I have been a bit busy today. My daughter turned 2, and I had to bake a cake, sort out all the presents, etc... she had fun, and went totally bugnutz over the present my wife and I got her.. Nice pink teddy bear holding a rose. It was a happy day for her. ... she still doesn't wanna put that teddy bear down.

Aaaah... :) A belated happy birthday to her! Yes... I would say... never get between a two year old and their teddy :)

That was a nice talk about effects of some kinds of pollution on plants. I do have a few minor issues with it.

First, a very minor point, more of a clarification.

...not ALL cleared forest land is totally useless for food production. But a prime case in point for what you mean is the subsistence-level (ie: not rich enough to afford the fertilizer) agriculture in areas with tropical rain forests. The bulk of the nutrients in a tropical rain-forest biome is in the... rain-forest plants themselves. When a farmer does slash&burn on some of the rain-forest land so he/she can plant their crops, the land is only good for a couple of years before being totally depleted. Like I said, all the 'good stuff' gets burned in the slash&burn. ... And it takes centuries for the land to recover to its original state, if ever.

Agreed. I do have real problems with rainforest destruction in particular - probably more so than any other - because it's a vicious downwards spiral in every respect. There is no recovery from it. Even if the farming of crops is abandoned (sparing the addition of fertilisers and the environmental consequences of them) sadly it's usually only to move onto the next patch of trees... and the land left behind is more often than not turned over to economically lucrative cattle farming consortiums - for foreign markets... so, let me see... methane from the moo moo's... and from us, toxic fossil fuel emissions to ship it around the planet... and that is not a definitive list! (I probably should have popped that clause into my previous post a few times :) to save you a little time and from um... klonking out :) apologies!)

The complicating factor here is the word "subsistence". It's hard to argue against a hungry family trying to scrape a daily meal for themselves :( I know there was talk a number of years ago of wealthier countries possibly paying such people/countries to protect the forests instead of destroying them, given how important they are to the entire planet, but I haven't heard any more about it. I will add it to my list of things to look into though. Sound mad? Not really - we wouldn't only be paying them to protect the forests from... well... themselves... but from very large, profit-hungry corporations (such as Proctor and Gamble to name but one - who are literally stealing what isn't theirs to take in Indonesia)... and don't even get me started on the harm caused in the wake of pharmaceutical companies' little jaunts into Africa's rainforests (what's left of them after the mining industry has dragged away countless acres worth to shore up their grubby little mine shafts) etc, etc.

(I should probably state at this point that I don't have much time for arguments about wealthier nations "not being able to afford it" either - not when we look at the obscene amount of money that can be found to [blindspot] fund weapons programs, or subsidise the fossil fuel industries etc, etc, not to mention how much of that wealth creation has contributed to current levels of pollution [/blindspot :)]

Another point I wish to expound on is the Nitrogen-oxides (NOx). There are more sources of NOx than just the ones you have listed. A big one you have left out is...

FIRE

You have doubtless heard the old saying 'Where there is smoke, there is fire.'. Well, I say that 'where there is fire, there is NOx.'

It doesn't matter if the fire is inside the internal combustion engine of your car, in the fireplace at your home, or in the stove/barbecue grill/campfire you cook your food on. Don't like NOx?? (and plenty of reason why you shouldn't)... Turn the fire off, and leave it off.

Indeed. I glossed over it I admit - for the sake of brevity. :) (And didn't that work well!? heh heh heh... I know - I'm insanely self-delusional. Pretty sure everyone here has worked out... that... once I get started - bang goes brevity! :))

So... Salad anyone? (Sorry... that should read everyone)... yes... I can see that being somewhat unpopular... how about unfashionably puffy duvet suits for the winter months too? Or hibernation! Oooh - I could do that!

Anyway... I shall get serious now. Thank you for highlighting it so well MK... depressing though it is. Very educational (gosh my science teacher was rubbish - only interesting bits in her lessons was when her teeth shot out). [mini blindspot] Naturally occurring fires do play a rather fascinating part in the lifecycle of some plants so I'm not totally averse to NOx...[/mini blindspot] only mostly averse. NOT easy to solve - and given the expectation that forest fires etc are likely to increase in the future it's not a pretty picture.

So, moving on to:

The biggest one is:
"good timber management keeps carbon locked up indefinitely (in the form of furniture etc)" which is what I said

You said:

That statement turns out to be wrong over the time scale necessary to use when discussing CO2 in the atmosphere. The wood will eventually decompose, releasing the Carbon in it back into the atmosphere as CO2.

Absolutely correct long term. Sorry. The point I was trying to make (again, briefly) was that it was considerably better than burning it or leaving it to rot (because the tree was too diseased to make it of any use to the timber industry when it was logged). I apologise for not doing a better job of getting that point across. Much better that it lived out its life healthy, and then at the end of its life was used in some way that kept that its carbon locked up for as long as possible (given that it's not exactly in short supply in the atmosphere for plants to continue photosynthesising without it). Obviously some decay is essential to return nutrients etc to the ground though. As a long-term solution to carbon storage, everything we do with our trees sucks. You're right.

The one semi-permanent way (and I say semi-permanent for a reason I will go into later) of removing CO2 from active participation in the carbon cycle is combining the CO2 with Calcium (Ca) in the sediment in the very deep water on the ocean floor forming Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3 aka Limestone). That is pretty much *IT*. Until that happens, the CO2 is still running around the air and water on our planet causing its problems.

Yes, the process removed enough CO2, over geologic time, to drop the concentration in the atmosphere from over 6000 ppm (about 550 million years ago) down to the 'pre-industrial' assumed value of 300 ppm. But then, that took hundreds of millions of years.

I say that CaCO3 formation (the ONLY real way) is only a semi-permanent way of removing CO2 from the Carbon Cycle. Here is why. Limestone. You ever play with any of it? Drop a couple of drops of household vinegar onto some. What happens? It fizzes. The captured CO2 is released...

Yes... I must admit to being guilty of doing that rather fun experiment myself... on more than one occasion. Please bear with me... I am taking a moment to hang my head in shame... :( much like I have done in the past for playing with polystyrene and releasing CFC's... :(

I would highly suggest that you re-read (or read it if you haven't yet)

Dr. Archer's paper
http://www.lic.wisc.edu/glifwc/Polymet/SDEIS/references/Archer%202005.pdf
Citation: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC002625, 2005

Published in Journal of Geophysical Research, a well-respected peer-reviewed journal.

Here is Dr. Archer's bio and cv, if you are interested.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/directory/david-archer

I have, but will do so again to refresh, and your other links too. Thank you for going to the trouble of posting them. :)

That is about 7% of added CO2 is still in the atmosphere 100 THOUSAND years from now... Now you see why I say that the Carbon locked up in the wood furniture doesn't really count? Not on THIS time scale. 100000 years. Urgh.

In other publications, Dr. Archer takes the IPCC to task about their EXTREMELY optimistic estimates on how long CO2 is around.

In 1990, the IPCC said the CO2 lifetime is 50 to 200 years.
In 1995 and 2001, the IPCC said it was 5 to 200 years.
They finally backed off in their next report, and stopped giving an estimate, after Dr. Archer published the paper I linked.

Contributing author Richard Betts of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre says the panel made this change in recognition of the fact that "the lifetime estimates cited in previous reports had been potentially misleading, or at least open to misinterpretation."

Source: Carbon is Forever

Another passage from the above article:

The lasting effects of CO2 also have big implications for energy policies, argues James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. "Because of this long CO2 lifetime, we cannot solve the climate problem by slowing down emissions by 20% or 50% or even 80%. It does not matter much whether the CO2 is emitted this year, next year, or several years from now," he wrote in a letter this August.

THIS is the problem I have with the IPCC and other high-priests of 'Warmism'. Their solutions do not fix the problem, and ALL the indication is that the reason why is political corruption.

SANDRP wrote:

... isn't good enough...

anniet wrote:

"but this sounds like a license for polluters to keep on polluting"

KWSN-MajorKong wrote:

why then did the Governments have an editorial role?

See how the pieces are beginning to fit together?

I do not dispute the science. I KNOW that CO2 is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere due to human activity. I KNOW that CO2 absorbs heat under some conditions. I find it VERY reasonable that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will 'warm things up', as it were. I am not sure by how much, and I don't think that anyone else is either. The research on the subject is improving our understanding of the subject. The error/uncertainty bars on the model results are getting smaller/shorter.

If the only concern was a small rise in global temperature, it might be tempting to ride it out. But human activity is having a number of other negative effects on our environment. Some you have mentioned in your post I am responding to.. Others have been mentioned in posts by others (ocean acidification being one of the chief ones to be highly concerned about).

Yes - I think I've mentioned it myself on at least one occasion. That is potentially a very grim unfolding picture.

Humanity has been seriously boned since the first time a human figured out how to make fire, and our long journey outside the balance of nature began.

