Ugandans Killed and Evicted to Protect the Environment(Blog)

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.marymeetsdolly.com/blog/inde ... rming.html

what s**t! this has nothing to do with environmentalists. This is about a crooked company and crooked government officials murdering people. Something governments in Africa seem to have no problem doing for a few pence regardless of the circumstances. Real environmentalists would not burn huts. Think of the air pollution!

and what is this f*****g BS god damn wrong planet censoring my expletives! Neurally diverse individuals need a new forum without censorship!!

oh good it missed some...

Oh, yes, it does. Read it more carefully. They burned down homes to plant trees to offset carbon emissions in the name of "saving the planet". Even the government officials stated this was the reason.

Question: Are there any environmentalists on WP suggesting burning down homes to plant trees?

As one of the environmentalists on wrong planet, I can safely say that I do not approve of burning down people's homes to plant trees.

Wait a second, let me double-check...

***

Yeah, I do not approve of burning down people's homes to plant trees.

Therefore it is possible for environmentalists to not support burning down people's homes to plant trees, as I am an example of such.

Therefore this fails as a criticism of environmentalism in general, if that was indeed what it was intended to be.

Real environmentalists love to pollute. They just rationalize that when they pollute, it isn't so bad.

There used to be a show on tv about green homes. I was amazed to see that a great many of the homes featured on that show burned wood for heat. So much for environmentalism.

In any case, Global Warming will almost certainly benefit mankind. It may even end up saving more lives than Norman Borlaug -- Norman Borlaug is believed to have saved as many as a billion lives because of his work with wheat. All these misguided schemes to minimize or eliminate Global Warming are nothing but treason to mankind.

A planet that stays the same temperature that we have gotten used to and developed out lifestyle around would be good for humanity.

A planet that gets hotter than anything humans have faced since we figured out metallurgy would not.

what an asinine thing to say, global warming will benefit mankind. if you think mass die-offs is beneficial, and the flooding of major cities, then maybe you are correct. The article articulates how crooked locals are hijacking the system and murdering people for profit. It has nothing to do with legitimate environmentalist activity. Those who oppose environmentalism are the true murderers of the world. I hope you don't have a kid that gets asthma on smog alert days.

Actually, humans have faced considerably higher temperatures before. It is no accident that the transition in which man went from hunting in small bands to settling down to farm and become civilized happened when average temperatures were considerably higher than today.

The asinine thing is to assume that everything will be a disaster. While there will be some problems, overall the results are most likely to be positive.

Plants grow better in warm temperatures. And they grow better with higher CO2. And don't forget that warmer air can carry more moisture. If you want to grow more food, raise the temperature and the CO2.

Flooding is about the least of the problems. Sure, over centuries there could be flooding. If the entire Greenland ice cap were to melt, it should raise sea level by about 140 feet. That should take about 19,000 years at current rates.

In the meantime, we are 15,000 years into the current interglacial warm period which is fairly long for an interglacial warm period. The last one was considerably warmer. If we have 19,000 years of melting and the sea level rises by 140 feet, we can consider ourselves to be very lucky and major beneficiaries due to Global Warming holding off the next ice age.

That would make the interglacial warm period 34,000 years old at that point. Just how many interglacial warm periods have historically lasted that long?

Want to see real disaster? Bring on an ice age. Watch the vast majority of humans on the Earth die of starvation. Watch parents kill their babies because there is nothing to feed them. And that is just the early stages.

To feed a smaller population maybe, but things won't work out the way they did back then. (If indeed what you're suggestion is the case. please cite references.) For one, you have a much larger population to feed. Next, you have deforestation, which changes the climate considerably, It's late and I'm too lazy to elaborate ATM, maybe some other time. I have also read that the areas that will be heating up are less fertile than those which are currently used. But the biggest problem is probably the heat up of the ocean, which can lead to an anoxic event.

Check out the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago. Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are believed to have been about five degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, on average.

Deforestation, true. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Gobi Desert was a forest. That's 100% deforestation in that location. But that's not the case everywhere.

The crops have improved greatly since then. For example, 8,000 years ago, the only wheat was Einkorn (a diploid) and Emmer (a tetraploid). Their range was pretty much limited. It was the hexaploid wheats that are thought to have formed accidentally about that time that enabled mankind to reach what it is today. For the vast majority of us, we eat hexaploid wheats with the exception of a diploid wheat for use in pasta. Most of us have never even seen Einkorn which is fairly limited to portions of the Middle East and southern Europe.

