Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
174 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: AGW and poverty: some inconvenient numbers and a likely response rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
Percentage of world population living on less than US$10/day = 80%
Wild assumption: Poor people want to live like rich people in terms of cars, motorcycles, international travel, use of cement and diet.

If these wants are met today; AGW increases by 400% today.
If so, then to maintain current levels of AGW, technology and usage patterns would need to reduce GHGEs (GreenHouseGasEmmissions) by 80%.

As far as "today" goes, 3 responses appear to address AGW;
1. Keep the poor poor.
2. Sell your current technology, which is say 20% greener, as a "step towards the solution", chant "reduce, reuse and recycle", and maximise your cororate profits while promoting Greenness.
3. Global agreement to 80% cuts - ha ha ha. (Or for the Thai literate among us 5 5 5.)

What I've presented above is much worse than the currrent reality - the world's poor will not all become rich at once.
(Though the aim to reduce GHGEs to below todays levels would require greater % reductions.)
But (without a mass "die-off" occuring) global economic development will eventually provide the opportunity for "the poor" to compete for cars, motorcycles, cement and flights. So then the situation would be as presented (if we assume a "steady state" and unlimited resouces).

Whats the current global rate of increased access to "cars, motorcycles and cement"? (Both gross and as a percentage.) Can reductions in GHGEs keep up with or exceed this increase?

I know that often predictions aren't accurate - but how imaginable is an 80% improvement in efficiency? (Or an 80% decrease in GHGEs?)

Without that "80%" will "Greener" become another corporate marketing checkbox and maybe we'll get to see the accuracy of the AWG predictions?




3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Do you *seriously* believe that our planet will not find some way to alleviate any situation that it comes to find untenable? Give it some credit, sheesh.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
Tell me more - I want to believe. Will the planet's range of tolerance match my own?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think he's saying the planet will be fine. If humans are fucking things up then the planet will find a way to alleviate the problem, including extinguishing humans.

-MMM
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
Hmmmm. Call me finicky if you want but that seems cold comfort.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:
I think he's saying the planet will be fine. If humans are fucking things up then the planet will find a way to alleviate the problem, including extinguishing humans.

-MMM


What Matthew said.
Serious environmentalism is human centered; it's not about the survival of the panda. It is indeed doubtful that we can eradicate life, but it is more and more probable that we could eradicate civilisation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Option 4: Make the poor somewhat richer and make the rich somewhat poorer. Meet in the middle, then still find a way to cut emissions 50% .
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Seriously don't worry about it. Once the world government takes power on 30 June 2011 and you've got your assignment to work farm 4567L# you won't care about this stuff any more.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dwayne Hendrickson
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Venga2 wrote:
Option 4: Make the poor somewhat richer and make the rich somewhat poorer. Meet in the middle, then still find a way to cut emissions 50% .


WELCOME COMRADE!!!!! Just learn to spread the wealth around!!!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
okiedokie wrote:
Venga2 wrote:
Option 4: Make the poor somewhat richer and make the rich somewhat poorer. Meet in the middle, then still find a way to cut emissions 50% .


WELCOME COMRADE!!!!! Just learn to spread the wealth around!!!


Your wealth of course, not mine.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think anyone that can read this would be happy consuming only 1/7,000,000,000 of food and products that are (and arguably can be) produced every year on this rock of ours.

So in order of decreasing likelihood:
1) nothing will change, rich nations stay rich, poor nations continue to struggle (and support the rich nation's lifestyle) until something snaps and mass starvation occurs
2) the global population will decrease gradually and smoothly until there is enough to go around equitably with only minor modifications to Western lifestyle
3) we go into space in a real way

My preferences are in the reverse order.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Internet is a dirty rotten lie. So that kind of renders this thread moot.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marshall P.
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
badge
There is grandeur in this view of life, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
I don't think anyone that can read this would be happy consuming only 1/7,000,000,000 of food and products that are (and arguably can be) produced every year on this rock of ours.