Remember that graph from the WG3 report displayed in both the NPR link you posted about it and the SANDRP link I posted?

A LOT more than just fossil fuel use goes into anthropogenic(human caused) CO2 emissions.

Let us look at CH4 emissions. Two primary sources are agricultural. Ruminant digestion of cellulose, and cultivation of rice. You might say that that is just methane, right? Not CO2. Well, first methane is a short lived gas in the atmosphere, just a few years. But it is considerably more potent a GHG than CO2. Guess what? When the methane breaks down, what does it break down into? Yep... CO2.

CH4 + 2O2 ===> CO2 + 2H2O

Methane gets us coming and going.

And blows up cow sheds :/

FOLU CO2... Nothing really to do with any industrial technology. Just CO2 emissions from land use (cutting down trees, agriculture, etc.)

Industrial CO2... Well, probably the most significant industrial source of CO2 is cement production. So significant that most breakdowns of CO2 production give it its own category. Reinforced concrete (cement + gravel + iron/steel 'rebar') is a very popular building material. It is also used to build roads and streets, etc.

What alternatives exist for building roads & streets? Well, there is asphalt... Uhh... wait... asphalt is FOSSIL FUEL, or at least the heavy residue left over from the fractional distillation of crude oil to produce gasoline/diesel/etc. Ever SMELL asphalt that has been freshly put down? Chock full of volatile organics that out-gas over a period of time. Not very ideal to spray/spread that schizz all over the environment, now is it?

Yes! Well, what I mean by that is NO... but yes... it stinks. Grew up in various places in Africa where some programs to tar roads were getting underway. Wasn't always successful first time round either because the stuff would melt (or at least get very sticky) and as a result, it stank all summer long. Not nice stuff - ulcerated paws, infected hooves from bits of the stuff working their way into the soft tissues, and deathtraps for insects etc - not to mention the fact that I had to actually start wearing shoes to stop my feet from burning. Many a hop, skip and leaping shriek ensued without them :/

Re: cement production... I came across the facts on just how nasty that stuff is relatively recently... and looking at some of the building programs going on in places like china (largely unoccupied whole towns full of luxury apartment blocks) it beggars belief that there are little if any controls over the industry!

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. Fossil Fuel use to provide transportation and power. What are we going to do about it? What CAN we do about it?

Now, I support use of 'alternative' energy sources. I pay extra on my electric bill to use wind/solar/nuclear power whenever possible.

But the reality of the situation is that the ONLY alternative energy technology that can adequately replace fossil fuel use in the electric power grid is nuclear fission. And it isn't exactly very popular.

As you mentioned, even Germany is decommissioning its nuclear power plants in favor of replacing them with lignite coal-fired plants. The DIRTIEST coal to use there is.

But, even if we had the political will to stop today ALL fossil fuel use, that wouldn't be good enough. There are WAY too many other sources of CO2.

Even if, in addition, we had the political will to stop today ALL industrial CO2 emission, that wouldn't be good enough. There is WAY too much CO2 directly and indirectly emitted by remaining human activity sources.

We would have to ALSO, in addition to the above, stop agriculture and other non-natural land use. Then we might do some good.

Scared yet?

You should be!

Well... carrying on without cutting back at all surely isn't an option? Okay, a statistic I came across recently about the number of Christians who believe they'll be flooding into heaven by 2050 might suggest there are some out there who are positively relishing the precipice hurtling towards us... And I suppose, some might argue that by cutting back our emissions now... it's giving our leaders and associated elite a chance to stash enough supplies into their underground bunkers and/or build and stock enviro-bubble cities for themselves, so let's rush towards the precipice as fast as we can to spoil their party... ooh... hmm... is that paranoia creeping in now do you think? :)

I think Majorkong, that I'm going to have to get back to you on that... might need to rummage around for some tranquilizers... I hope you don't mind waiting... :)

Very informative post though! Thank you :) Oh... and a very happy Thorsday to you, and everyone else too!

But you have hit the nail on the head with a hammer. The main PROBLEM is there are too many humans demanding too few resources and producing too much waste for the planet to handle. And there is NO way around it. Just about any solution to our problems is going to entail, either specifically or as a side effect, some level of population reduction.

Glad to say, we're moving in the right direction with this:)

https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

But you have hit the nail on the head with a hammer. The main PROBLEM is there are too many humans demanding too few resources and producing too much waste for the planet to handle. And there is NO way around it. Just about any solution to our problems is going to entail, either specifically or as a side effect, some level of population reduction.

