global warming

Jun 2, 2021
4
4
15
so the new data that came out on May 31 on CO2 emissions condemning Earth to levels not seen in 50 million years , states that we need to curb the growth of fossil fuel use now.......so we all know this will never happen because no other country on Earth will ever stand up to China who is by far the worst offender of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. So posting any article or passing any regulations in the U.S is fruitless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo
Dec 9, 2020
249
173
260
Carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor are the big three of global warming. Irrespective of country, if new regulations, different resource use and recycling can be made to work economically, those "polluting" countries would readily adopt such methodologies/technologies. Economics is the key to implementing successful change(s).
 
Jun 2, 2021
4
4
15
Carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor are the big three of global warming. Irrespective of country, if new regulations, different resource use and recycling can be made to work economically, those "polluting" countries would readily adopt such methodologies/technologies. Economics is the key to implementing successful change(s).
China will do what China wants to do and will have no regard for anything or anyone else. They just "allowed" their citizens to have a third child. They control everything and if they had any care about Earth they would be exhibiting that now. They know they are the big polluters .
But I agree with you that as a species we need to control our impacts, but China will not. Just my opinion
 
Dec 9, 2020
249
173
260
China has the most people and the least arable land. If global warming and climate change generate a decrease in global food production, and if the human population keeps increasing, China will have to resort to a diet more unsavory than what is currently eaten, and depend on whatever food they will be able, to beg, borrow or steal from other countries. Change for China would be difficult, but not as difficult as starvation. Sadly, the portend is being between a "rock and a hard place" for the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Feb 17, 2021
21
10
15
China has the most people and the least arable land. If global warming and climate change generate a decrease in global food production, and if the human population keeps increasing, China will have to resort to a diet more unsavory than what is currently eaten, and depend on whatever food they will be able, to beg, borrow or steal from other countries. Change for China would be difficult, but not as difficult as starvation. Sadly, the portend is being between a "rock and a hard place" for the world.
The problem is: per capita footprints are much greater in developed countries, UAE and Qitar.
China can have lower ecological footprint per capita, still.
 
Dec 29, 2019
136
100
760
so the new data that came out on May 31 on CO2 emissions condemning Earth to levels not seen in 50 million years , states that we need to curb the growth of fossil fuel use now.......so we all know this will never happen because no other country on Earth will ever stand up to China who is by far the worst offender of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. So posting any article or passing any regulations in the U.S is fruitless.
No, it is not pointless. Pointless would be having no efforts in the US - historically having emitted more than China and still a huge emitter - whilst calling on China to reduce emissions. Pointless and hypocritical. Pointless because it is hypocritical. Doing nothing whilst blaming China is not how to induce action from China or any other nations.

Because China has so much to lose from the world failing on climate it has a lot to gain by becoming more ambitious on emissions and even more to gain as the biggest manufacturer and exporter of low emissions energy technology in global ambition. The growing cost effectiveness of renewable energy works there too; their planners might take time to shift from the (not unique) lingering belief that only fossil fuels are capable of sustaining the economic growth that is pulling hundreds of millions out of poverty, but they probably will abandon many of the planned new coal plants, as is happening elsewhere.

They may be nationalistic and autocratic but China's government is not stupid. The assumptions of indifference look like self justifying assumptions - assumptions mostly by Americans who don't really want America to have ambitious emissions policies and want to use China as their excuse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dragrath

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
I am trying to be very careful here, and restrict my comments to matters of fact (without any intended GRAPE violation).

In any situation, whether we are talking bacteria or pterodactyls, any degree of overpopulation will eventually rebound on that group. In the event of unnatural global warming (that initiated by a living species) it is likely, though not automatic, that an overpopulated species would be most hit. This would seemingly be expected in the case of epidemics (as opposed to pandemics).

The effects of global warming would not be expected to be so localised, but I think the same reasoning might be sound. But it still might be a case of "sic transit H.sap." anyway.

Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,277
1,050
3,060
AGW is certainly real, so the appropriate question is how sensitive is our planet to changes? There is good reason to question both data accuracy and modeling variables.