So in order of decreasing likelihood:
1) nothing will change, rich nations stay rich, poor nations continue to struggle (and support the rich nation's lifestyle) until something snaps and mass starvation occurs
2) the global population will decrease gradually and smoothly until there is enough to go around equitably with only minor modifications to Western lifestyle
3) we go into space in a real way

My preferences are in the reverse order.


How is 3 a solution?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marshall P.
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
badge
There is grandeur in this view of life, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
AGW is a dirty rotten lie. So that kind of renders this thread moot.


Granted you don't believe in AGW. However, can you play devil's advocate? Can you articulate in your own words what the theory is? By which I mean, can you state the logical reasoning that connects human activity to global warming, and what would constitute evidence for each step of that reasoning?
14 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marshall P.
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
badge
There is grandeur in this view of life, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Quote:

Granted you don't believe in AGW. However, can you play devil's advocate? Can you articulate in your own words what the theory is? By which I mean, can you state the logical reasoning that connects human activity to global warming, and what would constitute evidence for each step of that reasoning?


Human activity is not connected to global warming, cooling, or temperature stability. It's a natural process that humans do not and cannot affect. We're far too insignificant.


I understand that's what you believe. However, I wonder if you can articulate what your opponents believe? They do make a logically valid argument that human activity is connected to global warming (note: logically valid arguments don't have to be true, they are just free from logical errors), and they do present evidence that supports the premises of their arugment.

I guess I'm asking if you can state that argument in your own words, and state what evidence might be expected if the argument were true.
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mdp4828 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
AGW is a dirty rotten lie. So that kind of renders this thread moot.


Granted you don't believe in AGW. However, can you play devil's advocate? Can you articulate in your own words what the theory is? By which I mean, can you state the logical reasoning that connects human activity to global warming, and what would constitute evidence for each step of that reasoning?


Thumbed for your resilience.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
mdp4828 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
AGW is a dirty rotten lie. So that kind of renders this thread moot.


Granted you don't believe in AGW. However, can you play devil's advocate? Can you articulate in your own words what the theory is? By which I mean, can you state the logical reasoning that connects human activity to global warming, and what would constitute evidence for each step of that reasoning?


Human activity is not connected to global warming, cooling, or temperature stability. It's a natural process that humans do not and cannot affect. We're far too insignificant.


The raindrop says it's too insignificant to cause a flood.

I don't think you give humanity much credit.

Not that it necessarily means we are the cause though.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
mdp4828 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
AGW is a dirty rotten lie. So that kind of renders this thread moot.


Granted you don't believe in AGW. However, can you play devil's advocate? Can you articulate in your own words what the theory is? By which I mean, can you state the logical reasoning that connects human activity to global warming, and what would constitute evidence for each step of that reasoning?


Human activity is not connected to global warming, cooling, or temperature stability. It's a natural process that humans do not and cannot affect. We're far too insignificant.

I think this goes to far. The science seems sound as far as humans affecting global temps so rather it's a matter of degree even if our influence is trivial.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FixedThatForYou wrote:


MyHuman activity is not connected to global warming, cooling, or temperature stability in any tangible way. It's a natural process that humans do not and cannot affect individually. I'mWe're far too insignificant. But this is really just hybris and rounding error on my part. When taken as a total biomass, the human race is nowhere near insignificant in the impacts it has on the global climate. The fact that it is an entirely natural development on this planet should not obscure the fact that some natural developments lead to catastrophic consequences over time. Fortunately for me, I live in a Jesus-bubble that prevents anything bad from ever happening except for the wrong man being elected President of my country, and all of my hard earned money being diverted to causes of no interest to my nearly-inconsequential (as regards the climate, I hasten to add) self.
15 
 Thumb up
0.12
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One raindrop that has managed to make grass grow in deserts, cut canals through miles of land to connect oceans, driven numerous species to the brink of extinction, and otherwise manipulated the environment in any number of ways to meet our own ends.

Why, when it comes to the climate, are we suddenly so impotent?

-MMM
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jbrier
United States
Aventura
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
I am saying that humanity as a whole is too insignificant. Humanity is one raindrop.


