[Corey USA]

Proposing that we start a thread on a workable environmentally sustainable solution. This forum seems to be stuck in a rut as far as what the title suggests which is to "Combat human factors in Global Warming (which includes the poisoning of the ecosystem and unsustainable practices.)"

What I have read thus far here, is the forum is still stuck on the whole "denial and its not humans fault" syndrome.

1. lets focus on environmental sustainability which means that our actions will repair as much of our damaged ecosystem along with finding a better way to live that Minimizes the dammage done to our Ecosystem and earth. (we cannot survive if our ecosystem collapses it is in the process now. That is fact and is not negotiable.)

2. Suggestions on how to minimize our use of particularly Luxury items

3. suggestions on how to reduce the energy needs of our necessities like refrigerators and stoves and such.

4. suggestions on how to restructure society so as to make getting around as easy as possible with the least energy involved.

5. when criticising recommend and alternative or adapt what you are criticizing so as not to fall into the old rut of denial and arguing with no forward momentum.

6. post links to info you are using when making suggestions so if people are confused as to your suggestions and to why it was suggested then, they know where it originates from.
(example link to info about ocean carbon sink and how co2 is acidifying our oceans the suggestion would be that we reduce our consumption so as to reduce our emissions since relying on earth to fix our pollution is proving to be ineffectual in a time frame that humans will be on earth. I have almost no doubt that earth will eventually heal its self after we are gone but that is not the point it is about the here and now and what we have to live with in the near future.)

7. If you see linked info that is in error instead of attacking it give links of other info that you believe is correct and let us readers make our own mind up.

8. It is a team effort made of individuals with different back grounds. All have relevance no mater the ignorance or denial age race status and all other differences. by them sharing info towards the goal of combating man made factors in our changing environment is moving forward.

9 Ultimately the plan we work out can be worked into a doable action that will try to minimize as few broken ego's and to severe a cut of current living standards.

10 goal is to educate as well as create a doable environmentally sustainable society that we can all be proud.

11. there can be demographic factors so there may be variations to the end product.(example of demographic factors is Australia being south of the Equator with lessening rain and a desert that spans the most parts of the central continent. so energy used to desalinize drinking water and crop water will need to be address and not necessarily cut into there share of emission. Where china has population issues. USA has excessive energy and consumption issues with an unsustainable capitalist economy. UK is like USA but not on as bad a scale but has to deal with a socialist government.

12. Suggestions on diffent forms of government. maybe a merging of the parts of our government that seems to work and will maximize protection against Anti-social behaviors. By Government, Big Business, special intrest groups, and individuals.

Will add more guidlines or rules as time progresses and will ask for help from moderators if people choose to attack each other on this particular thread.

[blearyeyes]

Well here's what the EU proposes for us all:

/news.sulekha.com/nlink.aspx?cid=726241

I wondered how long the EU would take to use 'climate change' as a means to stifle trade. If this piece of tripe is enacted, European standard of living will plummet overnight and inflation will increase substantially. And we can all kiss goodbye to cheap PCs, playstations, plasmas.....Climate change - don't ya just love it.

[Corey USA]

link is dead or can't be reached here in the USA.

The point of this thread is to come up with a workable solution we can live with that will get us to the target reductions without compromising our ecosystem further in the process.

The reason EU is so serious about it is not whether it would stiffel trade but that we are looking at extinction by 2100 or sooner. this is the sole reason for Cutting our pollution. This is based on scientist consensus of the brightest climatologists and other areas of science that deals with the earth and ecosystem as a whole. IPCC Even if there is a political motive behind it we can not take the risk against 90% odds that says we loose if we don't change and do it fast for we should have been doing this since the early 80's. Because we waited so long we now have to pay a higher price than it would have been to do it gradual. This is the harsh reality and it is no laughing matter. Yes some humor is needed but not at the expense of the seriousness of it.

We as a species Needs to grow up fast and mature in a hurry if we are to even have a chance to stop the worst of the effects to a level of survivability.

I am curious "blearyeyes" do you have family and friends you deeply love? If so do you want to gamble there lives on a 10% chance that we are not responsible?
Do you have a moral and ethical conscience?

I do not have friends and family and I am fighting to save our ecosystem from our pollution and destruction so that the ecosystem whats left of it and human race continues.
I have stepped up to the plate and I am taking responsibility for my actions as well as others, to effect change not only within myself but with the whole human race as a whole.
I don't want to give up the creature comforts but I am reducing as much as I possibly can to minimize my footprint in hopes that it helps buy us a little more time to get more people to take personal responsibility for there action.

