David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[Humodour]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/26/david_attenborough_on_climate_change_obama_romney_have_heads_in_the_sand.html

 

Worth reading the interview.

 

No doubt the usual denialist crowd will pop up in this thread. To them I say: grow up, educate yourselves, or **** off.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Lucky Australia put their Carbon Tax in this year. Australia just saved itself against Climate change.

[Humodour]

Lucky Australia put their Carbon Tax in this year. Australia just saved itself against Climate change.

 

Australia is the biggest polluter of greenhouse gases per person in the developed world. Our total greenhouse gas output amounts to roughly 2% of the world's total - the same as the UK's. Do you really think that it makes sense for Australians to be polluting 3 times more per person than people in the United Kingdom? We've also got one of the most urbanised populations in the world - so its not like transport emissions account for even a fraction of the reason. We even pollute 22% more per person than people from the USA! Thank the stars our population is not the size of theirs.

 

It would be absolutely disgraceful if that Tony Abbott arsehole got his way and we never charged these companies to dump their pollution into our atmosphere.

 

So, don't get me wrong - the main problem with the USA is not that it is polluting so damned much (which it is). That would be excusable if they acknowledged this and took steps to curb it. The problem is that they are acting like they aren't polluting and like the horrible consequences of pollution don't exist (with all due respect to those in the few states that actually give a damn about the future, like California).

 

Oh, and as for the whole "Australia is going it alone on global warming" lie you're implying, let me educate you (because heck knows Rupert Murdoch's press never will):

 

Other countries which now charge corporations that pollute the air:

 

 

CHINA (state-based action)

 

The Chinese Government plans to develop emissions trading schemes in seven key cities and provinces from 2013. These schemes will cover around 250 million people. The Chinese Government aims to

work towards a nation-wide approach after 2015.

 

UNITED STATES (state-based action)

 

There is no nationwide carbon tax levelled in the USA, although a few states have introduced the tax. The United States Administration has not been able to secure support for legislation to set either a price or a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. However, emissions trading has operated in the power sector in nine states since 2009. California’s emissions trading scheme will start in January 2013.

 

CANADA (province-based action)

 

Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but two Canadian provinces have existing carbon taxes (Quebec and British Columbia). Alberta implemented emissions trading in 2006 and Quebec’s scheme will start in 2013. A further two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, are considering emissions trading schemes.The Canadian Federal Government has no immediate plans to implement national emissions trading.

 

INDIA (tax on coal)

 

In July 2010, India introduced a nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per tonne (less than $A1) of coal both produced and imported to India.

 

SOUTH KOREA

 

The Republic of Korea passed legislation in May 2012 for an emissions trading scheme to start from 1 January 2015. The emissions trading scheme will cover facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – expected to be around 450 of the country’s largest emitters.

 

JAPAN

 

In April 2012, Japan legislated for a carbon tax of approximately ¥289 per tonne ($A3.30) by increasing existing taxes on fossil fuels (coal and LPG/LNG) with effect from 1 October 2012. Half the revenue will

fund low-emissions technologies. Japan has emissions trading schemes operating in the Tokyo and Saitama regions, covering 20 million people.

 

EUROPE (national-based action)

 

The European Union emissions trading scheme began in 2005 and now covers the 27 countries of the European Union, and three non-European Union members: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Their current target is a 21 per cent cut of 2005 emissions by 2025 (Australia’s is a 5% cut of 2000 emissions by 2020).

 

A carbon tax was proposed by the European Commission in 2010, but a carbon tax has not been agreed upon by the 27 member states. The current proposal by the European Commission would charge firms between 4 and 30 euros per metric tonne of CO2.

 

Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

 

FINLAND

 

Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990, initially with exemptions for specific sectors. Manly changes were later introduced, such as a border tax on imported electricity. Natural gas has a reduced tax rate, while peat was exempted between 2005 and 2010. In 2010, Finland’s price on carbon was €20 per tonne of CO2.

 

THE NETHERLANDS

 

The Netherlands introduced a carbon tax in 1990, which was then replaced by a tax on fuels. In 2007, it introduced a carbon-based tax on packaging, to encourage recycling.

 

SWEDEN

 

In 1991, Sweden enacted a tax on the use of coal, oil, natural gas, petrol and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. The tax was 0.25 SEK/kg ($US100 per tonne of C02) and was later raised to $US150. With Sweden raising prices on fossil fuels since enacting the carbon tax, it cut its carbon pollution by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2006.

 

NORWAY

 

In 1991, Norway introduced a tax on carbon. However its carbon emissions increased by 43 per cent per capita between 1991 and 2008.

 

DENMARK

 

Since 2002, Denmark has had a carbon tax of 100 DKK per metric ton of CO2, equivalent to approximately 13 Euros or 18 US dollars. Denmark’s carbon tax applies to all energy users, but industrial companies are taxed differently depending on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures.

 

SWITZERLAND

 

A carbon incentive tax was introduced in Switzerland in 2008. It includes all fossil fuels, unless they are used for energy. Swiss companies can be exempt from the tax if they participate in the country’s emissions trading system. The tax amounts to CHF 36 per metric tonne CO2.

 

UK

 

In 1993, the UK government introduced a tax on retail petroleum products, to reduce emissions in the transport sector. The UK's Climate Change Levy was introduced in 2001. The United Kingdom participates in the European Union emissions trading scheme and is covered by European Union policies and measures. The United Kingdom has put in place regulations requiring all new homes to have zero emissions for heating, hot water, cooling and lighting from 2016.

 

IRELAND

 

A tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010. It was estimated to add around €43 to filling a 1000 litre oil tank and €41 to the average annual gas bill.

 

COSTA RICA

 

In 1997, Costa Rica enacted a tax on carbon pollution, set at 3.5 per cent of the market value of fossil fuels. The revenue raised from this goes into a national forest fund which pays indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them.

 

BRAZIL

 

The state of Rio de Janeiro is exploring options to implement a state-wide cap and trade system.

 

SOUTH AFRICA

 

South Africa introduced a carbon tax on new vehicle sales in September 2010. South Africa is planning to introduce a carbon tax from 2013, starting at R120 ($A15) per tonne for emissions above a threshold. Each company will have 60 per cent of its emissions tax exempt, with higher exemption thresholds for cement, iron, steel, aluminium, ceramics and fugitive emissions as well as trade exposed industries. Agriculture, forestry, land use and waste will not be taxed.

 

NEW ZEALAND

 

The New Zealand Government set up an emissions trading scheme in 2008. The scheme covered forestry initially, and was then expanded in 2010 to cover stationary energy, transport, liquid fossil fuels and industrial processes.

 

Source: http://www.sbs.com.a...round-the-world

Edited October 29, 2012 by Krezack

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Australia is the biggest polluter of greenhouse gases per person in the developed world. Our total greenhouse gas output amounts to roughly 2% of the world's total - the same as the UK's. Do you really think that it makes sense for Australians to be polluting 3 times more per person than people in the United Kingdom? We've also got one of the most urbanised populations in the world - so its not like transport emissions account for even a fraction of the reason. We even pollute 22% more per person than people from the USA! Thank the stars our population is not the size of theirs.

 

 

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

DId you know the Falkland Islands puts out more CO2 transmissions than Australia and has done so since 1990 on a per capita basis? Quick! we must beat the Falkland Islands into submission and get them to introduce a Carbon emissions trading scheme and curb their Climate Change criminality.

 

Also, has the Carbon Tax changed anything in Australia except make things more expensive? Nope. The polluters just passed on the carbon tax to the consumers.

[samm]

The polluters just passed on the carbon tax to the consumers.

And the consumers may have moaned a bit and subsequently not changed their ways. It has to hurt really hard before anything changes the masses' mind in that matter, too bad climate change such a slow process that's only gradually felt. So if anything was to change *fast*, there's nothing else to do than

1. to educate people, hoping they get aware of their surroundings and gain the ability to re-think their own behaviour

2. take political measures like said taxes, to the extreme. No one is going to do that (in a democracy for fear of not getting re-elected, in a dictatorship, well, a dictator does as he pleases anyway and usually that's not about the earth as a whole....)

 

So moderate taxes combined with some propaganda is all one can expect. And yes, it *is* always better than doing nothing. To resign or to ignore is the way to certain doom, comfortable lazyness on the shoulders of whoever comes after us.

Edited October 29, 2012 by samm

[Gorgon]

The real problem here is human lifespan. We don't care enough about what the world will look like for our grandchildren to make hard choices right now.

[Hiro Protagonist]

And yes, it *is* always better than doing nothing. To resign or to ignore is the way to certain doom, comfortable lazyness on the shoulders of whoever comes after us.

 

No one has come forward to explain how Australia's Carbon Tax helps the environment or Climate change. Doing something has to have meaning. How is it better to do something just so 'you appear to be doing something' that doesn't do anything for the climate? No one has come forward and shown, Carbon Tax = less emissions.

