Jump to content

we are actually fucked.


Merge
 Share

Recommended Posts

so yea, if anyone hasnt' been following the talks in copenhagen... long story short.. humans are retarded and cant agree on anything of sufficient worth to avoid getting shat on over the next 50 years. China's all pissd off that they are being told to cut emissions.. none of the agreements are legally binding.. Cuba, Venuezela and several other countries threw a tantrum and started claiming it was some Capitalist conspiracy... basically everyone's *SORT OF* said they'll TRY to keep it from getting to 2C increase, when in fact 1.5C increase will be devastating to most developing/lowlying countries.. US is actually contributing a hefty 10billion a year to developing countries to prepare for droughts/floods etc, (and so they should) the brits are no way near matching that commitment, and dont even get me started on most nations..

 

We are in for an extremely bumpy future.

 

I'm a skeptic about alot of things but one thing i can count on is mankind's inability to work together on a global scale when the shit hits the fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coppenhagen shit is a crock of shit. How the fuk are we humans going to change a 2degree increase in temperature, its not us that fuks with it. The measurement is to reduce co2, yet co2 makes up for a whole 0.5% of the air around us and has nothing to do with changing the temperature; its increases and decreases are the results of the sun's massive fluctuations - directly linked. Im all for less pollution, but we have no control over the world temperature. Coppenhagen is the US's attempt at extending the already expanding world Government, the UN, controlled by America..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a lot of talk, alot of arguing, a lot of trading, dealing and back scratching going on but no action happening.

Just been linked to this which brings the whole thing much closer to home (for me anyway.)

 

What is the 2030 Perfect Storm idea?

 

By Stephen Mulvey

BBC News

 

As the world's population grows, competition for food, water and energy will increase. Food prices will rise, more people will go hungry, and migrants will flee the worst-affected regions.

 

That's the simple idea at the heart of the warning from John Beddington, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, of a possible crisis in 2030.

 

Specifically, he points to research indicating that by 2030 "a whole series of events come together":

 

* The world's population will rise from 6bn to 8bn (33%)

* Demand for food will increase by 50%

* Demand for water will increase by 30%

* Demand for energy will increase by 50%

 

He foresees each problem combining to create a "perfect storm" in which the whole is bigger, and more serious, than the sum of its parts.

 

"Can we cope with the demands in the future on water? Can we provide enough energy? Can we do it, all that, while mitigating and adapting to climate change? And can we do all that in 21 years' time?" he asked the SDUK 09 conference in London, in March.

 

Some of the problems reinforce each other, in obvious ways. For example, intensive agriculture swallows up large amounts of water and energy.

 

But Professor Beddington also points to other complicating factors and worrying possibilities.

 

CLIMATE CHANGE

 

There is a risk that climate change will have drastic effects on food production - for example by killing off the coral reefs (which about 1bn people depend on as a source of protein) or by either weakening or strengthening monsoon rains.

 

Also, some scientists are predicting that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030, he points out, which could accelerate global warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy that is reflected back out of the atmosphere.

 

URBANISATION

 

Not only is the world's population predicted to grow (until the middle of the century, at least) but more people are moving to live in cities, Professor Beddington points out. The growth of cities will accelerate the depletion of water resources, which in turn may drive more country dwellers to leave the land.

 

INCREASING PROSPERITY

 

As people become wealthier in some parts of the world, such as China and India, their diets are changing. They are consuming more meat and dairy products, which take more energy to produce than traditional vegetable diets. Like city dwellers, prosperous people also use more energy to maintain their lifestyle.

 

BIOFUELS

 

The more land is devoted to growing biofuels, in response to climate change, the less can be used for growing food.

 

Source information: Energy data graphic derived from World Energy Outlook © OECD/IEA, 2008, figure 2.2, p. 81 and modified by BBC News.

 

Professor Beddington says he is optimistic that scientists can come up with solutions to the problems and that he is encouraged by signs that politicians are listening more to scientific advice.

 

But he adds: "We need investment in science and technology, and all the other ways of treating very seriously these major problems. 2030 is not very far away."

 

Here three experts give their view of Professor Beddington's warning.

 

PROFESSOR DAVID PINK, WARWICK UNIVERSITY

 

"It's definitely one scenario, though it's the worst possible scenario. In general terms, he is right. All these things are coming together. There is some argument over population growth but the bottom line is that it's going up and food supply is going to be more of a problem. The developing world is growing, and its people are getting richer. There will be more demand for foods we have automatically assumed we will have access to. We are not going to be able to buy in everything we need and the price of food will go up. John Beddington is making the argument that we need to do something now and the best way to make that argument is to give the worst-case scenario. It is going to become a problem feeding the world, the question is how big a problem."

 

PROFESSOR JULES PRETTY, ESSEX UNIVERSITY

 

"The general premise, that we have a number of critical drivers coming together, is correct. The date 2030 is rhetorical. We don't know whether things will become critical in 2027 or 2047, no-one has any idea, but within the next generation these things are going to come to pass unless we start doing things differently. That is the urgency of this set of ideas. When governments talk about reducing emissions by X% by 2050, I despair. We need to do it by next week. Humankind has not faced this set of combined challenges ever before."

 

ANTONY FROGGATT, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, CHATHAM HOUSE

 

"It's true that all these things, and more, are interconnected. I study the connection between climate change and security of energy supply. For example, if you switch from coal to gas to slow the pace of climate change, the energy supply crunch comes more quickly. John Beddington is right to underline the dependence of agriculture on energy - I've heard it said that one in four people in the world is fed on fossil fuel, because gas is fundamental to the production of fertilisers. Climate change also has implications for power stations - nuclear power stations that are cooled by rivers and hydroelectric dams. And whereas changes in Europe could be incremental, in Asia it's potentially more abrupt. Whole regions are dependent on cycles of glacial melts and monsoons and if these start to shift there will be trouble."

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8213884.stm

 

In the mean-time let's do what we can ourselfs, can't go wrong with the classic 'reduce reuse recycle', also I bet we could all eat much less meat (pref. not any at all but I know that won't sit well with most people ), drive less often, carpool, take advantage of public transport etc etc etc..

If the people at the top won't get it together the least we can do is try and get it together ourselves rather than dance around screaming 'doom!'.

Anyhoo I can feel a rant coming on so I'm just going to stop here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tin foil hats propagate radio waves anyway.

 

Source.

 

 

"These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tin foil hats propagate radio waves anyway.

 

Source.

 

 

"These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason. "

 

 

Yes amusing.

 

Wait.... not as amusing as an easyontheappledrink url.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coppenhagen shit is a crock of shit. How the fuk are we humans going to change a 2degree increase in temperature, its not us that fuks with it. The measurement is to reduce co2, yet co2 makes up for a whole 0.5% of the air around us and has nothing to do with changing the temperature; its increases and decreases are the results of the sun's massive fluctuations - directly linked. Im all for less pollution, but we have no control over the world temperature. Coppenhagen is the US's attempt at extending the already expanding world Government, the UN, controlled by America..

 

Mostly this. But the theory of co2 trapping heat doesn't sound like bullshit either, a combo of this and a wee sneeze from the sun wouldn't be flash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
  • Create New...