The complexity in climate modeling warrants serious scrutiny by all of science, but some in power are able to unfairly limit dissent as we are currently witnessing regarding the allowance (finally) of open ideas to the Covid origin, and don’t forget Climategate.

Here is an interesting article regarding allowing open debate, including finding a facility to even have a debate. Science must not become an ideology (scientism).

I fear too much cherry-picking is being done with data to get attention, and possible big funding. This topic is way too political to assume rational minds will prevail, IMO.
 
Dec 29, 2019
136
100
760
I fear too much cherry-picking is being done with data to get attention, and possible big funding. This topic is way too political to assume rational minds will prevail, IMO.
Taking the IPCC and abundance of other reports seriously is entirely rational. Dangerously irresponsible to presume such reports are biased and refuse to take them seriously. Dangerously negligent of people in Office to dismiss or ignore that advice. There is money at stake and willingness to fight dirty about it - fossil fuel wealth, that is only really wealth as long as the climate consequences are not counted as a cost.

I think it is exposure to cherry picked and not representative examples of climate science getting things wrong, presented by opponents of strong action that lead to the view that climate science is presenting a biased and exaggerated view of the seriousness of the climate problem - I see far more commitment to misleading and misrepresenting the science from opponents of taking strong action than the science agencies that do climate science. Look to the IPCC reports - that are reviewed and endorsed by top science agencies around the world and are consistent with their independent work.
 
Jun 8, 2021
3
5
15
China will do what China wants to do and will have no regard for anything or anyone else. They just "allowed" their citizens to have a third child. They control everything and if they had any care about Earth they would be exhibiting that now. They know they are the big polluters.
But I agree with you that as a species we need to control our impacts, but China will not. Just my opinion
I agree that it's the population of China that's the problem. There's a ton of people living there, but each person has a really low carbon footprint. Maybe if they just lowered the number of children each person has... and maybe if they took notice of the impact they're bringing on our planet.
 
Dec 29, 2019
136
100
760
I disagree that the climate problem is a China specific problem. We are beyond where population control (short of crimes against humanity) can fix global warming - and China's government has raising people out of poverty as a high priority. As it should. And whilst more people making high emissions adds to the problem, shifting to low/zero emissions works irrespective of population; other constraints to population growth still apply but much lower emissions, approaching zero per capita with prosperity is achievable.

The same favorable economics for renewable energy that has made new coal plants unviable in most of the world apply there too - their system may take time to reach the same conclusion but almost certainly will.

I think blaming China for collective failures on global warming is more about others seeking justifications for not committing to zero emissions than China's emissions being intractable.
 

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
Quote
Oil Reserves in China
China
holds 25,132,122,000 barrels of proven oil reserves as of 2016, ranking 14th in the world and accounting for about 1.5% of the world's total oil reserves of 1,650,585,140,000 barrels. China has proven reserves equivalent to 5.4 times its annual consumption.
Quote [Google]

5.4 years before it has to buy? From whom? Alternatives?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo and Helio
Jun 1, 2020
1,277
1,050
3,060
5.4 years before it has to buy? From whom? Alternatives?
This likely has a lot to do with why they have almost as many coal-fired plants operational than the rest of the world combined.

New plants puts them at about 3x that of the rest of the world. Here

I found this statement, "China has been the world’s largest carbon emitter for 20 years " from Here. This site also claims China finances more than 70% of the world's new coal power plants.

The bigger issue, once again, for me is to understand just how sensitive our planet is to the myriad number of variables, many interdependent, that must be understood to determine the impact of CO2, and other, increases.

But another problem is how much freedom we can give scientists to work together for all of our sakes.

Getting those answers, unfortunately, involves additional distorting burdens from politics and others. Here is a disturbing report stating that academic freedom is in "crisis".
 
Last edited:
Feb 17, 2021
21
10
15
Should we track why are ecological footprints per capital significantly higher in Qitar, Luxembourg, Canada then in China?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS