The whole "green" factor

[Eclipse Now]

Valuable point... what's it called... 'offshoring' our carbon footprint?

 

 

I don't think Copenhagen is going to achieve anything.

 

We need a world government.

 

“I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world” – Socrates

 

“In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”,

Albert Einstein.

 

World Citizens Association, Australia

[JMJones0424]

I don't think Copenhagen is going to achieve anything.

 

We need a world government.

 

YIKES! In my opinion, a "Copenhagen style" solution to AGW would require some sort of global enforcement mechanism to be effective, but I would much rather see effort placed into making non-carbon positive energy sources more competitive rather than figuring out better ways to tell people to do what I want them to do. If you make the green choice the logical choice, it won't require force to promote. Easier said then done, I know, but that's a goal I can get behind.

 

World Citizens propose a democratic global parliament be created, where global problems can be discussed and settled, laws to protect us all can be established and people from around the world are able to have a say in global issues that are getting harder to ignore.

 

Isn't this what the UN is supposed to be? If Copenhagen will fail because national governments can't be forced to comply, then how would you propose forcing national governments to comply to a new global government?

[Eclipse Now]

Is the UN enforcable? Do I get to vote for my rep at the UN? Do I get to vote on any of their policies? Or is the UN a bunch of Diplomats doing dirty deals behind closed doors? Why can't we bring it all out into the open, and make it democratic, give it more validity, and create a legally binding world parliament instead of a voluntary set of treaties that the toothless tiger of the UN can't do anything about anyway.

 

Also, countries are NOT doing the "green thing". Australia's been debating a stupid Emissions Trading Scheme that gives coal so many offsets the rest of us will essentially be paying carbon taxes while coal gets off free. We'll be subsidising coal! What the heck is that about! Not only that, but they are getting a legally enforceable guarantee to keep burning coal for the next few decades. If a future PM decided to BAN any new coal mines and close them all within 10 years in a real climate emergency, coal could sue the government under the proposed ETS contract for hundreds of billions of lost income.

 

They've cleverly moved from outright denial of climate science into carefully pretending to take action without really taking action, yet it makes me sick.

 

It will do nothing to reduce emissions, and I'm disgusted because I voted for Kevin Rudd.

 

So a world parliament is our only hope as climate change is just one of a handful of potential issues that could start major wars or even become civilisation crushers. I'm not even sure climate change is the most serious.

[BrianG]

Stoplights Freeze Over, Causing Accident

By Mick Trevey

WEST BEND, Wis – High efficiency traffic lights are being blamed for layer of ice and snow that completely covered stoplights across our area....

Stoplights Freeze Over, Causing Accident | Today's TMJ4 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin News, Weather, Sports, WTMJ | Local News

 

Unintended consequences, waste heat isn't useless when it melts snow and ice. If we had one world government, we could have this problem everywhere.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

of course if people were more civil and responsible, traffic lights would be unnecessary altogether. They only reason these lights exist is to replace common sense and decency with a little light which settles the dispute as to whom has the right of way at a given moment...thus preventing the motorist from having to do something drastic like read (a sign) or much much worse think for him/herself, reflect on established traffic law, and act in an appropriate manner.....it has often come to mind sitting at a light waiting for it to change while no traffic goes by in the green direction that the real cost of these damn things is not the electric but time (mine) which I waste waiting for the damn thing to change, fuel (mine) which is wasted not only in the waiting but the accelerating from that light to the next red to sit and wait again, and money (mine) which is wasted on fuel to go nowhere (while waiting at the light) on brakes (because all of that stop and go wears em out), on oil because idleing in traffic is hard on engines (makes em hot while reducing circulation of vital fluids)

 

I'd say the greenest thing to do would be to do away with the traffic lights and the idiots that need them on our roadways.....Beware the following is a rant :eek_big:

 

I mean really you wrecked because the traffic light had snow on it?!?!? Are you really that stupid?!?!?

Certainly wouldn't last a winter here...yesterday I drove to work in a blizzard with visibility on the good side at 10 feet helped a bit by winds gusting past 60mph... on the bad I could see my windshield wipers....accompanied by dozens of other motorists we made a nifty slow procession through five towns without incident....going through many traffic lights I might add.:thumbs_up

[Eclipse Now]

I agree with the concern.

 

However, it depends on what the world government is for. It could easily come down to legislating what kind of traffic lights everyone had in an emergency case of setting up huge cost-savings on building standards for traffic lights.

 

But I wonder if it wouldn't more be kind of like the EU, where certain international things are decided at the world level, and certain other things are left to the individual country to deal with?