 

My work hasn't changed their ways and continue to do as they've done in the past. I still drive a petrol car because it's cheaper than buying a hybrid car. I still use a similar amount of electricity that I did last year. Nothing has changed for me and thousands of people.

 

Australia still exports coal and other minerals to China and other countries to fuel their economies. So while Australia might take the moral high ground in saying, 'we're doing something', we're really not doing anything and still contributing to other countries (like China) in polluting the planet.

[Humodour]

And yes, it *is* always better than doing nothing. To resign or to ignore is the way to certain doom, comfortable lazyness on the shoulders of whoever comes after us.

 

No one has come forward to explain how Australia's Carbon Tax helps the environment or Climate change.

 

Plenty of people have come forward. Most of them scientists and economists. You and your ilk have just repeatedly chosen not to listen.

 

Is it really that difficult to grasp the concept of supply and demand? Price of good goes up, demand goes down. Savvy companies increase efficiency or switch to less polluting methods and components (plenty have already moved to do this) to reduce or remove their pollution price burden. Savvy companies sell goods cheaper than polluting companies due to extra profit margin. Consumers choose the savvy company's goods/services over more expensive (more polluting) goods. Pollution goes down. That's how charging companies to pollute works. It's a basic application of market economics and its called pricing in negative externalities.

 

And did you seriously expect a sudden change in behaviour when the pollution price has been in for less than a year? Do you have no conception of long-term planning? Clearly not given you don't care about global warming.

 

Australia still exports coal and other minerals to China and other countries to fuel their economies. So while Australia might take the moral high ground in saying, 'we're doing something', we're really not doing anything and still contributing to other countries (like China) in polluting the planet.

 

And China has introduced their own pollution prices to try and account for this. Australia can't dictate what the Chinese do, but thankfully they're already acting. China produces the most electricity from renewable energy of any country. China is implementing an ETS in their most populous states and then rolling it out to all their states. If you produce renewable electricity in China, people are forced to buy it before they buy fossil fuel derived electricity.

 

Don't tell me China isn't doing anything. It's a stupid lie. Stop spreading stupid lies.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Krezack

[Hiro Protagonist]

Plenty of people have come forward. Most of them scientists and economists. You and your ilk have just repeatedly chosen not to listen.

 

Me and my ilk? Nice attack there and with no substance. I live in the real world. I haven't denied anything.

 

 

Is it really that difficult to grasp the concept of supply and demand? Price of good goes up, demand goes down.

 

Price of food goes up? Demand goes down? Strange concept there.

 

What about wage increases? Inflation? No, just ignore those things.

 

For example, you go to a Sandwich Bar and notice the cost of a sandwich has increased by 50c and you think, 'eh, maybe inflation'. But that increase could have come from the cost of coal fired electricity going up for the Sandwich bar. The Sandwich Bar has passed on the Carbon Tax to you through your sandwich. How is that extra cost going to curb your spending?

 

The GST was introduced back in 2000 to replace Sales Tax. Some food is GST free and some food has GST on it. Did that curb people's spending to buy more GST Free food? No, it had no effect on people's spending habits.

 

The same will apply to the Carbon Tax. The only difference is you don't know what the Carbon Tax is affecting. I would say it's affecting everything. Is the increase in cost of items (eg. sandwich) due to the Carbon Tax, wages, inflation, etc?

 

Savvy companies increase efficiency or switch to less polluting methods and components (plenty have already moved to do this) to reduce or remove their pollution price burden. Savvy companies sell goods cheaper. Consumers choose those over more expensive (more polluting) goods. Pollution goes down. That's how charging companies to pollute works. It's a basic application of market economics and its called pricing in negative externalities.

 

Nice dream world there.

 

And did you seriously expect a sudden change in behaviour when the pollution price has been in for less than a year? Do you have no conception of long-term planning? Clearly not given you don't care about global warming.

 

How is people going to change their spending habits when the more polluting items cost less than pollution free items. And again with the unfounded attackes. So if I question something, I don't care about global warning? LMAO. Good stuff. Nice strawman. Yep, we should never question anything!!!

 

And China has introduced their own pollution prices to try and account for this. Australia can't dictate what the Chinese do, but thankfully they're already acting. China produces the most electricity from renewable energy of any country. China is implementing an ETS in their most populous states and then rolling it out to all their states. If you produce renewable electricity in China, people are forced to buy it

 

Don't tell me China isn't doing anything. It's a stupid lie. Stop spreading stupid lies.

