• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Realities of Carbon Dioxide?

Do you believe this article?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Long, tedious read, but necessary to form opinion to answer the OP question. Thank you.

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

"In the early 1960s, CO2ppm concentrations in the atmosphere grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to 2.1ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74ppm compared to last year -- "the biggest increase since benchmark monitoring stations high on the Hawaiian volcano of Mauna Loa began taking measurements in 1958."[1] Carbon concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3 million and 5 million years ago, when global average temperatures were 3 degrees or 4 degrees Centigrade hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40 meters higher, jungles covered northern Canada and Florida was under water - along with coastal locations we now call New York City, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney and many others.
Crossing this threshold has fueled fears that we are fast approaching "tipping points" - melting of the subarctic tundra or thawing and releasing the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea bottom - that will accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to stop it: "I wish it weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat," said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles, set up the first monitoring stations in 1958: "At this pace, we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades.""

"
1. CAPITALISM IS, OVERWHELMINGLY, THE MAIN DRIVER OF PLANETARY ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE
From climate change to resource overconsumption to pollution, the engine that has powered three centuries of accelerating economic development revolutionizing technology, science, culture and human life itself is today a roaring, out-of-control locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping oceans of life, clawing out mountains of minerals, drilling, pumping out lakes of fuels, devouring the planet's last accessible resources to turn them all into "product" while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons.
Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from 2.5 billion to 6 billion. But in these same decades, consumption of major natural resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more. Natural gas consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so on.[3]
At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O Wilson says, "half the world's great forests have already been leveled, and half the world's plant and animal species may be gone by the end of this century." Corporations aren't necessarily evil - although plenty are diabolically evil - but they can't help themselves. They're just doing what they're supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil can't help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. That's what shareholders demand.[4] BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants can't resist mining Australia's abundant coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19 percent of Australia's gross domestic product and substantial employment even as coal combustion is the worst driver of global warming. IKEA can't help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building its flimsy, disposable furniture (IKEA is the third-largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can't help it if the cost of extracting the "rare earths" it needs to make millions of new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo - violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. [5] Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds and small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on the world's food supply while drenching the planet with their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. [6] This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the problems become.""

"SOLUTIONS TO THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS ARE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE BECAUSE, SO LONG AS WE LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM, ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO TAKE PRIORITY OVER ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS OR THE ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE AND MASS UNEMPLOYMENT WILL BE THE RESULT
We all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas emissions. Stop overconsuming natural resources. Stop the senseless pollution of the Earth, its waters and its atmosphere with toxic chemicals. Stop producing waste that can't be recycled by nature. Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the rights of other species to flourish. We don't need any new technological breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing what we're doing. But we can't stop because we're all locked into an economic system in which companies have to grow to compete and reward their shareholders and because we all need the jobs."

Does the problem seem insurmountable?

Do you believe it?

Can you help?

Do you want to help?

Was this worth reading?

 
Last edited:
You summed it up perfectly...

...in the first 3 words.
 
Long, tedious read, but necessary to form opinion to answer the OP question. Thank you.

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

"In the early 1960s, CO2ppm concentrations in the atmosphere grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to 2.1ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74ppm compared to last year -- "the biggest increase since benchmark monitoring stations high on the Hawaiian volcano of Mauna Loa began taking measurements in 1958."[1] Carbon concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3 million and 5 million years ago, when global average temperatures were 3 degrees or 4 degrees Centigrade hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40 meters higher, jungles covered northern Canada and Florida was under water - along with coastal locations we now call New York City, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney and many others.
Crossing this threshold has fueled fears that we are fast approaching "tipping points" - melting of the subarctic tundra or thawing and releasing the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea bottom - that will accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to stop it: "I wish it weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat," said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles, set up the first monitoring stations in 1958: "At this pace, we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades.""

"
1. CAPITALISM IS, OVERWHELMINGLY, THE MAIN DRIVER OF PLANETARY ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE
From climate change to resource overconsumption to pollution, the engine that has powered three centuries of accelerating economic development revolutionizing technology, science, culture and human life itself is today a roaring, out-of-control locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping oceans of life, clawing out mountains of minerals, drilling, pumping out lakes of fuels, devouring the planet's last accessible resources to turn them all into "product" while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons.
Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from 2.5 billion to 6 billion. But in these same decades, consumption of major natural resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more. Natural gas consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so on.[3]
At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O Wilson says, "half the world's great forests have already been leveled, and half the world's plant and animal species may be gone by the end of this century." Corporations aren't necessarily evil - although plenty are diabolically evil - but they can't help themselves. They're just doing what they're supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil can't help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. That's what shareholders demand.[4] BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants can't resist mining Australia's abundant coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19 percent of Australia's gross domestic product and substantial employment even as coal combustion is the worst driver of global warming. IKEA can't help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building its flimsy, disposable furniture (IKEA is the third-largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can't help it if the cost of extracting the "rare earths" it needs to make millions of new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo - violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. [5] Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds and small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on the world's food supply while drenching the planet with their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. [6] This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the problems become.""