Glad to say, we're moving in the right direction with this:)

https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php

Hi Julie,

Well, I must say that the rate of population growth is slowing, but it is still *growth*. To do any good in this case, the rate is going to have to go negative.

But you have hit the nail on the head with a hammer. The main PROBLEM is there are too many humans demanding too few resources and producing too much waste for the planet to handle. And there is NO way around it. Just about any solution to our problems is going to entail, either specifically or as a side effect, some level of population reduction.

Glad to say, we're moving in the right direction with this:)

https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php

Hi Julie,

Well, I must say that the rate of population growth is slowing, but it is still *growth*. To do any good in this case, the rate is going to have to go negative.

How?

Either Natural. Nature taking matters into its own hands.

Or?

Hi Clyde! How are you? Looking forward to a nice Easter I hope!

I did make a post...
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74441&postid=1499661

on this topic which I don't think anyone has responded to yet. I may be wrong, so I will read back through this thread to check.

You may have already read it. Was just wondering whether you have any ideas on what might be a good way to reduce human population? :)

It is a hairy subject for the public forums I grant you - but if you fancy a theoretical/hypothetical discussion via pm :) I'm willing to listen... :) and very difficult to shock :)

What do you reckon... game? :)

Who controls the necessary power to implement it?

Society...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Who controls the necessary power to implement it?

Society...

Would that be the rich in society, Or the rich political society?

Small pox would kill many people as most alive nowdays have never had the vacination for it. I have had the vaccine, and a few boosters over the years. But that was way back when.
Now the Ebola virus. Theres a world wide killer for you. But then again its that unseen astroid that could whack us at anytime.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Would that be the rich in society, Or the rich political society?

The lattter have most power I'm afraid... Mention money or Politics and the majority of us will 'listen' and follow like sheep...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Hi Clyde! How are you? Looking forward to a nice Easter I hope!

I did make a post...
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74441&postid=1499661

on this topic which I don't think anyone has responded to yet. I may be wrong, so I will read back through this thread to check.

You may have already read it. Was just wondering whether you have any ideas on what might be a good way to reduce human population? :)

It is a hairy subject for the public forums I grant you - but if you fancy a theoretical/hypothetical discussion via pm :) I'm willing to listen... :) and very difficult to shock :)

What do you reckon... game? :)

Hi anniet...

As I said in the Post you referenced:

The '500 Pound Gorilla In The Room' that NOBODY really wishes to confront:

7 Billion, and rising, Human Beings on this Planet.

What is the solution?

THE Solution is Extreme Population Reduction.

What is THE METHOD? Who controls the necessary power to implement it?

Well. Every thought I had, would naturally result in making 'The Final Solution' look like a 'Light Warm-up' prior to 'The Real Game'.

You Game?

Oh absolutely :) I do occasionally cast an apocalyptically-jaundiced view at humanity at times... (just as well the only weapon I've ever used to any real effect was a pineapple) ... :)

So :) how about something like this to start us off...? :)



... (it will give everyone else something to chat about whilst we pm on the darkside anyway...)

I should say I haven't found one for other areas of the world - yet - so I'm not just picking on the USA, promise this is just an example OKAY EVERYONE :) :)

Should we set our rules here do you think? :)

No offence (or prisoners) to be taken by either of us... all differences to end with a smiley (whether it's been put there or not)... confidences kept... and... let me see now... friendship unharmed!

Feel free to add any of your choice too :)

Of course... if we did come up with a solution... you do realise the next arms race will be... well... not just about arms... but the legs and other bits that come attached to them... :)

Could this be the future...? :)

"...


...and I will ignore all your trading of conception-permits!"...?

As I have come up with some ideas already (in the previous post I referenced) I will await any that you have in the meantime. But no pressure... and no need to rush... we have all the time in the... oh... well... we have some time at least :)

Who controls the necessary power to implement it?

Society...

Would that be the rich in society, Or the rich political society?

Small pox would kill many people as most alive nowdays have never had the vacination for it. I have had the vaccine, and a few boosters over the years. But that was way back when.
Now the Ebola virus. Theres a world wide killer for you. But then again its that unseen astroid that could whack us at anytime.

Well... the pasteur institute managed to lose a substantial quantity of SARS... do they have any EBOLA in stock...? :/

(Hi James! How are you?) :)

Hi anniet..

A Pineapple? You have to explain.

I really don't care about other people's wealth. Income Redistribution has been tried many times. Has most the money taken, been transferred to the poor?

In the USA, over $60,000 is spent, per year, for poor household's.

Do they get this money? Do they live as if Earning $60,000? Is it similar in Britain?

How about we GIVE $50,000 to Each Poor Household, and SAVE money?

As the above shows: The Left shouting about "Income Inequality" has NOTHING to do with helping the poor.

Just a personal note. I believe the Left, and the Right, are equally deranged.

Back to 'Climate Change'.

Hi Clyde! :) How are you?

Re: pineapple... you must've missed one of my posts in the double standards thread :) It was a very effective weapon against a mugger. Did quite a bit of damage with it, then chased him shrieking through the park. Had no idea I could be so scary. :)

Back to the topic :) My point wasn't actually about income redistribution. It was meant more as teaser re a hypothetical discussion on drastically reducing human population as a means of solving CO2 emissions. A potential starting point if you like... in figuring out where you thought "cuts" could be made, hypothetically speaking of course. :)

Can I take it therefore that income levels would not be a determining factor in who might be sacrificed for the sake of the planet? :)

Obama-care calls for "Soylent Green" squads. Not only do they take care of overpopulation they do it in a 100% carbon neutral way.

---

Obama-care calls for "Soylent Green" squads. Not only do they take care of overpopulation they do it in a 100% carbon neutral way.

Y-e-s... not getting dragged into this one thanks all the same :)

But it does sort of get me thinking on what numbers (those who support the concept of drastic population decimation) would be seeking... a third? Half? What...? And also... how "greenly" would the bodies be disposed of? (Assuming they were disposed of before they were green of course.)

Who, or what Group will decide what to 'cut', must be given 'The Power' to implement the 'cuts'. Of course, they will spare themselves.

Will be interesting what the rational they give to 'cut' the other's, and not themselves.

Religion? Ethnic Group? Race? Inferior IQ? Non-Productive (Poor)?

The above is just a 'Short List'.

Hi Clyde! :)

Those have been pretty much ongoing since the dawn of "humanity" though haven't they?

How about we draw lots? :) Starting with our politicians :)

Late edit: perhaps one short straw for every two long ones? We can choose another ratio if you want :)

Obama-care calls for "Soylent Green" squads. Not only do they take care of overpopulation they do it in a 100% carbon neutral way.

Y-e-s... not getting dragged into this one thanks all the same :)

But it does sort of get me thinking on what numbers (those who support the concept of drastic population decimation) would be seeking... a third? Half? What...? And also... how "greenly" would the bodies be disposed of? (Assuming they were disposed of before they were green of course.)

The quotes I have heard on NPR about that is 500,000,000. That would be 500 million people left on earth to be ecological stable Or green as the term is now.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Obama-care calls for "Soylent Green" squads. Not only do they take care of overpopulation they do it in a 100% carbon neutral way.

Y-e-s... not getting dragged into this one thanks all the same :)

But it does sort of get me thinking on what numbers (those who support the concept of drastic population decimation) would be seeking... a third? Half? What...? And also... how "greenly" would the bodies be disposed of? (Assuming they were disposed of before they were green of course.)

The quotes I have heard on NPR about that is 500,000,000. That would be 500 million people left on earth to be ecological stable Or green as the term is now.

Hmm... thank you James. :)

Here is some food for thougt. Does anyone think this might be eletists with a plan?
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm wrote:
1. MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE
2. GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY - IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY
3. UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING NEW LANGUAGE
4. RULE PASSION - FAITH - TRADITION - AND ALL THINGS WITH TEMPERED REASON
5. PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS
6. LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES IN A WORLD COURT
7. AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS OFFICIALS
8. BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH SOCIAL DUTIES
9. PRIZE TRUTH - BEAUTY - LOVE- SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE
10. BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH - LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE - LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

---

[/quote]

Old James

The quotes I have heard on NPR about that is 500,000,000. That would be 500 million people left on earth to be ecological stable Or green as the term is now.

The 500 Million figure, regarding Ideal Human Population, has been around a long time, by many different Ideologies.

But im betting by the super rich who can buy there way in.

---

[/quote]

Old James

The quotes I have heard on NPR about that is 500,000,000. That would be 500 million people left on earth to be ecological stable Or green as the term is now.

The 500 Million figure, regarding Ideal Human Population, has been around a long time, by many different Ideologies.

But im betting by the super rich who can buy there way in.

Yes. I think you might be more than a teensy bit hitting the nail on the head there James. How about the fact that it has been estimated that around 500 million people are employed by the fossil fuel industry worldwide? Conincidence? :) I'm sure... I mean they'll need someone to sort out food won't they :)

I don't think that you all understand the magnitude of the problem. 500 million is WAY too high.

