PDA

View Full Version : Economy more important than global warming - George Bush


tlr online
15-04-06, 01:04
Stark warning over climate change

The Earth is likely to experience a temperature rise of at least 3C, the UK government's chief scientist says. Professor Sir David King warned this would happen because world governments were failing to agree on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. He told the BBC that nations had to act now to tackle the warming expected to happen over the next 100 years. And he said even if a global agreement could be reached on limiting emissions, climate change was inevitable.

The UK government and the EU want to try to stabilise the climate at an increase of no more than 2C, but the US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising quickly. A recent report called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, produced by the Hadley Centre, one of the top world centres for projecting future climate, modelled the likely effects of a 3C rise. It warned the situation could wreck half the world's wildlife reserves, destroy major forest systems, and put 400 million more people at risk of hunger.

Professor King told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "We don't have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do so let's just carry on living as per usual. It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population. What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades - we are talking 100 years or so. We need to begin that process of investment." He said it would be a major challenge for developing countries, in particular.

The Hadley forecasts hinge on stabilising the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) at a level of 550 parts per million in the atmosphere. Professor King said this was the figure Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted world leaders to agree on. He admitted politicians were taking a big risk to push CO2 levels as high as 550ppm. This figure is almost double the pre-industrial level of two centuries ago.

But he said the UK government believed 550ppm was the lowest figure achievable worldwide as developing countries continued to increase their emissions, and the US refused to cut its CO2. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has criticised Professor King for accepting global temperatures could rise above 2C.

And Friends of the Earth director, Tony Juniper, said: "It is technologically possible to significantly reduce our emissions and deliver 2C - Professor King should be pressing for government polices to deliver on this rather than accepting the current lack of political will and talking of three degrees as an inevitability."

So far, the US, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has been unwilling to debate a CO2 threshold. President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy.

www.bbc.co.uk

meansizzler
15-04-06, 01:05
Could someone sum up this article in a like a short sentence...

tlr online
15-04-06, 01:06
Sure. See you in 24 hours. :wve:

Genocide
15-04-06, 01:08
Could someone sum up this article in a like a short sentence...
were pretty much buggered in 100 years

Thorn
15-04-06, 02:10
Sad, just sad.

SSJ6Wolf
15-04-06, 02:40
I hate to be opposing, and I'm not sure how reliable this article is, but according to readings credited to the Illinois State Museum, human activity only contributes at most 0.3% of the greenhouse effect, while 95% is due solely to water vapor, and the remainder is composed of other natural gases.

Here is the link: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

And the earth having a constantly changing atmosphere makes sense. After all, the ice age had to have warmed up somehow! ;)

HollabackBoy
15-04-06, 03:00
I can't stand George Bush. :rolleyes:

croft28
15-04-06, 03:34
Bush is a tool.

Seriously.

ace_85
15-04-06, 03:35
I hate to be opposing, and I'm not sure how reliable this article is, but according to readings credited to the Illinois State Museum, human activity only contributes at most 0.3% of the greenhouse effect, while 95% is due solely to water vapor, and the remainder is composed of other natural gases.

Here is the link: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

And the earth having a constantly changing atmosphere makes sense. After all, the ice age had to have warmed up somehow! ;)

This statistic is likely to be true, and, ironically, it explains why we are taking such big risks where global warming is concerned. There is currently quite a poor scientific understanding of the environmental results from even minor changes in CO2 inputs to the atmosphere, because the overall system is so delicately balanced. All that can definitely be said from recent Arctic and Antartic ice-core studies is that any major change in the climate (up to 3 degrees) could be rapid, as little as 20 years. It's a real concern, simply because we are not certain what the ''critical limits'' for these type of events are, or even how close we are to those limits. If I had my wish, all governments would be taking CO2 emission levels very seriously :(

TRelic
15-04-06, 04:03
I've pretty much decided not to take anything and everything Bush and his Administration have to say seriously.

GodOfLight
15-04-06, 06:33
wow bush is an ever bigger jerk then i thought. can't wait till he finally has to leave the office...

thanks for posting tlr online

Zip
15-04-06, 08:41
Bush has no clue what he is doing in the war he said troops will not be sent in to save people next day on the news in a daring raid on a iraqi stronghold american troops so ther i mean what an ass he doesn't know what he is doing and whats with his face its as bad as barry scots

Draco
15-04-06, 09:07
Well...the world economy IS more important. Unless you want to cut the world population down 70%.