 

Getting into 5am general rant mode... "If I ran the world". (Just run with it if you care for a little diversion.)

Better Place would become THE new international standard for the electric car, immediately.

They have solved the 2 main issues with electric cars, the 160km range and then having to charge for 8 hours, and the fact that people don't want to buy a new battery every 4 years at about $4000. How? They sell you the car, but maintain ownership of the battery, allowing them to run a battery-swap station infrastructure that only takes about 40 seconds to automatically swap out the battery! Can anyone here even fill up their petrol guzzler in that time? Anyway, peak oil is almost here and so I think we'll see Better Place all over the world anyway.

 

Worldwide-English?

The world already has a mania for learning English.

Jay Walker on the world's English mania | Video on TED.com

 

I'd have the leading American and leading British English language academics come together and develop the World English standard language and spelling. Why does the world have to learn 2 types of English? And why do we have so many 'exceptions to the rule' and archaic spellings and contradictions? Seeing my kids learn to spell has made me realise that English really needs an upgrade. My kids often spell things the way they should be spelt but aren't for tradition sake.

 

World driving licence standards

As English gradually becomes the 'world language' of international problem solving and negotiation, (although their native tongue will always be their life and passion), would other things I take for granted suddenly change?

 

EG: IF there were to be a world language, with world-wide consistent set of driving signs and eventually laws, would I end up driving on the other side of the road one day? 2/3rds of the world drive on the right, but I live in Australia where we drive on the left. For efficiency sake, I think smaller Australia would be moving to the right side of the road rather than asking America to shift to the left.

 

(But if we don't get this peak oil thing sorted soon, will we even be driving in 10 years? ;-)

 

I like standards on at least some silly stuff so that we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. Imagine the sheer money saved if we had a world standard power-plug and all appliances worked all across the globe to the one standard? Who can think of other examples that peeve them? Things where there just should be a standard, and the result is that everyone keeps trying to reinvent the wheel and countless hours of human productivity are wasted adapting and trying different things for no real improvement at all.

 

Computer software:

I have seen a report where a leading American economist (yes, right there in the middle of the heartland of capitalism) proposed that the government should just pay enough computer hackers to run the world's largest open-source project, and save the American economy billions in computer software fees. So I'd get Microsoft and Mac's best conceptual people together in the public service to develop THE operating system and Office Suite everyone would use, open sourced, with special attention to ground-up grass-roots initiatives and polls on desired improvements to the software.

 

There would even be a free-to-air TV channel and website devoted to discussing any new improvements and changes to the software, so that everyone but everyone had the opportunity to get to know THE main "Word" and "Spreadsheet" and "Powerpoint" software for the world.

 

But on the other hand I think diversity is also important. So while there would be some universal standards, the greenie in me doesn't want to see SUBURBIA mandated everywhere! Heaven forbid! I'm not into energy efficient cars (which are important) so much as energy efficient cities! So if I ran the world, I'd probably legislate that most suburban beltways and exurban sprawls would have to reduce their total area by a half and let each city decide if it wanted to move into an eco-city mode, a high-rise modern skyscraper mode, or even New Urbanism.

 

A world train gauge for super-fast trains would save costs as we are forced to exponentially roll out more track globally as peak oil interrupts traditional trucking routes.

 

Population policy

Unless environmental concerns got really bad I probably wouldn't mandate a maximum of 2 kids per couple, but I would give everyone free access to family planning services, especially medical sterilisation when requested. I'd try to create the "Demographic transition" in 3rd world and developing populations where, while some families might choose to be larger, the law of averages saw national populations gradually stabilise.

 

Thank you, thank you, I'm here Thursday and Saturday nights. :thumbs_up

[BrianG]

Electric cars would have better range, with an extension cord.

[alexander]

We need a world government.

No we don't, regardless of what media channels make you believe, world government is actually a really bad thing, its this whole competition thing, say you hate the laws in your country, because they take your freedoms, well, you can move to another country, plenty of them, and get away from things you dont agree on. World gov-t does not work that way, we dont need a global empire, we need people who are not after their own pockets in governments around the world, that are not be driven by wall-street (or the like)...

[BrianG]

If global government was based on individual rights, above all else, it might be worth something. As it stands, it would be a disaster. Europe invented a regional government before it had a constitution, that's a bad mistake.

[Eclipse Now]

The EU just released the Lisbon treaty (which is a lot more open and democratic) and are slowly developing their own constitution. As for "individual rights", what the heck does that mean for solving something as complex as climate change or peak oil? What about an "individual's rights" to live in a well designed city with enough amenities? See the contradiction.... once you have more than one individual, who decides what happens?