I DO NOT WANT THE ALTERNATIVE which is FORCE.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

I have stepped up to the plate and I am taking responsibility for my actions as well as others, to effect change not only within myself but with the whole human race as a whole.

Your ambitious mate, I'll give you that.

[Corey USA]

What choice do I have? I have always had a high moral and ethical standard. Our leaders are not Stepping up to the plate. Many of us Americans are so busy that we have to rely on the specialist to figure things out and tell us what needs to be done with certainty. Until them most of us go about business as usual.

Have you read any of the monbiot.com info? its an eye opener also look at his biography this is a kind of person I am more willing to believe. No he is not perfect as none of us are. What strikes me is he puts his life on the line to get the truth to the rest of us about abuses and corruption around the world.

I get the idea he is a UK resident for his book "heat" is about how UK would need to cut energy use and consumption by 90% by 2030 in order to stay within 2 degree Celsius change. he also has pointed out that IPCC report been juggling two numbers around (regarding the target numbers we need and must meet) interchanging them only they are not numbers they are words. So its not as noticeable but he picked up on it. It was not a mistake in regards to typo They were deliberately changed to confuse the readers. they were interchanging the "co2" with "Co2+equivalents" it is the co2+equivalents that needs to be the target number NOT the "co2" alone burning fuel does not just put out one type of gas it puts out several I can't remember the other specific gases but they are greenhouse trapping as well. By switching these two numbers around they actually plan to stop at the 3 degree mark! which is just shy of the tipping point.

This task is even more daunting for USA for we need to cut 96% by 2030

This is not something to joke about it is serious and we are running out of time we are gambling with people lives now not economy

My personal guess is the switching of the target numbers was purely political and pushed by big business for they have the most to loose in regards to money. The lower the target numbers the more profit they keep. Could you imagine having your company shut down and you had to overhaul the infrastructure? If i was run by greed I would resist with every fiber of my being. which I am not thank goodness.

I have not read his book or all his info yet so I do not know what he has to say about China and India.

So, yes, I am stepping up to the plate for very few others are standing up to the bullies and saying NO MORE THIS IS "OUR" World NOT JUST YOURS!
I am tired of being bullied and lied too. All I have to do is look outside to see our ecosystem is being torn apart by our abuses.

PS I am a conservationist conservationist are those who balance the needs for the environment with those needs for humans. Right now the balance is way off towards humans while sacrificing the environment. Layman terms "Tip it to far and everything just slides right off."

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

What choice do I have? I have always had a high moral and ethical standard.

I am sure you do mate. But I must admit I kind of lost interest when elsewhere you stated that you think George Bush failed to act sooner during the Katrina disaster because he wanted poor people to die.

I'm afraid I don't have time to reply to all of your posts as there are so many of them and they are so long. Will try soon though mate.

Damo

[Corey USA]

I said it was a possibility that Bush wanted to weed the population of people who were not contributing to society. It would be a way to reduce population by dragging feet.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

link is dead or can't be reached here in the USA.

The point of this thread is to come up with a workable solution we can live with that will get us to the target reductions without compromising our ecosystem further in the process.

The reason EU is so serious about it is not whether it would stiffel trade but that we are looking at extinction by 2100 or sooner. this is the sole reason for Cutting our pollution. This is based on scientist consensus of the brightest climatologists and other areas of science that deals with the earth and ecosystem as a whole. IPCC Even if there is a political motive behind it we can not take the risk against 90% odds that says we loose if we don't change and do it fast for we should have been doing this since the early 80's. Because we waited so long we now have to pay a higher price than it would have been to do it gradual. This is the harsh reality and it is no laughing matter. Yes some humor is needed but not at the expense of the seriousness of it.

We as a species Needs to grow up fast and mature in a hurry if we are to even have a chance to stop the worst of the effects to a level of survivability.

I am curious "blearyeyes" do you have family and friends you deeply love? If so do you want to gamble there lives on a 10% chance that we are not responsible?
Do you have a moral and ethical conscience?

I do not have friends and family and I am fighting to save our ecosystem from our pollution and destruction so that the ecosystem whats left of it and human race continues.
I have stepped up to the plate and I am taking responsibility for my actions as well as others, to effect change not only within myself but with the whole human race as a whole.
I don't want to give up the creature comforts but I am reducing as much as I possibly can to minimize my footprint in hopes that it helps buy us a little more time to get more people to take personal responsibility for there action.