 

You've obviously never been to China.

 

Krezack, you've obviously missed the points of my posts. I'm not against something meaningful to stop global warming, climate change, etc. What I'm against is idiot things like a Carbon Tax that doesn't do anything excpet cause prices to rise. Most people will always go for the cheapest items regardless of whether it's polluting or not.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Hiro Protagonist

[LadyCrimson]

The real problem here is human lifespan. We don't care enough about what the world will look like for our grandchildren to make hard choices right now.

And over population. And I don't mean whether we can technically feed/house every person or not ... just seems to me that billions isn't exactly an ideal balance of humanity for this planet's current ecosystems/biosphere, especially when combined with our current tech.

[Volourn]

Oh, please. not this again. The planet is not being harmed by 'too many humans' or 'too few x aniamls'. The planet will be move on barring some fantasy super weapon or some extraplanar disaster. The arrogance of humans to think we have the powetr to destroy a planet older than all of us combined is poppy****. At worst we'll send ourselves into extinction but the planet will live on.

[Gorth]

Oh, please. not this again. The planet is not being harmed by 'too many humans' or 'too few x aniamls'. The planet will be move on barring some fantasy super weapon or some extraplanar disaster. The arrogance of humans to think we have the powetr to destroy a planet older than all of us combined is poppy****. At worst we'll send ourselves into extinction but the planet will live on.

 

Yeah? That's what the Martians said too...

[Volourn]

And, mars still exists even though the Martians don't exist. Don't weep for Planet Earth. She'll be here after everyone posting in this thread is fertilizing her.

[Morgoth]

On the one hand economists claim more manufacturing and industrial output is gonna get Western countries out of their slow-down/recession, on the other hand corporations should be more taxed for carbon emissions. How can this paradox be solved? Unemployment versus the wellbeing of the environment, what do you think is gonna be more important to politicians when election time comes up?

[LadyCrimson]

And, mars still exists even though the Martians don't exist. Don't weep for Planet Earth. She'll be here after everyone posting in this thread is fertilizing her.

The planet may be here. Whether it'll be capable of sustaining what we call life (and I don't mean just human life) is another question .... and as far as I can tell, that's usually what they're talking about. Not whether the planet will still be a floating rock in space circling around a star.

 

I'm still not entirely convinced that the global warming, to the extent it's going, is completely something humanity can control, however. By that I mean, I think we have increased its rate, but I'm not as sure whether it wouldn't be happening to some degree regardless ... that is, it might be some "natural" planetary cycle...we're just making it worse/happen faster. If that makes sense.

[Volourn]

"Whether it'll be capable of sustaining what we call life (and I don't mean just human life) is another question ...."

 

if the planet is supposed to have life it will create lfie just like all the other creatures - including humans - are created. The planet didn't collapse when dinos went bye bye. It managed to live on without them. It'll move on from us.

 

Let's justa dmit it only selfishness makes us worry about it but there is too much pretnd cocnern for the planet. the planet fine. I'm not worried about how the planet is for humans several centuries from now - I'll be dead and beyond caring.

[LadyCrimson]

if the planet is supposed to have life it will create lfie just like all the other creatures - including humans - are created. The planet didn't collapse when dinos went bye bye. It managed to live on without them. It'll move on from us.

That's because whatever killed them didn't completely ruin the biosphere to an unrecoverable point where such life as we're familiar with couldn't develop. I'd agree that it's unlikely human-caused global warming would reach a point of creating a whole new biosphere incapable of supporting cellular/biological life so far as we know it - we're far more likely to become extinct first, and then over a lot of time the biosphere would recover again, new life would create, new life would become dominant, and so on.

 

But it's possible that greenhouse effect run amuck could turn Earth into something closer to Venus. Which as far as I know, is a pretty unlikely place for life (again, as we know of it) to develop. Could have weird alien ilfe tho, who knows.

[HoonDing]

But it's possible that greenhouse effect run amuck could turn Earth into something closer to Venus. Which as far as I know, is a pretty unlikely place for life (again, as we know of it) to develop. Could have weird alien ilfe tho, who knows.

[GuybrushWilco]

I'm no scientist, but I do know that there are a lot of differences between Earth and Venus, that it is maybe not the best comparison. One example is how the plate tectonics on Earth cause the recycling of carbon atoms, reducing warming, whereas Venus has no plate tectonics. I'm not sure that Earth would ever end up like Venus, but that does not mean that warming won't cause a lot of problems.

