Air is Breathable and Water is Crystal Clear.

Says a man who's never been to Izmir, Bangkok or Beijing.
I have, and you don't breathe the air there, you bite off a lump and chew.

So how do WE get THEM, and OTHER Emerging Country's, to stop this?

What we do in The West, will have No Meaning to Increases in Atmospheric Pollution of the Entire Planet, if they continue their Hugh Increases. Their Increases are MORE than contemplated Cuts in Western Emissions.

Tell them to Stop? Good Luck!

Tax them? Good Luck!

Set An Example? Good Luck!

To ignore Emerging Country's, and Concentrate on The West is...

So the argument is 'Because we can't change other countries behavior, why bother taking some responsibility ourselves'.

Perhaps setting the example yourself is a way to start. Why indeed should a country like China listen to the US whining about Chinese pollution when the US is one of the biggest polluters itself and has taken only minimal steps to curb it. Even from an economic perspective taking the lead makes sense. Sustainability will indeed turn into a very profitable industry, but only to those who invest in it first. Why wait for other countries to innovate and become sustainable, why not invest in it yourself and become the leading innovator within this emerging industry. Now that would be a road to economic recovery.

Air is Breathable and Water is Crystal Clear.

Says a man who's never been to Izmir, Bangkok or Beijing.
I have, and you don't breathe the air there, you bite off a lump and chew.

So how do WE get THEM, and OTHER Emerging Country's, to stop this?

What we do in The West, will have No Meaning to Increases in Atmospheric Pollution of the Entire Planet, if they continue their Hugh Increases. Their Increases are MORE than contemplated Cuts in Western Emissions.

Tell them to Stop? Good Luck!

Tax them? Good Luck!

Set An Example? Good Luck!

To ignore Emerging Country's, and Concentrate on The West is...

So the argument is 'Because we can't change other countries behavior, why bother taking some responsibility ourselves'.

Perhaps setting the example yourself is a way to start. Why indeed should a country like China listen to the US whining about Chinese pollution when the US is one of the biggest polluters itself and has taken only minimal steps to curb it. Even from an economic perspective taking the lead makes sense. Sustainability will indeed turn into a very profitable industry, but only to those who invest in it first. Why wait for other countries to innovate and become sustainable, why not invest in it yourself and become the leading innovator within this emerging industry. Now that would be a road to economic recovery.

Set an example?

You REALLY think that will work?

China, and other Emerging Country's, "Listen to Us"?

Very, very silly. And you suppose, They Think, Our Idea's are Superior to Theirs?

Why would they?

We've been setting examples for years, nobody's been listening except for a minor group of people... Just not lucrative enough for the bigwigs is my opinion.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Haven't heard that argument since i was in school.

"Miss, miss, China's not doing her sums miss, so neither am i."

Grow up. There are lots of things China aren't doing that's still worth our while; democracy and human rights to name two.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

So the argument is 'Because we can't change other countries behavior, why bother taking some responsibility ourselves'.

Perhaps setting the example yourself is a way to start. Why indeed should a country like China listen to the US whining about Chinese pollution when the US is one of the biggest polluters itself and has taken only minimal steps to curb it. Even from an economic perspective taking the lead makes sense. Sustainability will indeed turn into a very profitable industry, but only to those who invest in it first. Why wait for other countries to innovate and become sustainable, why not invest in it yourself and become the leading innovator within this emerging industry. Now that would be a road to economic recovery.

Exactly so.


And for the "really clever" bit...

The sustainable industry should be cleanly far more profitable than the slash-burn-pollute dirty shoddy industry destroying everything around us.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The sustainable industry should be cleanly far more profitable than the slash-burn-pollute dirty shoddy industry destroying everything around us.

+1 Just think of how expensive those Bio products are. You have to pay so much extra for vegetables or fruit that aren't sprayed! How ridiculous is that?

And not to mention clean energy! It's breathtaking to see how much only the research for nuclear fusion costs...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Sustainability is going to be lucrative. But before it becomes really lucrative, its going to need innovation and innovation only happens when you invest in it.