I DO NOT WANT THE ALTERNATIVE which is FORCE.

You're starting to worry me Corey old fruit. I teach my family never to accept what they read at face value, certainly if it's in the media. Always question the accepted wisdom with a view that it is probably not entirely correct in every aspect.

What do you mean by your last comment? You're not thinking of doing a Unibomber thing are you?

[johntheexpat]

Surely the next 200 years, or less, are going to be the greatest ever demonstration of Darwinism this planet has ever seen? Survival of the fittest is what progress is all about. The West believes they will survive because they are the fittest,(health and wealth wise), and if half the planet perish due to drought/flooding/starvation/illness etc etc brought on by Global Warming then that's Darwinism. Nothing to do with us. We just have to make sure we have the depth or resources to survive and mother nature will remove the weak and feeble for us. With the global population brought back under control by natural selection, GW by default will come back under control too.

NB the above is just one possible scenario, and not one I personally would like to see unfold. But it does make sense in a cruel and inhuman sort of way.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

I said it was a possibility that Bush wanted to weed the population of people who were not contributing to society. It would be a way to reduce population by dragging feet.

Hi Corey, as someone who voted for Bush I am 100% certain he did not want anyone to die.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

Hi Corey, as someone who voted for Bush I am 100% certain he did not want anyone to die.

Nor do I. I just think he was completely (and typically) inept.

[Stephen Wilde]

It's awfully easy to be inept in a unique and previously unexperienced situation. Armchair generalship is not recommended. There but for the grace of God/Fate/Luck go you.

I don't think the world is going to get anywhere by attributing malign motives to those who are allegedly 'right' wing and who do their best and fail whilst at the same time attributing the best of motives to those who are allegedly 'left' wing and who do their best and fail.

The problem of our times is the unthinking labelling of individuals as right or left wing and then interpreting everything they do or say accordingly.

Most sensitive liberal types fall into that trap and of course they (we?) are in the majority. There is a dangerous propensity for assuming that the left is for people whilst the right is for money. That is entirely wrong but apparently all pervasive.

It results from a brilliant move by Marx in seperating capitalism from socialism so that a capitalist is always seen as money oriented whereas a socialist is always seen as people oriented.

What it ignores is that in the widest sense the best interests of the people lie in the proper management of material and human resorces (capital).

There is a greater likelihood of failure to best help the people if capital is mismanaged which is why the Soviet Union, Mao's China and many other socialist nations were total economic failures causing widespread death and suffering.

What really matters is who controls the capital and on what terms. All else is chaff and the left/right dichotomy is false and misleading.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

The reason EU is so serious about it is not whether it would stiffel trade but that we are looking at extinction by 2100 or sooner. this is the sole reason for Cutting our pollution. This is based on scientist consensus of the brightest climatologists and other areas of science that deals with the earth and ecosystem as a whole. IPCC Even if there is a political motive behind it we can not take the risk against 90% odds that says we loose if we don't change and do it fast for we should have been doing this since the early 80's. Because we waited so long we now have to pay a higher price than it would have been to do it gradual. This is the harsh reality and it is no laughing matter. Yes some humor is needed but not at the expense of the seriousness of it.

We as a species Needs to grow up fast and mature in a hurry if we are to even have a chance to stop the worst of the effects to a level of survivability.

Corey mate, I am with you 100% in that we need to look for solutions to climate change, but please be careful with statements like "we are looking at [human] extinction by 2100 or sooner", which is frankly, silly. The IPCC have never made claims of that sort, and statements like that undermine your otherwise worthwhile intentions.

On solutions, I think it is partly about creating a culture of responsibility, which has already started. People are often happy to a pay a premium for responsible and ethical products. A good example is free-range, organic and recycled produce, which are firmly established and widely available in supermarkets. The same culture change can happen where climate change is concerned. For example, people can switch to a 100% renewable energy supplier/plan, simply by changing their electricity provider (which you can even do online). There is a cost involved, of course, but it is not as much as you might expect (10-20%?).

One of the best ways to make all this happen is simply to spread the word and inform. Many people start recycling, simply because they learn that all their friends and neighbours are recycling, and gradually it becomes socially unacceptable not to recycle. The same thing can happen for combating climate change - it just takes time to inform people of the many issues.