I really want to be able to find common ground with you, but this statement strikes me as so obviously false that I find it hard to believe that you actually believe it.

Just off the top of my head, I remembered this example:

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

To quote the relevant part of the article:

"Once the world's fourth-largest inland saline body of water, with an area of 68,000 km2, the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet Union irrigation projects. By 2007 it had declined to 10% of its original size, splitting into three lakes: the North Aral Sea and the eastern and western basins of the once far larger South Aral Sea. By 2009, the south-eastern lake had disappeared and the south-western lake retreated to a thin strip at the extreme west of the former southern sea.

The region's once prosperous fishing industry has been virtually destroyed, bringing unemployment and economic hardship. The Aral Sea region is also heavily polluted, with consequent serious public health problems. The retreat of the sea has reportedly also caused local climate change, with summers becoming hotter and drier, and winters colder and longer.

There is now an ongoing effort in Kazakhstan to save and replenish the North Aral Sea. A dam project completed in 2005 has raised the water level of this lake by two metres. Salinity has dropped, and fish are again found in sufficient numbers for some fishing to be viable. The outlook for the remnants of the South Aral Sea remains bleak."

Now, before you retort, I am well aware that this has nothing directly to do with global warming. My point is rather that this case and many others I can think of illustrate to me that as humans we are certainly capable of doing irreversible damage at a large scale to the environment.

Setting current politics aside, do you really not think that we should be concerned as a society about our impact on the environment?
12 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

I'm surprised by your response. Surely you know there's a world of difference between irrigation of an area or building a canal, and changing the climate of the entire world.


The only difference is the scale.

It took 15,000 people 5 years to build the Hoover Dam, creating a massive impact on a large swathe of geography. But 1,000,000,000 people contributing emissions to the atmosphere for decades would have no effect whatsoever? I find that hard to believe.

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Octavian wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

I'm surprised by your response. Surely you know there's a world of difference between irrigation of an area or building a canal, and changing the climate of the entire world.


The only difference is the scale.


Scale is everything. If we were to take your approach, then yes, a huge snowstorm in Washington DC is proof of global cooling.


No, it supports the notion of global warming fueling climate change. All that snow is due to increased moisture in the atmosphere. Moisture gets into the atmosphere through evaporation. Increased heat increases evaporation.

The climate is basically a massive thermodynamic system. Increase the energy source (heat) and you exaggerate the outputs.

Anyways, I'm with you about the solution needing to focus on people. One of the big reasons climate change is a problem is its impact on yearly crop yields. So trying to mitigate the effects of global warming is very directly related to saving the world's global population from tragic situations like starvation.

Doesn't matter if the warming is man-made or not in that respect - the impact is bad for human lives either way. And either way we need to start working towards solutions now. Don't let the antics of alarmists put you off from wanting to address a very real human problem.

-MMM
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

Surely you know there's a world of difference between irrigation of an area or building a canal, and changing the climate of the entire world.

Why? Global changes are inherently the result of accumulated global changes. Have you ever had calculus? Infinitesimal changes add up to a distinctly measurable and non-negligible effect.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mdp4828 wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
I don't think anyone that can read this would be happy consuming only 1/7,000,000,000 of food and products that are (and arguably can be) produced every year on this rock of ours.

So in order of decreasing likelihood:
1) nothing will change, rich nations stay rich, poor nations continue to struggle (and support the rich nation's lifestyle) until something snaps and mass starvation occurs
2) the global population will decrease gradually and smoothly until there is enough to go around equitably with only minor modifications to Western lifestyle
3) we go into space in a real way

My preferences are in the reverse order.


How is 3 a solution?


More resources available (asteroids for a start) and more space technology available. With sufficient tech, we could eventually modulate solar energy reaching the earth to alleviate increasing temperatures (whether manmade or not). Other possibilities are heat sinking to remove heat from our system and moving manufacturing with its associated heat production out of our atmosphere.

And as a last resort, there would be people outside our gravitational field.

Not easily and not short term, so I don't think it's likely to happen.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.