In any case, China IS investing significant amounts of resources into sustainability research and development. Just because China doesn't want to commit to the high standards the West asks because it thinks they are unfair doesn't mean they aren't interested in this. For China sustainability is going to be vital. They have a major pollution problem and it is a source of potential social destabilization and the Chinese government recognizes that. In order to keep the system stable they will need to address their pollution problem sooner rather than later. Furthermore, sustainability research and development may eventually result in energy independence which for China is hugely important given how much it needs to import. Finally, given that its the predicted next big thing, investing in it and trying to gain the technological advantage is going to be very profitable for their economy. Imagine if rather than having to copy from Western inventions, they are the ones that invented the newest technology in the field and the rest of the world needs to copy it off from them. So yeah, China recognizes that investing in this makes economic sense. They just don't want to commit to any international standards because it thinks they are unfair and because it takes some time for them to replace their current factories and energy sources with sufficiently sustainable ones. Committing now would only hurt their economic growth on the short term with no real benefit on the long term.

The US on the other hand is dumb enough to refuse to invest significant resources into sustainability because of what? Scientifically illiterate politicians? Because they missed the memo that said sustainability is going to create jobs and economic growth? That the US risks losing the their technological superiority? Imagine the hurt if the US has to go to China for the latest technology rather than the other way around? No, the US can still retain the lead if they start investing significantly in this field on the short term. They still have a head start, if they start now they might maintain it.

In any case, if the US were to do that, China would still follow. The advantages of sustainability are to big, even if they have to buy it from other countries. While the economic benefits won't be as big in that situation, they can still reduce their own pollution and they can do it without having to do the significant investment in research first.

So yes, I think that if the US (or Europe) takes a leading role regardless of any international agreements and invests in sustainability, the world will follow.

It's all politics, isn't it? Duh Julie *slaps hand to forehead*

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Don't like the overused and under-defined word "Sustainability" just what are you saying is sustainable? and in what sense ??

China's 'social destabilization', in the near term, will be about jobs, not pollution.

Yeah tell that to the Chinese people who are very angry at their government because smog has become so bad you literally can't see the sun rise.

On top of that, it threatens jobs as well. Especially parts of the country side are in danger thanks to the worsening condition of the soil, drought, etc.

You are correct that China does not control its Energy Needs, and therefore does not control its future. Green Energy will not suffice in the near term (20-40 years). China's present need is to control its people with jobs.

Which is why China does not want to sign any of those climate change deals. Oh and investing in green energy is going to get them jobs as well. Hi tech jobs as it is a high tech industry, and people to build the things, etc. While it may not replace China's energy needs on the short term, it doesn't mean they are not investing in it.

I've bought some Chinese solar panels (Yingli), so they do have renewable technologies there.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I've bought some Chinese solar panels (Yingli), so they do have renewable technologies there.

By copying western developed technology and selling them cheap, because of this development has slowed because several firms have pulled out of the market. One of them was Siemens.

So if we lead the way China will follow, because they copy us, QED.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

So if we lead the way China will follow, because they copy us, QED.

Siemens lost about a $1B in two years because of it.

So if we lead the way China will follow, because they copy us, QED.

Siemens lost about a $1B in two years because of it.

Siemens made 4.2 billion Euros net profit in the fourth quarter of 2013.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

And I think the EU is setting up import limits on Chinese solar panels (to the dismay of the Chinese) in order to protect the European producers from being out competed.

So if we lead the way China will follow, because they copy us, QED.

Siemens lost about a $1B in two years because of it.

Siemens made 4.2 billion Euros net profit in the fourth quarter of 2013.

I should have been more specific Siemens Solar least $1B in two years.

Meanwhile, deny this?


Is Japan playing hunger games with climate change?



So, the Fossil Fuels pollute and profit whilst the equatorial countries are left parched and starved and cause some countries to lose their cheap food imports...


There has just got to be good sense in greatly reducing the fossil fuels pollution now before a far greater upheaval is wrought...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Meanwhile, deny this?


Is Japan playing hunger games with climate change?



So, the Fossil Fuels pollute and profit whilst the equatorial countries are left parched and starved and cause some countries to lose their cheap food imports...


There has just got to be good sense in greatly reducing the fossil fuels pollution now before a far greater upheaval is wrought...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

Another link from following that one.
Ocean acidification

:(

LOL...