Less fertile areas? That may be true, but it is due primarily to bad farming practices that have been going on for many centuries. Some places will get less rain, but others will get more.

There is no need to panic.

I'm not advocating panic, only caution. Panic never solved anything.

Caution would be to actually do the scientific work. The following is the three steps I've advocated for years:

1) Determine whether Global Warming is real (this appears likely but is far from conclusive). It might be useful to determine how much is due to anthropomorphic causes. The climate naturally varies quite a bit and to claim that any change is due to mankind is nonsensical and silly.

2) If Global Warming is real, determine what we can do about it that is effective. It is sheer stupidity to try to do something about it if it is not real and even crazier to do something about it that is ineffective and cannot work. We've hardly even started on this. There are plenty of plans to do something, but those plans are generally anything but effective. It may very well be that the most effective thing we can do is to emit far more particulate polution into the atmosphere.

3) If Global Warming is real and if there are effective actions we can take to ameliorate the Global Warming, the real question appears: What, if anything, should we do anything about Global Warming? It is quite likely that Global Warming will be overall a great benefit to mankind.

All the panic-mongers are assuming that any change is bad. But in reality, this planet spends far more time in ice ages than in interglacial warm periods like the one we are in now that has allowed civilization to flourish. The period we are in now is not the usual climate for this planet -- Earth's usual climate could support only a small fraction of the people alive today.

If you don't like change, then are you advocating a return to the ice ages? What population could the Earth support? A million? Ten million? What about the other billions of people alive today.

To make it even more personal, how well do you think anyone with autism would survive in the usual climate that is an ice age? Anyone born in such a climate had better be able to work from a young age to help support the family. And expect to die early. In such a hostile environment, there is no room for people who are autistic.

A warmer planet is your friend. That is what enables us to live as we do instead of dressing in animal skins and either feasting for a few days when we kill an animal or starving until our next kill that could easily be a week or more away. Forget agriculture -- in an ice age there isn't much room for that -- plants don't grow so well in the cold.

Hot, cold, we get by. Change kills.

If it gets hotter, Canada and Siberia become farmland.

Colder comes suddenly, like this coming winter, when drought from warming has held much more water vapor in the air, and when it cools, the early and heavy snowfalls of last year. Only they do not stop for a warm late winter, think ten times three foot of snow.

That brings a late spring, floods, which is happening in the northeast, east coast. Blocked roads, crushed houses, no power. Six months of that could be bad.

It does not take a full blown ice age, glaciers ebb and advance, when water vapor is avilable, they grow suddenly. The Little Ice Age of 1100, just enough to put year round ice on the coast of Scotland, for a few hundred years. The Vikings said the same in 700-900, too cold to ripen our crops, they moved south.

705 the Black Sea and the Nile River froze.

It was not an ice age, just a cold snap and a lower trend.

If nothing changes that is the worst outcome. rising population is unsupportable.

I did not read the article, but if you plant a forest, some will come cut it down, build huts, burn it, and feed the rest to their goats.

All very reasonable goals, protecting species and land, meet people, who see it as something for free. The only method known to stop poachers is snipers. Nothing less than killing them works, and then killing those nearby.

In Nature, everything is out to kill everything, and producing more food is not the answer. We do not plant more food crops for the bugs, we kill the bugs.

A forest takes fifty years to start producing a crop. It is a long term investment, Grazing goats on new planted trees is free today. Plant more trees, they will get more goats.

Buying up tracks of land to conserve, and not posting armed guards, leaves if free to log, hunt, and anything free will be taken.

To Preserve Nature is simple, everyone kills one person. Longer term it can be done by killing females of breeding age. We do it with deer to bring the herd within the food supply.

Allowing it to run it's course is the cruel method, a starving population with every disease, short lives, weak young mothers, weak babies. Somalia has been doing this. If nothing changes it is the near future of the planet.

With birth control and abortion, North America is the slowest growing population. In Nigeria most of the population is under fifteen, and looking to get laid. If they score, Nigeria will have a larger population than America in fifty years. They cannot feed what they have.

Japan is an exception, where they will have less population, that have to pay for the upkeep of an old non productive population.

This problem is not going away. The earth is staggering under the current load, the top soil is depleted, the oceans fished out, and the population grows. Where do you put the next billion?

There will be no agreement on population,