[Gorgon]

So, first we need to become immortal so we will care about what happens to the environment, then find a way to stabilize the population, perhaps we could re-introduce dueling as a legal alternative for settling minor grievances.

[Pope]

Oh, please. not this again. The planet is not being harmed by 'too many humans' or 'too few x aniamls'. The planet will be move on barring some fantasy super weapon or some extraplanar disaster. The arrogance of humans to think we have the powetr to destroy a planet older than all of us combined is poppy****. At worst we'll send ourselves into extinction but the planet will live on.

Even if I ignore the fact that the planet is not alive and therefore cannot "live on", there is something fundamentally messed up in your reasoning here. It's not the planet we should care about, it's the life on it. You're even admitting that we might send ourselves into extinction yet you don't have a problem with that? You actually care more about this chunk of rock "living on" than the beautiful diversity of awe-inspiring life that resides on it? Yes life can be cruel and unfair, but that's no reason for not appreciating it. On the contrary, that's a reason to work towards improving it.

 

This is a topic very dear to me, and one I can discuss with great passion, more so in real life than on the internet. People often ask me why I care so much about the fate of this planet, knowing that ultimately it'll be destroyed anyway.

 

There's many reasons for my concern, but I'll admit that my main motivation is very selfish: the current state of the planet makes me feel guilty for putting offspring on it. Firstly because every life extra is a life this planet cannot support (at least if living by western standards); and secondly because this overpopulation (and its effects on our climate) really is reducing the quality of life. I just don't want my kid to ask me in twenty years from now why I put him on a doomed world if I knew it was doomed.

[JFSOCC]

I'm a member of Population Matters (AKA Optimum Population Trust) of which David Attenborough (my biggest hero) is a patron.

Fact is our numbers on this planet are the biggest mulitplier bonus to pollution there is. Practically ALL environmental issues could be mitigated with smaller populations.

Population matters seeks to achieve this with non-coercive methods such as women's education, access to contraceptives, and alleviating poverty. You can sign their pledge to "Stop at two" indicating you don't plan on having more than two kids. getting children later is also better. (for them as well)

 

Oh, please. not this again. The planet is not being harmed by 'too many humans' or 'too few x aniamls'. The planet will be move on barring some fantasy super weapon or some extraplanar disaster. The arrogance of humans to think we have the powetr to destroy a planet older than all of us combined is poppy****. At worst we'll send ourselves into extinction but the planet will live on.

 

In the last 300 years, we've seen more extinictions in nature than during any of the previous 5 great extinction events. (the last one when North and South America collided) and those each took between 3000 and 10000 years.

Will we kill the planet? No. But we will harm its biodiversity to a point that the world will be all the poorer for it. Some species are Cornerstone species" problem is it's impossible to predict which species those will be. the extinction of one species could easily lead to the death of entire ecosystems.

 

Would the world perish? No. But it would seriously harm our chances of spreading our planet's life throughout the universe. We only have 100.000 million years before the planet is uninhabitable for any but the most primitive forms of life hiding away in subterranean caves. (like extremophiles) And I'm not confident that in that time the planet would be able to evolve another intelligent species capable of spreading us beyond our planet.

 

The question you should ask yourself is "What world do I want to live in?" an extremely impoverished world, or a rich and diverse one?

 

Edit: and before you think this is all very distant. it isn't. Global warming is happening now. it is affecting people now. the fact that we've had 5 el niño years in the last 10 years (when it used to be so many in about 40 years) the fact that in 2011 russias grain harvest completely failed, and this year America's Corn harvest nearly entirely failed, is a direct consequence of this. You know how much products have corn in it? Hurricane Sandy is a direct consequence of warmer waters making more powerful and more frequent hurricanes. The drought in the Horn of Africa and subsequent civil war and genocide is a direct consequence of global warming.

The Island nation of the Seychelles have already bought land in Ethiopia because by 2040 their landmass will be entirely submerged.

This **** is real and it is here NOW.

 

TL;DR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8

 

Edit 2:

If you are interested there's some interesting documentaries on the subject.

State of the Planet (with David Attenborough) is a 200...5 I think documentary, which was unfortunately pretty spot on on what we could expect.

There's also a lecture on exponential growth that ties into this by Albert Bartlett (famous mathematician) Which is also on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

(this was 1990)

Edited October 30, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Meshugger]

Who cares? Mankind'ss destiny is in exploring the stars anyway. I for one, can't wait to get off this dump.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Meshugger

[JFSOCC]

We must survive to get that far first.

[pmp10]

That's assuming it even can be done.