I believe some people contribute to this forum as a way of informing others, but sensationalism and hype is not the answer - it will alienate people. We need to be moderate and informative, and sometimes this means correcting people's factual mistakes. And sometimes that is the most significant contribution that someone can make to the tackling the problem. IMHO.

[Corey USA]

IPCC have been forbidden to say anything related to level of die off or extinction because of out side political influence. They have also been forbidden to say anything related to a runaway chain reaction or feedback loop or any such similar things. by same outside political influence so as not to panic the population of the reality we face if we do not change if it hasn't already started. Semi frozen methane is a key word. The cold comfort is once it starts it will not be over night. The bad thing is once started its out of our hands and there will be extinction as a result for life cannot adapt fast enough. this is not being an alarmist this is simply pointing out the truth based on observable evidence.

An alarmist would say WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE OR FIRE IN THE HOUSE when there is no fire in the house.

Siberia peat bog look into it. It was thawing out even in the Al gore video. He showed clips of the thawing out.

Siberia peat bog did not freeze over last winter as a result of the heat trap from methane and decomposition. Along with climate heating up.


I am simply pointing out reality. If it scares you sorry. Not my intention.
The point of knowing the real reality is to give you info that will allow you to make better and more environmentally sustainable choices.

Only reason I ever mentioned force is in reference to controlling anti-social behaviors or to give the info to people who expect other to figure it out so they can take action with certainty.

Info provided by watch dog groups is not to be an alarmist or doomsayer but to share info about bad and harmful things that companies or groups of people or individuals do. They share this info so as to educate the rest of us who do not have the time to do it our selves to better allow us to make informed decisions. This groups of people are doing it because they believe that the criminal act should be stopped and punished nothing more.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

Hi Corey, as someone who voted for Bush I am 100% certain he did not want anyone to die.

His actions speak otherwise. maybe your faith in him is blinding you to this possibility.

Look at the time table of actions surrounding the Katrina Mess. The city had asked for help from the federal government well before the hurricane made land fall. My heart dropped out the bottom when I read the time line of events. There was no way it was an incompetent error on Bush's Part. Bush did not become an oil tycoon because of any incompetence. A person in that kind of position does not get the job it if they are incompetent. If they do Then our whole way of economics and leadership is truly and totally screwed.

I know hindsight is always better but the time lag involved in decisions and taking actions goes way beyond incompetence.

I was with the Minnesota conservation corp(State education and work program) We had a tornado go through a community in St Peters in central Minnesota during the night. We heard about it the next morning on the radio.
The morning after hearing about it we dropped what we were doing and headed for St Peters to clear trees. We did not have the level of resources that FEMA has yet we responded in 1 day and a 1/2 of hearing after it went through there town. No prior warning at all. 2/3 of Minnesota conservation corp showed. This is not even our primary job. This emergency response was implemented that same year we had no practice. Yet we responded in an orderly manor and cleared the town in 3 days where it would have taken more than 2 weeks without our help.

Bush knew katrina was comming in advance and had the request from the city for help before hand he sat on it.
In regards to fema the ultimate decision was Bush's.
The person heading FEMA was purely a scapegoat. Yes the Scapegoat was incompetent no real training for responding to disasters when help is requested.

I voted for Bush the first time, but not the second.

Bush is First a oil tycoon then a president. He basically runs his presidency the same way he would run his oil business. viciously cold and calculating. Cost vs profit.

Just look at his track record of votes and vetoes and decisions. They speak for themselves this is the true nature of the beast. It is real difficult to spin propaganda when it comes to making actual decisions and implementing choices.

Bush has already committed 32 impeachable offenses what I don't understand is why has he not been impeached yet?

anyway back to the point of this thread.

UNplugging things when they are not actively being used is a way to save energy. In the case of entertainment systems have power strips with everything plugged in and then use the switch on the strip as a means to break the connection that way you don't have to unplug every device this is the most convenient way of doing it.

[Corey USA]

OK since I am not getting much input on solutions from other people I will start...
How could we improve the community to be more walkable and bike able so as reduce the need for driving?


This suggestion is not related to above:
Plan your schedule in advance so as to make one trip to do several tasks(A).
Avoid (B)

A. Make one trip get the kids go to practice. watch the kids play. collect the kids go to the store get the milk not idling the engine then go home

B. driving to the store for gal milk. then drive home to get the kids to go to the soccer practice. go home wait till practice is over go back get the kids go home. : peace: