What I don't like about like about climate change "acti

Post Reply New Topic

Title should read: What I don't like about like about climate change "activism"

I have a big issue with C02 and climate change. Yes it is probably warming up the planet but here is why it does my head in;

My issue is that we spend all this time looking at man made emissions and saving energy, which is of course a good thing, but so called environmentalists are so deluded into thinking that reducing emissions will make a significant difference.

REPLANT THE FORESTS FOR FORK SAKE.

Half our rainforests are gone and something like 70-85% (an accurate figure would be nice if somebody has one?) of forests in other regions disappeared in and after the industrial revolution. That is where the problem is in my opinion.

So, if the the levels of CO2 is really a problem it is only so because we lack the natural mechanisms (forests / "carbon sinks") to absorb and convert the C02.

Essentially we've replaced most of the trees and other vegetation on our once lovely planet with heat absorbing cities, roads, pastures, fished most of the fish from the ocean which also may affect planktons role is regulating C02 levels in the biosphere.

Does anyone else think that environmentalism has become a delusion into reducing gas' when it is forests and biodiversity vegetation that should be the primary focus?

_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>

Shouldn't this be in PPR, seeing that "climate change" is purely political?

You are perhaps right you know. It could be called scientific, political or random since it is a common issue.

If a mod / admin wishes to move it then please do.

Anyway, you have an opinion? Is C02 a wasted focus when we could focus our efforts into replanting forests and vegetation?

_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>

Sea vegitation has the greater impact on CO2. The CO2 problem gets touted so much many other more imediate problems are being ignored. Such as polution of the sea and fresh water, soil erosion, thawing of artic tundras, and the release of heavy metals into the biosphere.

Agree with you there. Capping emissions wont make the necessary impact for the thawing tundra, but if we could replant forests and diverse vegetation everywhere, including the roofs tops in all our cities we have a much better chance.

_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>

Wow, I just really looked at your avatar for the first time. You seem like an environmentalist to me, and you're clearly considering things other than CO2. Here we don't hear disproportionately more about CO2 than say general pollution or risks to endangered species.

I suppose the current hot topics are often politically motivated.

They're extremist nutters that want to take us back into the dark ages. No thanks. Climate change is a natural series of cycles and trying to second-guess Mother Nature is pointless.

I think I agree with you, Patrick. There are way too many special interests involved in the issue for it to be looked at and understood objectively. Enviromentalism has become a dirty work in political circles. The rhetoric against global warming is all economy based - almost none of it addresses the facts that we, as a species are altering our enviroment to the point that it may no longer be able to support us. Like George Carlin suggested - we aren't destroying the planet. The planet is quite capable of shaking us off like a bad case of fleas. The only thing we are destroying is our own habitat.

Even animals don't s**t where they sleep...

Over simplifications, I know.

There are so many renewable energy resources that are going untapped and undeveloped and in some cases even suppressed - as in the case of hemp. If science can create diesel fuel from algae why on earth wouldn't we convert to all diesel technology and make use of one of the most abundant, easily renewable resources available on the planet? Algae will easily produce more oxygen in its production than the vehicles producing CO2 in their end usage. The short sighted - and plain old greedy - politics of the fossils desperately clinging to fossil fuel technology and profits will reject anything that threatens their status quo.

Never has the term grass roots had more meaning than right now. Trying to win public opinion in favor of hemp specifically may not be doable in the near future - but growing heirloom tomatoes on rooftops in the inner city may be. Encouraging schools to maintain gardens (and encouraging interest in green issues) and donating produce to local food banks may be. Making solar technology cheap and accessable to the average household and connecting homes to the national power grid may be.

Stripping monsters like Montsanto of their stranglehold on the food production industry couldn't hurt either.

Bottom line - the grass roots organizations need to find a way to capture the general publics interest in the changes that will benefit the environment without stuffing activist speak down their throats. Most people aren't interested in being preached to about anything by anybody - even if they agree. Michelle Obama's White House garden spiked vegetable gardening interest two years ago. I suggest that Oprah could have a greater impact on the green movement than any scientist, any report, or any activist ever will. Advocacy needs to get creative in getting the message out there.

And - just a side note - I'm planting my spring peas today. Just doing my part... my part just happens to also be tasty!

That still makes it a rare occurrence. Most environmentalists would at the end of the day probably choose to have technology rather than go back the "dark ages"

We can easily just plant hemp, plant forests, build super grids using nano solar cells, and carbon nano tubes for long distance transmission without energy loss and enjoy technology and a more stable environment.

_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>

"Let's play global thermonuclear war..."