Where would the 500 million live? What would they eat?

Remember, CO2 is VERY long lived in the... well, can't really say the atmosphere, so let us say... entire carbon cycle. After 100000 years, 7% of it is still running around causing problems.

On this time scale, ALL anthropogenic sources of CO2 become VERY significant. And there are quite a bit more anthropogenic sources other than burning of fossil fuels.

Let us look at a graphic from the IPCC 2014 WG3 report from anniet's NPR Blog link:



The yellow and the orange areas are direct anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The light blue area is anthropogenic CH4 emissions, which decay into CO2 over a short period of time.

Another graph on anthropogenic CH4 emissions:



As you can see, that is about 375 Tg anthropogenic CH4 emissions in 1994, and the 2 MAIN sources are agricultural.

375 Tg = 375 Million tons. Convert from CH4 to the end product of its decomposition in the atmosphere (CO2)... * (44/16) and we get 2750 Million ton of CO2... or about 2.75 Billion tons of CO2 emitted in 1994 from anthropogenic CH4.

The light blue band on the first graph is slightly wider in 2010 than in 1994, so lets estimate 3 GtCO2 for 2010 from anthropogenic CH4 emissions.

So, lets put things into perspective.

Direct CO2 anthropogenic emissions in 2010 from both fossil fuels and industrial sources is about 32 GtCO2.

Estimating direct CO2 anthropogenic emissions in 2010 from FOLU (Forestry, and Other Land Use -- including agriculture) would be 32 * (11 / 65) = 5.4 GtCO2.

This yields about 80% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuel and Industrial processes, and about 20% from FOLU and Methane.

From a quote I have given earlier in this thread from James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, even an 80% cut in anthropogenic CO2 emissions will NOT be enough due to the long lifetime of CO2...

It must essentially go to zero to solve the problem.

This means not only no Fossil Fuel use... no Industry... no non-natural land use... but also NO AGRICULTURE... to solve the CO2 problem.

This means that humanity is going to have to permanently revert to before the Agricultural Revolution (about 11000BCE... or 13000 years ago) to solve the CO2 problem. The New High-Tech is stone knives and bearskins. Literally.

Human population, prior to the Agricultural Revolution, had stabilized at about 3 million.

As to all the comments about 'the rich', might I remind you that those that currently live closer to the Pre-Agricultural standard are going to have a huge advantage... Nomadic hunter-gatherers... Everyone is going to have to pull their own weight.

About life in a state of nature,

Thomas Hobbes wrote in Ch. 12 of Leviathan:

"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Something tells me that the idle rich need not apply.

I don't think that you all understand the magnitude of the problem. 500 million is WAY too high.

:(



Hi MK! Good hard-hitting post :) Thank you I think!

This means not only no Fossil Fuel use... no Industry... no non-natural land use... but also NO AGRICULTURE... to solve the CO2 problem.

This means that humanity is going to have to permanently revert to before the Agricultural Revolution (about 11000BCE... or 13000 years ago) to solve the CO2 problem. The New High-Tech is stone knives and bearskins. Literally.

Human population, prior to the Agricultural Revolution, had stabilized at about 3 million.

As to all the comments about 'the rich', might I remind you that those that currently live closer to the Pre-Agricultural standard are going to have a huge advantage... Nomadic hunter-gatherers... Everyone is going to have to pull their own weight.

Oh absolutely. I would love to give it a go though... but doubt I'd get the chance somehow. :/

I think where the comments being made had theoretical relevance (at a time where so many distrust the motivations of their leaders) was that - if it was decided tomorrow (by those in government today) that 6.7 billion people had to cease breathing in and out sort of rather quickly, that some sectors might be better served than others when it came to being excused the chop. Any reduction from there to the three million you mention could well be determined by survival of the fittest. Prior to that however, "survival of the fittest" would probably equate to who has the gun... not exactly a long term survival strategy once you run out of bullets... but let's look at what's been happening to some nomadic hunter gatherers that we still have...

Not only have the San (bushmen) been moved from their ancestral land to make way for tourists, diamond mining and fracking, those who remain are no longer allowed to hunt...

...yet tourists, wielding guns are. Could these be the idle rich that make the cut? Don't worry... Just pondering :)

Given your data, people like these and a few in the Amazon Rainforests and elsewhere, alongside scavenging street children are probably the best hope this planet has to sustain humankind at all. I wish them well. But how effective are spears, arrows and stones against, say guns or bombs in the short term?

And you guys in America have so many...