strategy is to insulate every loft properly in the UK

Effects on the economy:

1. - It will keep lots of construction workers in useful (semi skilled) employment instead of the dole

2. It will keep rockwools factories open - thats good news for south wales

3. It will also provide an outlet for recycled materials - where the material is made from old plastc bottles / newspaper

4. We wont have to import as much norwegian / Russian gas which is good for our balance of trade.

5. Less strain on the NHS as fewer grannies admitted with hypothermia

6. less chance we will run out of gas in a cold spell closing down most of British Industry

Edited December 28, 2008 by Kurt Barlow

[Scunnered]

damn, drawn back in...............

To answer your question, the purpose of the thread was to discuss the economic consequences of the carbon reduction agenda. There was precious little of that, unfortunately.

Heh. Here's part of post #1. With any luck this'll take us right back to the beginning and we'll get trapped in some sort of horrible Groundhog Day situation.

This one seems to have the Worlds "leaders" in just as tight a grip as the false economy. The idealogically driven Carbon agenda has the potential to set back the Global economy far more even that the current affair, yet it appears that any sense of scepticism or rationale is drowned under the clamour. At least you were allowed to have a contrary view to the phantom boom but on carbon you either tow the line or risk the vitriol of the media.

If you are looking for uncritical media coverage, forget the "downturn", this is in a class of its own.

Unless these nutters are challenged they will consign the 3rd World to further decades of misery and send our economies off on a wild goose chase, causing even greater long term problems due to spiralling energy costs and shortages. In the words of Jim Royle, wind power, my @rse.

That's really quite a provocative starting point: there's plenty of shouting about nutters with idealogical agendas and not much about the economic consequences. Why don't you start another thread with a title like "What are the economic consequences of carbon reduction?" and resist any temptation to get involved in pro/anti global warming arguments? If you just take carbon reduction as a given, without delving into the rights and wrongs, then it might (might) be possible to have quite a sensible discussion.

Edit. ... and indeed, I see that a couple of people have already pointed out some possible benefits of carbon reduction which aren't climate-related.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Scunnered

[Kurt Barlow]

You keep quoting this lose 70% of the agricultural land. Do you have any links, as I am genuinley interested. I was under the impression that the politcos were worried because the changing weather patterns would mean that the world food production would be upset as they would have to move. i.e places where wheat is grown now would be unsuitable but other places would be come suitable to grow wheat. Hence the new Champagne producing area of the world would be kent not Champagne. The Sahara would move north to encompass southern Spain and ruin there farming but the southern sahara would become fertile farmland this is happening now as there is flooding happening on a regular basis in the southern sahara.

In terms of melting antarctica as proposed by Bogbrush it stands to reason. Melt antarctica (wont happen in our lifetimes whatever we do) and sea levels will rise 100 metres.

The most productive agricultural land is on alluvial plains which are mostly below 30 metres. Think the fens of England, Holland, Nile Delta, Yangstze delta, Bangladesh, Mississipi Basin etc etc etc.

On the issue of the Sahara moving north dont be so sure that its southern limit would move up as well. Its much easier to destroy fertile land than it is to rebuild it.

[Kurt Barlow]

How about this then?

My carbon reduction strategy is to insulate every loft properly in the UK

Effects on the economy:

1. - It will keep lots of construction workers in useful (semi skilled) employment instead of the dole

2. It will keep rockwools factories open - thats good news for south wales

3. It will also provide an outlet for recycled materials - where the material is made from old plastc bottles / newspaper

4. We wont have to import as much norwegian / Russian gas which is good for our balance of trade.

5. Less strain on the NHS as fewer grannies admitted with hypothermia

6. less chance we will run out of gas in a cold spell closing down most of British Industry

Applies similarly to cavity wall insulation, energy efficient lighting (if we still actually manufactured bulbs), high effiency boilers, pipe insulation to name but a few.

[Kurt Barlow]

damn, drawn back in...............

To answer your question, the purpose of the thread was to discuss the economic consequences of the carbon reduction agenda. There was precious little of that, unfortunately.

How about this then.

Given the recession we face Airbus could go bust along with the Rolls Royce the engine maker.

Another carbon reduction strategy.

Go hell for leather building wind turbines - both onshore and offshore. The power is now cheaper than electricity from imported gas.

Effect on the economy.

1. Airbus could convert its wing factory at Flint to make turbine blades - good for North Wales

2. Rolls Royce could make the generators - good for Derby

3. Wind turbines need big towers made of steel - good for corus - good for South Wales / North East - perhaps keep Cells in work

4. Power displaces imported gas - good for our balance of trade

5. good for our energy security

6. Installing wind turbines requires lots of construction workers - provides them with work rather than the dole.

[bogbrush]

Heh. Here's part of post #1. With any luck this'll take us right back to the beginning and we'll get trapped in some sort of horrible Groundhog Day situation.

That's really quite a provocative starting point: there's plenty of shouting about nutters with idealogical agendas and not much about the economic consequences. Why don't you start another thread with a title like "What are the economic consequences of carbon reduction?" and resist any temptation to get involved in pro/anti global warming arguments? If you just take carbon reduction as a given, without delving into the rights and wrongs, then it might (might) be possible to have quite a sensible discussion.

Edit. ... and indeed, I see that a couple of people have already pointed out some possible benefits of carbon reduction which aren't climate-related.

Hey you've gotta spice it a bit! You're not in Marketing are you ? (actually neither am I but anyway......)

I don't buy wind. There's a reason why arch ecophiles like the Germans place a limit of the amount that can come from it. I like tidal; you know it never switches off or gets too aggressive. I'm all for energy independence (and while we're at it, food as well). When you have those two covered you're laughing (at everyone else).

Pity about the poor Africans still burning wood in their huts and dying at 30, but at least we've "saved the Planet".

EDIT: "In terms of melting antarctica as proposed by Bogbrush". The name is bogbrush, not Jehovah.

Edited December 28, 2008 by bogbrush

[Kurt Barlow]

Hey you've gotta spice it a bit! You're not in Marketing are you ? (actually neither am I but anyway......)

I don't buy wind. There's a reason why arch ecophiles like the Germans place a limit of the amount that can come from it. I like tidal; you know it never switches off or gets too aggressive. I'm all for energy independence (and while we're at it, food as well). When you have those two covered you're laughing (at everyone else).

Pity about the poor Africans still burning wood in their huts and dying at 30, but at least we've "saved the Planet".

EDIT: "In terms of melting antarctica as proposed by Bogbrush". The name is bogbrush, not Jehovah.

How does the Uk appling a carbon reduction strategy cause this?

If anything it helps poor africans because if as a result fuel is a little cheaper - then they might be able to afford some to run their tractors.

In contrast whilst 'we' were all running around in 4x4 helping to push oil prices up to $147 a barrel many poor africans were converting back to the Ox, donkey, and human plough