Lara Lover
15-04-06, 09:08
Bush, When are you ever going to learn?

:rolleyes:

Pipolinne
15-04-06, 09:38
Because Economy will make all the sense when we live in a continuous ambiental catastroph!!

Greenkey2
15-04-06, 09:56
Well I'll say this for the last course I did (fossils and the history of life); at least mass extinctions due to climate change etc have happened several times before and life is still going :rolleyes:


Bush is an official victim of Ostrich Syndrome (sticking your head in the sand being the most common symptom). But it's worth bearing in mind that our entire SPECIES is a particulalry chronic OS sufferer too :(

Draco
15-04-06, 09:56
Because Economy will make all the sense when we live in a continuous ambiental catastroph!!

I think people are ignoring the fact the Earth has been warming for thousands of years.

Greenkey2
15-04-06, 10:01
I think people are ignoring the fact the Earth has been warming for thousands of years.

And severe swings in the climate have happened hundreds of times in the 4.5 billion years Earth has been around.

I'm not defending ignorant destruction of our biosphere by humans, but I will say that Earth has suffered far worse multiple times without humans being around to make their contribution.

jarhead
15-04-06, 12:24
has anyone considered the fact that the world would be a better place without mr bush and his over sized useless brain

Reggie
15-04-06, 13:06
Bush is a tool.

Seriously.

Definately...but I also respect that global warming is also a natural process too.

Lavinder
15-04-06, 13:16
:hea:

This world is going mad.

Elysia
15-04-06, 13:18
Well I'll say this for the last course I did (fossils and the history of life); at least mass extinctions due to climate change etc have happened several times before and life is still going :rolleyes:
(
You are completely correct - I did my degree in Palaeobiology and Evolution (dinosaurs and rocks, basically...) and we did a lot of work on Milankovitch Cyles and Global Warming. However, the problem isn't so much that the Earth is warming up / cooling down - it does that anyway - it's the rate at which it is happening.

Yes, the economy is important... but if we continue the way we're going, there won't be a planet to worry about the economy on!! We have a responsibility to this planet - we've abused it for so long now, and it won't be able to contimue taking that abuse for much longer.

Problem is, we don't know what is going to happen. We have nothing to gauge against.. it could all be scaremongering, but I do think it's better to be safe than sorry (since I live in one of the areas that is most vulnerable to be wiped off the map in the UK...)

Catapharact
15-04-06, 13:19
Well, to put it into prespective everyone, human actions account for a miniscule section of the overall problem of Global warming. Many countries at this time need to develope and they need a strong economy.

Though I don't condone Bush and his views at all, I have to say I quite understand this one.

jarhead
15-04-06, 13:20
but is that miniscule amount enough to top the balance

Catapharact
15-04-06, 13:24
but is that miniscule amount enough to top the balance

Uh... No its not. Overall the main problem to focus on is air pollution rather than Global Warming. More people around the world die of Smog realted deathes rather than heat.

Geck-o-Lizard
15-04-06, 14:26
Hey, at least it'll solve the problem of over-population.

:rolleyes:

YvesSL
15-04-06, 14:44
Sure. See you in 24 hours. :wve: Can I ask why?

YvesSL
15-04-06, 14:44
I love money! :jmp:

jarhead
15-04-06, 14:54
i was thinking like that aswell yves. and i also agree with money, but not when the chances are too high

Catapharact
15-04-06, 15:00
Tell that to numerious third world nations who are desperately trying to get on their own two feets. To restrict their right to developement over a minisule contribution to global warming is not only unfair; it's Prejudicial.

jarhead
15-04-06, 15:06
we have to do a massive piece of coursework about this and chgina. apparently america moans to us that china arnt making an effort to help global warming. however china are still using coal to generate power, and all they need is a little money to help 'push' them into nuclear power.

EK-MDi
15-04-06, 15:12
Well there's an idea for the next Tomb Raider game. Lara Croft could go on an adventure to find Bush in the caves, to force him to join the plan, to stop the rise of global warming.

Forwen
15-04-06, 16:03
As for the human contribution to global warming.