 

American's are so paranoid about 'government' and 'socialism' that they get hysterical over a little health reform. Man, they must think Australia is a truly communist State because we have Medicare and most Australians can actually access health care for essential health services. When my son developed Leukaemia all treatment was free... not through my private health insurance, which is mainly for 'choice' and 'elective' surgery.

 

From health care to town planning, American's are so paranoid about socialism that they've ignored the fact that Europe seems to be doing some really good things and 'socialist' countries like France are 70% nuclear powered and so not producing nearly as much Co2 as countries like America and Australia.

 

Anyway, I was proposing a global EU, which is slowly becoming more and more a "Federation of States" with some generally agreed upon Federal laws, which still allow member countries to make most of their own laws.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

American's are so paranoid about 'government' and 'socialism' that they get hysterical over a little health reform.

:shrug:

 

It's not socialism "WE" fear it's obvious socialism! We're a young nation and still in general do not know what we really want.....we create programs to help those that need them then grip that our pockets are being raided to pay for it......we want access to the same types of programs but we don't want to pay for everybody else to have it.....we're just really confuzled.

[Eclipse Now]

Electric cars would have better range, with an extension cord.

What, like in "The Goodies"? :shrug:

 

Again, if I ran the world we'd implement Better Place as the new EV standard until something better came along.

 

...and that something better might just be BUILDING a "better place", cities that were "more European than European" with an emphasis on walk ability, comfort, appropriate social and economic spaces, and far, far less car dominance.

 

This is one of my top 10 solutions to everything articles. I keep coming back to it year after year.

 

It shows how, even in America, the real solution is not so much in 'green cars' but in truly sustainable, beautiful, people focussed cities.

 

If you read this article, only do so slowly and carefully, and ponder each point. It deserves it.

 

Worldchanging: Bright Green: My Other Car is a Bright Green City

[BrianG]

The EU just released the Lisbon treaty (which is a lot more open and democratic) and are slowly developing their own constitution. As for "individual rights", what the heck does that mean for solving something as complex as climate change or peak oil? What about an "individual's rights" to live in a well designed city with enough amenities? See the contradiction.... once you have more than one individual, who decides what happens?...

 

Individual rights to use the energy we choose, live where we want, drive what we want. May not solve global warming, but you could be just as green as you like and no one will get in your way.

[Eclipse Now]

When rights collide.

 

Let me explain. When people say individual rights allow individuals to live the way they want, I start asking questions about what happens when your 'right' to live a certain way conflict with my 'right' to live a certain way.

 

With Australians copying Americans in almost everything, there's pressure on here for a bill of rights and yet even the Christian lobby here, with its very long and commendable history of campaigning for human rights, is against a bill of human rights because it ultimately enshrines selfishness.

 

Example: city design.

 

What if I desired to live in a world that wasn't dependent on oil? What if I saw it as my right to live in a city where one really didn't need to own a car, and that was as comfortable, practical, community focuses, beautiful and peaceful as I imagine a New Urbanist eco-city could be?

 

I don't want to go and live with the hippies without my own toilet paper! I want a modern, trendy, vibrant, convenient, clean, smogless, oil-free modern super-eco-New-Urbanist-Bright-Green-City!

 

But I can't. I can't live in a Sydney with 90% less cars, because one doesn't exist yet doesn't it?

 

I can't cycle everywhere I'd like because it's too dangerous.

 

I can't buy fossil-fuel free food because it's either been used to force the food to grow in dead soils (which uses so much energy in the creation of fertilisers that it takes 10 calories of oil&gas energy to grow 1 calorie of food energy), or even if it is 'organic' it has been transported hundreds of km's by oil to where I ultimately buy it, because "they" keep closing down the local agriculture as they expand the suburban monster ever outwards.

 

I can't know that my local community is safe and prepared for peak oil because everyone else is choosing to live the car-lifestyle, as encouraged by our suburban sprawl planners. (I can't call them "town" planners because they don't actually plan towns, but mass-McMansion McBurbs where people can live McLives).

 

What happened to my right to live in a society that won't be economically ruined when the oil starts to decline by about 5% per annum (or there-abouts) sometime in the next 5 years (or there-abouts)?

 

So what happens when 'rights' collide? Who decides what?

 

Which leads to my next point:

 

Judges being politicised.

 

Another factor: I don't get to vote for judges. If a judge is handed the power to make social policy (when he's actually a lawyer) by interpreting the BILL of rights to mean XYZ, isn't he or she making a value judgement about what is best for our society.... but without us getting a vote for it?

 

This is why I think human rights are best left at the discretion of social policy interpreted by our political representatives. Because at least we can vote them out and try again next time, rather than having someone's bright idea for social policy and "individual rights" enshrining someone's idea as LAW for all time.

 

At least the politicians have contact with whole teams of social policy advisers, economic impacts, social psychology of the electorate, etc.... judges are meant to interpret law, not decide social policy.

[BrianG]

I Carbon

 

I want to understand our world. Maximizing [ce]CO2[/ce] output from fossil fuel might indicate industrial growth and if maximum [ce]CO2[/ce] output from human metabolism was a goal, it might lead to population growth (or decay) and increased human activity. I don't understand all the effects of [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions, and I'd like to discuss the possible and probable effects here.

 

Effect: Climate change. Maximizing [ce]CO2[/ce] output might cause global warming. Is it possible that we can test AGW theory with emission increases, as easily as we could with carbon capture technologies and emission restrictions? Could climate science benefit from a policy of maximizing emissions, along with other random climate strategies, to find causal relationships, identify feedback mechanisms and teach good science?

 

Effect: Economic Growth. Maximizing [ce]CO2[/ce] output from fossil fuel might increase employment.

 

Have I missed any effects I should be aware of?

[Zythryn]

...

Is it possible that we can test AGW theory with emission increases, as easily as we could with carbon capture technologies and emission restrictions? Could climate science benefit from a policy of maximizing emissions, along with other random climate strategies, to find causal relationships, identify feedback mechanisms and teach good science?

 

Effect: Economic Growth. Maximizing [ce]CO2[/ce] output from fossil fuel might increase employment.

 

Have I missed any effects I should be aware of?

 

Yes, you have. An increase in global temperature may increase the variability of weather patterns and said extremes. Likewise it may shift weather patterns causeing more sever and frequent droughts, rapid changes in species (opening some areas to expansion of species while closing others). Examples of this include some pine beetles which are wiping out pines in some areas in Colorado and Canada.

 

The problem with your experiment is that you can't correct it IF you do find that the results are negative. Carbon stays in the atmosphere for many decades.

If you have a way to remove carbon, great, we are all for it and I would love to hear about it.

Unfortunately, no method that is not prohibitively expensive or works on a large enough scale has been found yet.

[Eclipse Now]

I Carbon

 

I want to understand our world. Maximizing [ce]CO2[/ce] output from fossil fuel might indicate industrial growth and if maximum [ce]CO2[/ce] output from human metabolism was a goal, it might lead to population growth (or decay) and increased human activity. I don't understand all the effects of [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions, and I'd like to discuss the possible and probable effects here.

 

Effect: Climate change. Maximizing [ce]CO2[/ce] output might cause global warming. Is it possible that we can test AGW theory with emission increases, as easily as we could with carbon capture technologies and emission restrictions? Could climate science benefit from a policy of maximizing emissions, along with other random climate strategies, to find causal relationships, identify feedback mechanisms and teach good science?

This is psychotic. The place to test what Co2 does is in a lab. The physicists tell us Co2's properties are well know, just as methane's are (21 times more powerful) and as nitrous oxides are (300 times more powerful). Co2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and is not the most powerful, but it is the one we are most commonly dumping into the atmosphere. I understand we are at 385 ppm equivalent... that is we might not be at actually 385ppm CO2 strictly speaking, but when all the other gases are counted and their various greenhouse effects are equated, it is as if we are at 385ppm.

 

Now maybe you haven't heard, but climate science has galloped along and left the IPCC consensus far behind. James Hansen and friends are saying we need to be at 350. That is, 385 is already dangerous.

 

The real scientists in this are saying we have ALREADY run a huge planet wide test on this, and don't like what they are ALREADY seeing as a result. Retreating glaciers that could one day plunge 2 billion Asians into a food crisis. Ice caps retreating. Methane 'bombs' in Siberian permafrost ready to 'blow'. Coral reefs under threat, weather patterns changing, increased droughts, increasingly intense bushfires (here in Australia), increasing floods, spreading famines across Africa, rising seawaters, War, Famine, Disease and Death... the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 

And you love Co2 because you think it is attached to jobs??? What about all the climate science... does that just 'go away' somewhere when you say jobs?

 

What about green jobs? Never has this cartoon been more appropriate.

 

 

Don't forget, soon the world hits peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal. (University of Newcastle Australia says peak coal is anywhere from 2010 to 2048). We HAVE to wean off the fossil fuels sooner rather than later, as if we have to leave them before they leave us or we'll be in a REAL bad way!