Enough with the negativity, this blog post addresses how to deal with the rising levels of carbon dioxide. Here it's all about the future and solutions, the way forward.
We find ourselves in a downward spiral. At the same time as carbon dioxide emissions are rising, forest coverage is decreasing. Forests are disappearing at an alarming rate. The deforestation is having an effect on the climate, not just in reducing the number of trees available to eat carbon dioxide but also in relation to cloud formation and precipitation. It's not enough that one country acts as clouds don't observe national boundaries. Forests do a lot of good, they hold and condition the soil, suck in carbon dioxide, and help form clouds. We need forests.
But this alone isn't enough, we also need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, the worst of which is carbon dioxide. That means being more efficient. I suggest we avoid adopting already proven failures like electric vehicles (EV's). Why? The simple reason is they don't work, they're not good cars and rely on technology running parallel to the liquid fuels industry. EV's rely on infrastructure never intended to power an automotive fleet.
My solution is three-fold:
Work on achieving greater efficiency using current technology.
What I'm talking about is reducing fuel consumption by making the engines of industry and consumerism work better. Keep developing the internal combustion engine to the point where you can run your car for a year on a single tank of gas. Why not?
This seems an obvious approach and one you never hear. It's an approach that doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Put the forests back.
Instead of talking about carbon all the time (which appears to be a code word for the evils of industrialisation) and carbon trading schemes (which no-one understands), structure the world economy to reward forest creation. The more trees, the more carbon dioxide is processed by those trees. This would help a lot. I know what you are going to say, carbon trading effectively does what I'm saying, but the problem with that approach is it misses the point by making trees data units rather than living things. Everyone likes their trees, they don't care about carbon units.
Japan is a major industrialised power and they have 60% forest coverage so I'm going to use that as the benchmark. I've done some sums and it appears worldwide forest coverage of around 42% keeps things as they are now. There would be no gain as human activity from industrialisation would still keep adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (although at a reduced rate if my other two suggestions are followed). Greater forest cover is required to sequester the carbon dioxide that is emitted unsustainably, bearing in mind that these trees also need to be replaced as they rot and burn.
Here are the top 10 countries ranked by total size of forest coverage (with their percentage of forest coverage alongside):
Russia (49%)
Canada (49%)
Brazil (56%)
USA (34%)
China (22%)
Australia (16%)
DR Congo (50%)
Argentina (34%)
Indonesia (46%)
India (24%)
These 10 provide the big carbon sinks. We could expand this to the top 50 if you like (this is purely to illustrate). They all have work to do, some more than others. Across the board, there needs to be a 60% increase in forest size. Do this and together with greater industrial efficiency, you're almost there.
Globally, set up a system of trade tariffs that acknowledges the rate of forest creation in each individual country. Failure to meet targets would mean raising tariffs and less income for those not playing ball. This would be a new form of GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade). Forget Kyoto Protocol and its arbitrary 1990 benchmark, what my benchmark does is acknowledge that humans are the cause of the problem and the solution is collective in nature, but those areas settled earlier and deforested worst must do more to correct the harm. The tariff regime would take account of total economic output and local climate and soil types, so areas that find it harder to grow trees aren't handicapped. China would be a country required to do a lot, as would India and the USA.
What about small countries that emit a lot of carbon dioxide? I checked this and one example is South Korea. However while being a big emitter, their forest coverage is at 63%, so they would meet the benchmark. Once at 60% of forest coverage worldwide, trade tariffs would be set to zero for all nations. Global free trade so long as forest coverage remains at 60%.
Keep developing new technology.
In addition to the above, work on developing new techniques such as enhanced weathering for agriculture. This is where mineral rocks are spread on agricultural land, the effect of which is to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
And finally, work on mitigating the effects of climate change, learn how to change and adjust. Not all climate change is a negative. Readers will note I haven't included any changes in individual human behaviour. That's because, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution humans are unlikely to change their habits. All that can be done is to keep improving, keep advancing, and plant trees.
There we have it. Keep it sensible, keep it simple.
Showing posts with label Kyoto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kyoto. Show all posts
March 07, 2019
December 04, 2016
Greens Can't Be Trusted
The Greens are almost always wrong about everything and here's why:-
Myth: the world is over-populated.
Wrong: we are not even close to being over-populated. I'll give you this factoid to illustrate; if you took every person on planet earth and sent them to New Zealand's Stewart Island, they'd fit standing up shoulder to shoulder.
Here's a map of Stewart Island:-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Stewart_Island_map-en.svg/260px-Stewart_Island_map-en.svg.png
Another way of looking at this, I've flown the Siberian route from Tokyo to London, done it twice in fact. It takes twelve hours or thereabouts and during that flight about nine hours is spent flying over wilderness. The only time it is obvious that you're flying over population is the three hours coming down to London over western Europe.
Or if you don't like that example, try Los Angeles to London, same result, flying over the US and Canada, you look down and struggle to find any evidence of humanity.
Myth: Kyoto agreement and the rest will save the planet
Wrong: these so-called climate change agreements are there to protect Europe's interests and to transfer wealth from the industrialised world to the second and third world.
Why is 1990 the line in the sand with Kyoto? Why not 100 BC or 100 AD or any other year for that matter? The answer to this is simple; Europe knew that they had natural gas supplies coming on stream later in the 1990's and that at 1990 their emissions were unusually large. Hence they'd be able to easily meet their targets because their emissions were going to fall anyway, seeing as natural gas is far friendlier than burning fossil fuels.
I remember Nick Smith, that weaselling Minister for climate nonsense in New Zealand grandstanding around Kiwiland with his doctorate in civil engineering. outright lying to Kiwis about why they needed a new tax to save the planet, as if such a small nation could do anything about it. What Smith said and what was an outright lie, was that Kiwis would never be paying Russia to not cut down trees.
Why was Nick Smith telling a lie? He would have known about the Marrakesh amendment to Kyoto that did contain a provision that amounted to paying Russia to not cut down trees. That is a transfer of wealth from the first world to the second world. Outrageous communist nonsense, from those who have, to those who have never done a day's work in their lives.
Look at this another way if you don't like the above example. Imagine that that good old freedom fighter and consolidator of sensible societies everywhere, Genghis Khan, lived earlier, around the time of Hadrian. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective as trees stood in his way. There would have been no sweeping across the steppes as he'd have been dodging the forests, he'd have had to keep to the coastlines of the Black Sea and when he did that the Romans would have picked his armies off. They had a navy and they'd make landings behind him, cutting off his supplies.
Do you see my point? The Black Forest is called that because no light penetrated. It was vast, but now it's just this quaint patch of greenery.
Why the frig are we, new world people, expected to pay for their stupidity, that is, Eurotrash wingnuttery that saw them cut all their trees down. Any climate solution must involve Europe putting their trees back to create a carbon sink of some value.
Myth: Greens are really cute fluffy bunnies.
Wrong: the Greens everywhere are just the communist party re-branded. Back in the 70's and 80's members of the Greens today were often communists and no-one voted for them, ever. When the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed, or the regimes just morphed into totalitarian capitalism, these ideologues decided to jump ship and acquire a brand that was saleable. They chose Greens.
It's easy to see they're communists if you look carefully enough; they think the state is always right and the individual should submit to it, they don't like private property and they think profit is bad, and they're generally in favour of loose morals and try to undermine traditional family values. More importantly they oppose western industrialised countries having strong armies. Oh dear, don't be obvious there Greens.
The worrying thing is that Green ideology appears attractive to impressionable young people so it's over the us oldies to put these young people right. My suggestion, and I've done this with my own children, is never let anything Green get a free pass. Ridicule, object, condemn, but do not let Greens have a say in anything as they're the enemy and want to destroy our civilisation and must not be allowed to.
Myth: the world is over-populated.
Wrong: we are not even close to being over-populated. I'll give you this factoid to illustrate; if you took every person on planet earth and sent them to New Zealand's Stewart Island, they'd fit standing up shoulder to shoulder.
Here's a map of Stewart Island:-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Stewart_Island_map-en.svg/260px-Stewart_Island_map-en.svg.png
Another way of looking at this, I've flown the Siberian route from Tokyo to London, done it twice in fact. It takes twelve hours or thereabouts and during that flight about nine hours is spent flying over wilderness. The only time it is obvious that you're flying over population is the three hours coming down to London over western Europe.
Or if you don't like that example, try Los Angeles to London, same result, flying over the US and Canada, you look down and struggle to find any evidence of humanity.
Myth: Kyoto agreement and the rest will save the planet
Wrong: these so-called climate change agreements are there to protect Europe's interests and to transfer wealth from the industrialised world to the second and third world.
Why is 1990 the line in the sand with Kyoto? Why not 100 BC or 100 AD or any other year for that matter? The answer to this is simple; Europe knew that they had natural gas supplies coming on stream later in the 1990's and that at 1990 their emissions were unusually large. Hence they'd be able to easily meet their targets because their emissions were going to fall anyway, seeing as natural gas is far friendlier than burning fossil fuels.
I remember Nick Smith, that weaselling Minister for climate nonsense in New Zealand grandstanding around Kiwiland with his doctorate in civil engineering. outright lying to Kiwis about why they needed a new tax to save the planet, as if such a small nation could do anything about it. What Smith said and what was an outright lie, was that Kiwis would never be paying Russia to not cut down trees.
Why was Nick Smith telling a lie? He would have known about the Marrakesh amendment to Kyoto that did contain a provision that amounted to paying Russia to not cut down trees. That is a transfer of wealth from the first world to the second world. Outrageous communist nonsense, from those who have, to those who have never done a day's work in their lives.
Look at this another way if you don't like the above example. Imagine that that good old freedom fighter and consolidator of sensible societies everywhere, Genghis Khan, lived earlier, around the time of Hadrian. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective as trees stood in his way. There would have been no sweeping across the steppes as he'd have been dodging the forests, he'd have had to keep to the coastlines of the Black Sea and when he did that the Romans would have picked his armies off. They had a navy and they'd make landings behind him, cutting off his supplies.
Do you see my point? The Black Forest is called that because no light penetrated. It was vast, but now it's just this quaint patch of greenery.
Why the frig are we, new world people, expected to pay for their stupidity, that is, Eurotrash wingnuttery that saw them cut all their trees down. Any climate solution must involve Europe putting their trees back to create a carbon sink of some value.
Myth: Greens are really cute fluffy bunnies.
Wrong: the Greens everywhere are just the communist party re-branded. Back in the 70's and 80's members of the Greens today were often communists and no-one voted for them, ever. When the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed, or the regimes just morphed into totalitarian capitalism, these ideologues decided to jump ship and acquire a brand that was saleable. They chose Greens.
It's easy to see they're communists if you look carefully enough; they think the state is always right and the individual should submit to it, they don't like private property and they think profit is bad, and they're generally in favour of loose morals and try to undermine traditional family values. More importantly they oppose western industrialised countries having strong armies. Oh dear, don't be obvious there Greens.
The worrying thing is that Green ideology appears attractive to impressionable young people so it's over the us oldies to put these young people right. My suggestion, and I've done this with my own children, is never let anything Green get a free pass. Ridicule, object, condemn, but do not let Greens have a say in anything as they're the enemy and want to destroy our civilisation and must not be allowed to.