Point taken on the trees. But they are not the only ones who take up carbon and let out O.

average 'hectare' of corn removes 22 tons of carbon dioxide from the air.

Trees will sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide at an average of 50 pounds
of carbon dioxide at an an average of 1,000 trees per hectare

When the tree dies it leaves more carbon behind then a corn plant does. This effect evens itself out as we can see...

:-)

Sorry everyone for doing a bit of backtracking :/ - been so busy I've only just managed to get round to responding to the above. :)

Hi ID! Afraid it's me again! How are you? Well I hope! Sorry for the delay in getting back to you :)

The comparison you've made above is a good point – but the fact remains that the fastest growing trees produce more oxygen than any land based plant can. For example the coastal Sequoia puts on the most mass per tree per year and holds its carbon the longest by living up to three thousand years. The Douglas fir would continue producing oxygen and lock up it's carbon for up to 1500 years and grow to a height of around 400 feet. The outer rings of growth are just as thick as the inner ones, but have a greater circumference with every passing year, meaning big old trees lay down more carbon per year than skinny young ones. Very rarely are trees left long enough for our atmosphere to benefit from this factor though. When a tree dies naturally, its carbon is consumed by organisms that breathe oxygen, making it an indirect oxygen consumer and a carbon releaser, and as carbon is needed for photosynthesis to occur – that's a relationship all earth's life benefits from.

Good tree management for our purposes (eg for building houses, furniture etc) can keep a felled tree's carbon locked up indefinitely, and make them net oxygen producers. We're not very good managers though. We tear down our wooden houses and throw away broken furniture instead of repairing it, and don't always remember to plant a tree or two to soak up the carbon that will be released as a result of our actions. Much of our rainforest felling however, results in the trees being burned to make way for agricultural use. Instant carbon release and no new trees planted.

Growing crops on this “new land” is a poor substitute for what has been incinerated into the atmosphere and the land needs heavy conditioning with nitrates etc before it is of any use for farming. (Nitrates deserve a mention entirely of their own – so I won't go into them here – other than in passing.)

Which brings me to corn (simply because you mentioned it ID :)) and you're right! It obviously releases much less carbon annually than a similar area of dead trees... but... I'm not sure how the CO2/02 figures stack up for a field farmed over say... a period of... 3000 years...? :) if compared to a similar untouched area of a coastal forest of sequoia for example...properly managed at the end of its natural life...? but I don't think we should get bogged down on that point :) which brings me back to corn... specifically “corn on corn” a peculiarly toxic crop. Now I have said that, I should also say I absolutely LOVE corn but it does sort of stick in my throat a little (and my teeth a lot :) but that's definitely off topic :))

Corn farming involves huge tracts of land. Because corn is allelopathic (meaning it releases toxins into the soil that suppress new growth) repetitive and aggressive tilling, pesticides, heavy nitrate application and early rainfall/irrigation of all this land is the only way to overcome the toxic residues every planting of corn leaves behind it. This is particularly so if farmers don't rotate their crops and only plant corn year after year (which is what the term corn on corn means apparently).

With a genetically engineered corn that makes its own insecticide now one of America's most widely planted crops (an insecticide that cannot be washed off because it resides inside every cell and then when broken down into the soil adds to the toxicity of nitrate run-off into streams and groundwater) we not only have potentially stepped into a rather huge pile of doo-doo but the pest it was developed to eradicate appears to be developing resistance to it far more quickly than scientists expected.

So that went well did it not! :/ And whilst we aren't lab rats ... we do have longer life spans than those unfortunate planetary inhabitants... so who knows what the nature and dimensions of the next new doo-doo waiting down the path for us all is :/


Anyway... thank you for bringing the corn comparison up ID :) it was most interesting!! :)

I.D said:

You are a damn fine man! +100! LMAO!

'If' Only 'it' 'is' trUe. 'Tis nOt. Da Bullies have tOld me sO, all my life.

However, I am a DENIER. Oh Yeah.

I DENY The Agendatizing, Bias, Ofuscating, Money Grabbing, and General Hanky Panky of Greenie/Warmist ReligiOn.

I 'Pray' 'it' will End as All Good Scams End.

fO shO fO evA

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!