"SOLUTIONS TO THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS ARE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE BECAUSE, SO LONG AS WE LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM, ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO TAKE PRIORITY OVER ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS OR THE ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE AND MASS UNEMPLOYMENT WILL BE THE RESULT
We all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas emissions. Stop overconsuming natural resources. Stop the senseless pollution of the Earth, its waters and its atmosphere with toxic chemicals. Stop producing waste that can't be recycled by nature. Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the rights of other species to flourish. We don't need any new technological breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing what we're doing. But we can't stop because we're all locked into an economic system in which companies have to grow to compete and reward their shareholders and because we all need the jobs."

Does the problem seem insurmountable?

Do you believe it?

Can you help?

Do you want to help?

Was this worth reading?



Power to the people!
 
Corrupt and tyrannical governments are the "main driver" of ecologic destruction. Saddam killed the deep sea coral on purpose, drained the marsh for genocide, light the oil, etc. China is another example. When those directly affected by environmental degradation are without voice in its authority, things get bad.
 
You summed it up perfectly...

...in the first 3 words.

That was just a warning to prepare interested readers. It is a problem of such complexity that it can not be adequately addressed in few words. Although lengthy, the article summed up the driving forces behind the problem without indicting the causative agents as criminals. A realistic approach. An objective approach. Non partisan. A de facto "KABOOM!", Don't you think?
 
That was just a warning to prepare interested readers. It is a problem of such complexity that it can not be adequately addressed in few words. Although lengthy, the article summed up the driving forces behind the problem without indicting the causative agents as criminals. A realistic approach. An objective approach. Non partisan. A de facto "KABOOM!", Don't you think?

An e-unabomb.
 
Corrupt and tyrannical governments are the "main driver" of ecologic destruction. Saddam killed the deep sea coral on purpose, drained the marsh for genocide, light the oil, etc. China is another example. When those directly affected by environmental degradation are without voice in its authority, things get bad.

WRONG! The normal, standard operating procedure governments are the causative factors. It is the nature of the system of Capitalism/Corporatism and until that issue is addressed, no progress will be made. The smoke is not being blown up your arse, but into the atmosphere. That would be the atmosphere about 3 miles usably high/thick for human habitation. A thin wispy existence, don't you think? Do you have any greenhouses in Africa? How about a little CO2.
 
WRONG! The normal, standard operating procedure governments are the causative factors. It is the nature of the system of Capitalism/Corporatism and until that issue is addressed, no progress will be made. The smoke is not being blown up your arse, but into the atmosphere. That would be the atmosphere about 3 miles usably high/thick for human habitation. A thin wispy existence, don't you think? Do you have any greenhouses in Africa? How about a little CO2.

In the case of CO2 (most of the so called science on it is a lot of conjecture and unproven BS), non-capatilist are responsible for the most environmental damage in the world. Of course, when you live in non-capitalist societies, every one is so poor the cannot actually afford anything, so of course they put off less air pollution per person.

So come on everyone, lets save the environment by slaughtering millions and millions of our fellow humans, subject them to abject poverty, starvation and slavery with a living standard not really any higher than a hunter-gatherer cave man. Join the socialist now and save the environment.
 
Corrupt and tyrannical governments are the "main driver" of ecologic destruction. Saddam killed the deep sea coral on purpose, drained the marsh for genocide, light the oil, etc. China is another example. When those directly affected by environmental degradation are without voice in its authority, things get bad.

China is not an example of tyrannical governments being the main driver of ecological destruction. The pollution in China is being driven from economic expansion in the search of profit and wealth. No pollution controls are being placed on power plants or cars leading to large amounts of particulate matter in the air. The dumping of waste, toxic or otherwise is being done in rivers, or the ocean because it is cheaper and the government is not stopping the practice, as the EPA does in the US. For ecological destruction in China the part the government generally takes part in is mega projects like the 3 gorges dam, or nuke plants
 
Long, tedious read... < snip >
Indeed, the very epitome of an understatement.

Does the problem seem insurmountable?
At times it does, but I have faith the truth will win in the end.

Do you believe it?
I believe you do.

Can you help?
Absolutely. All you need to do is ask. :thumbs:

Do you want to help?
Absolutely - though I don't think you'll agree with the treatment.

Was this worth reading?
Absolutely - needed a good belly laugh.
 
China is not an example of tyrannical governments being the main driver of ecological destruction. The pollution in China is being driven from economic expansion in the search of profit and wealth. No pollution controls are being placed on power plants or cars leading to large amounts of particulate matter in the air. The dumping of waste, toxic or otherwise is being done in rivers, or the ocean because it is cheaper and the government is not stopping the practice, as the EPA does in the US. For ecological destruction in China the part the government generally takes part in is mega projects like the 3 gorges dam, or nuke plants

If the people of China had political power, they would not breath smog. The env violations are government approved.
 
In the case of CO2 (most of the so called science on it is a lot of conjecture and unproven BS), non-capatilist are responsible for the most environmental damage in the world. Of course, when you live in non-capitalist societies, every one is so poor the cannot actually afford anything, so of course they put off less air pollution per person.

So come on everyone, lets save the environment by slaughtering millions and millions of our fellow humans, subject them to abject poverty, starvation and slavery with a living standard not really any higher than a hunter-gatherer cave man. Join the socialist now and save the environment.

I didn't see any links to verify one iota of what you stated. Could you suffer from a partisan ecological bigotry or lack of data input? Add a little CO2 to your greenhouse and see what happens, or read from works published in the 1800s what will happen. It ain't rocket science.
 
If the people of China had political power, they would not breath smog. The env violations are government approved.

Not so much as approved as any regulations that exist are ignored at state and local levels. The regulations are fairly minimal to begin with. The government in China's case is not causing the pollution, it is just not doing anything to limit it or prevent it. It is the companies (private and state owned) that are causing the pollution in the drive for making money.
 
Not so much as approved as any regulations that exist are ignored at state and local levels. The regulations are fairly minimal to begin with. The government in China's case is not causing the pollution, it is just not doing anything to limit it or prevent it. It is the companies (private and state owned) that are causing the pollution in the drive for making money.

The Chinese have no human, civil, labor or environmental rights. That's the problem. Blaming an element of tyrannical exploitation is addressing a symptom instead of source. In Iran, one could blame religion. But the source of the problem is tyranny.
 
Indeed, the very epitome of an understatement.

At times it does, but I have faith the truth will win in the end.

I believe you do.

Absolutely. All you need to do is ask. :thumbs:

Absolutely - though I don't think you'll agree with the treatment.

Absolutely - needed a good belly laugh.

I appreciate the comments. Eyeball to eyeball with ostriches. A good optical acupuncturist might be able to cure that sand in the eye problem. I want to watch.
 
The Chinese have no human, civil, labor or environmental rights. That's the problem. Blaming an element of tyrannical exploitation is addressing a symptom instead of source. In Iran, one could blame religion. But the source of the problem is tyranny.

Environmental pollution can occur in countries that are relatively free and those that are effected by the environmental regulation will can that enforcement tyranny. How many in the US call the EPA tyrannical for enforcing environmental regulations. In the case of the US, and in general china environmental pollution is the result of seeking profit. Companies do not want extra pollution controls because of the cost, they will avoid those extra costs as much as they can, if they can bypass or ignore regulations they will. The changes in environmental regulation over the last 30 years in the US and Canada have been large, chemical waste is controlled and disposed of properly (in most cases) when in the past it was dumped where ever they could. The ground water at the company I work at is contaminated from chemicals dumped 20 years ago. I can detect it on the floors of the plant despite the fact it has not been in the plant for 15 years at least. That was not caused by the government being tyrannical, but because dumping the waste in the back was the cheapest method of disposal
 
I didn't see any links to verify one iota of what you stated. Could you suffer from a partisan ecological bigotry or lack of data input? Add a little CO2 to your greenhouse and see what happens, or read from works published in the 1800s what will happen. It ain't rocket science.

My plants would love it. Assuming I have enough nutrients in the soil and adequate water supply, they would grow very rapidly by adding more CO2. Plants just love the stuff, cannot get enough of it.
 
Not nearly as bad, look at all of the examples.

Right,

Now why is that?

In places that are relatively free/democratic, the people want the government to place regulations on PRIVATE business, and themselves to limit the environmental pollution at extra financial costs to the PRIVATE business and to themselves.
In China, only large examples of civil unrest can cause the government to act regarding pollution like a large protest in Dalian China a few years ago preventing the opening of a chemical plant
 
Right,

Now why is that?

In places that are relatively free/democratic, the people want the government to place regulations on PRIVATE business, and themselves to limit the environmental pollution at extra financial costs to the PRIVATE business and to themselves.

And in places where people have no voice the government business operates without any regulation.

In China, only large examples of civil unrest can cause the government to act regarding pollution like a large protest in Dalian China a few years ago preventing the opening of a chemical plant

In the West, we vote.
 
My plants would love it. Assuming I have enough nutrients in the soil and adequate water supply, they would grow very rapidly by adding more CO2. Plants just love the stuff, cannot get enough of it.

Your plants love it because it raises the temperature in your greenhouse. I don't think people WANT to believe that Global Warming is real and that colors their ability to perceive objective analysis. Perhaps including yourself.
 
Your plants love it because it raises the temperature in your greenhouse. I don't think people WANT to believe that Global Warming is real and that colors their ability to perceive objective analysis. Perhaps including yourself.

Actually they grow better because the take in CO2 and give off O2. CO2 is the same to plants as Oxygen is to animals.

But what the heck, the ppm concentration of CO2 has risen by 26.06% from 1960 to present. The average temperature has risen by 5.07%. Why exactly are they not rising by the same amount if one is the direct result of the other?
 
Actually they grow better because the take in CO2 and give off O2. CO2 is the same to plants as Oxygen is to animals.

But what the heck, the ppm concentration of CO2 has risen by 26.06% from 1960 to present. The average temperature has risen by 5.07%. Why exactly are they not rising by the same amount if one is the direct result of the other?

I see. You conclude that if their are two obstacles in front of you, you will only see one. Very Texan of you. One big obstacle.
 
Back
Top Bottom