Burn them! (but capture the Carbon, okay?)

[Spacecadet]

ok pj, we have all heard the negative stuff. Now say something positive about somebody


maybe, even, possibly say something positive about somebodies ideas

Or how about a post relevant to contracting

[EternalOptimist]

I will now be accused of being anti-progress and anti-prosperity.

just anti free-thinking

pj, if it was against the law to think for yourself, would there be enough evidence to convict you ?

[EternalOptimist]

Or how about a post relevant to contracting

he does actuall post in the taxy stuff. credit where its due

[MarillionFan]

he does actuall post in the taxy stuff. credit where its due

He was talking to you cloth ears.

[TimberWolf]

Briefly, cos I am tired, and I empathise with Dawkins' history teacher , and nobody actually, y'know, gives a sh1t....

The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm

And in answer to the population growth question being addressed by environmentalists, George Monbiot points out that, in terms of environmental damage and pollution, economic growth (historically coupled with emissions rising), the holy grail of most politicians, is a lot worse than more (mostly poor) people.



See also The Population Myth | George Monbiot

I will now be accused of being anti-progress and anti-prosperity.

Exponential growth, which as as you say the holy grail of politicians, is doomed to a spectacular fail eventually. But quoting that author's figures and dismissing population (not just growth) as almost irrelevant next to economic growth doesn't do you credit IMO. For one thing he hasn't factored in the poor getting richer. China and India are on the ascendency and Africa may be next. Even if population were to peak in 2050 at 10 billion (I have my doubts), this adds about 1% [assuming a constant rate of growth for the sake of simple arithmetic, from 6 billion to 10 billion in 44 years) to your 3% growth figure. This also assumes that that 3% global growth applies equally to poorer nations, who seem to be growing at the fastest rate (albeit from a lower base).

And growth aside, even in a static population, having a child in the west has a far greater carbon footprint than any amount of swapping to low energy light bulbs.

Population is the real and only issue here. Rising CO2 levels is but one small symptom of this greater problem.

[Doggy Styles]

And in answer to the population growth question being addressed by environmentalists, George Monbiot points out that, in terms of environmental damage and pollution, economic growth (historically coupled with emissions rising), the holy grail of most politicians, is a lot worse than more (mostly poor) people.

If I was a cynic I'd say that conclusion is chosen as the one that best fits the argument of AGW believers.

'Poor' people in the third world cut down millions of acres of CO2-breathing trees every year, and burn a large chunk of them.

Oil-producing countries are full of 'poor' people.

The UK population has increased by nearly ten percent since 1997. Are AGW believers trying to tell us that they are mostly poor people whose extra energy use is insignificant?

[TimberWolf]

Just remember that booming populations can turn to bust.

Something will notice the resource.

50% of the population of Europe departed during the Black Death*.

Because the plague killed so many of the working population, wages rose and some historians have seen this as a turning point in European economic development.
Bubonic plague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boomed.

[Spacecadet]

what the plague did was free peasants from bondage to the land.
Due to the massive lack of labour, the peasants could pretty much demand their own terms

[Doggy Styles]

what the plague did was free peasants from bondage to the land.
Due to the massive lack of labour, the peasants could pretty much demand their own terms

Including free donkey jackets, because the world wasn't as warm as it is now.