The recurrence of interglacials and ice ages, when the concentration of CO2 (which keeps the solar radiation from escaping the Earth) and methane in the atmosphere increases and decreases more or less regularly is pretty much proven fact. Now we live in interglacial, and as they teach us in schools, if it wasn't for it we would have never started cutting down trees and sowing seeds and generally building our "civilization". Now, there's a theory claiming that if it wasn't for human activity we would all be heading toward another ice age pretty fast, as it had been for hundreds of thousands years before us with ice ages that come and go. And now the controversial part - human impact on global temperature didn't start during the industrial revolution 200-100 years ago, but during the neolithic one about 9 thousands years before - thanks to massive felling of the trees (retarding CO2 absorption) and field irrigation (accelerating methane emission) that followed transformation of human way of life. Now the temperature change that is believed to have been caused by this process before the industrial revolution is about 0.8 C - compared to 0.6 C of change during the last century. Quite much, considering that the difference of 5-6 C is enough to have a freezing ice age. All that basically means the mankind stops another glaciation. But while until i. rev. this tendency was being countered by natural processes (yeah, the planet's trying to cool down), since then the Earth simply can't catch up with the changes.

And why it's bad? My ideas. Primo, increasing global warming means we're sucking up natural resources pretty fast. I hear in 200 years time we'll run out of them. Secundo, glaciers are probably the biggest fresh water source, so we shouldn't want them to melt into the ocean. Tertio, if they do, they may screw up the system of ocean currents, and they're one of primary factors that determine climate, right after the latitude. Quarto, then there's always the infamous sea level. Though I'm not an expert or sth, so feel free to flame my words.

Bush is a lazy bum.

Forwen
15-04-06, 16:10
Tell that to numerious third world nations who are desperately trying to get on their own two feets. To restrict their right to developement over a minisule contribution to global warming is not only unfair; it's Prejudicial.

I believe the problem lies with several major economic powers that refuse to reform their industry like China and USA, not with numerous third world nations that sometimes don't even try to use their resources thanks to abysmal political situation - like a part of Africa.

Draco
15-04-06, 16:46
has anyone considered the fact that the world would be a better place without mr bush and his over sized useless brain

The world would be a better place without a lot of people.

3 Billion or so less than now would be perfect.

Draco
15-04-06, 16:49
I believe the problem lies with several major economic powers that refuse to reform their industry like China and USA, not with numerous third world nations that sometimes don't even try to use their resources thanks to abysmal political situation - like a part of Africa.

The USA doesn't refuse to reform industry (it is infact the front runner in new technologies to do just that). The USA refuses to sacrifice its economy to please a veritable world minority of those concerned with pollution.

Forwen
15-04-06, 17:45
The USA doesn't refuse to reform industry (it is infact the front runner in new technologies to do just that). The USA refuses to sacrifice its economy to please a veritable world minority of those concerned with pollution.

And that's a beautiful example of how the same fact can sound entirely different based on whether the speaker approves or disapproves it.

Draco
15-04-06, 17:57
And that's a beautiful example of how the same fact can sound entirely different based on whether the speaker approves or disapproves it.

Yes it is.

Geck-o-Lizard
15-04-06, 17:58
Those concerned about pollution are a minority? That doesn't mean it's not worth being concerned about.

Mona Sax
15-04-06, 18:34
Hmmm... what's more important, strong economies or a planet to live on? That's a tough one... [/sarcasm]

Osojojo
15-04-06, 20:09
OK I totally agree that global warming is a big issue and we need to put it high on the agenda.

But I think you guys are giving economic concerns too little credit.

Economy is actually really important to the well-being of mankind. When the economy is in a depression, people starve. Suicide rates go up, people are dissatisfied and likely to overthrow their government. Bush is a politician. He's short-sighted, he wants good approval ratings--and those come from a healthy economy, which makes everyone happy (on the short-term).

Also, Hitler came to power primarily because the German economy was in a slump and people were desperate. And I don't think I have to remind you guys what kind of atrocities happened and that an estimated 62 million people died in WWII.

I think there must be a balance. Right now, we definitely need to give global warming more thought and attention, but at the same time, we can't forsake economic concerns.

Forwen
15-04-06, 20:28
You know, I'd want to see some details and numbers as to the costs of reforming the economy to make it more environment-friendly, especially for the States. Whether it could really strain it or it's just that Bush has the power to ignore this "minority" concerned with the global warming and uses it. There's a difference between protecting the economy from a collapse and simply avoiding changes painful for the present - but highly positive AFTER the period of presidency. Now we can only hold a charisma contest.