UNITED NATIONS (AP)—Developed nations must immediately help fight global warming or the world will face catastrophic floods, droughts and other disasters, according to U.N. report released this week.
The report said rich nations will need to provide $86 billion a year by 2015 to “strengthen the capacity of vulnerable people” to cope with climate-related risks.
“The scenario is that our generation will experience reversals on a grand scale in the areas of health, education and poverty. For the future there is real threat of ecological catastrophe,” Kevin Watkins, the report’s lead author, told reporters in Brasilia, the country’s capital.
Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for “climate-proofing” developing nations’ infrastructure, while $40 billion would help the poor cope with climate-related risks. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters, the report said.
The report said the United States and other rich nations should pay the biggest share.
Sorry nobles the only measure I deem acceptable and feasible is to lower the worlds’ overall population.
“In Bali we are going to very seriously discuss the price rich countries have to pay so that poorer countries can preserve their forests,” Silva said. “Because you’re not going to convince a poor person in any country that he can’t cut down a tree if he doesn’t have the right to work and eat in exchange.”
Reduce your population.
Scientists believe the rain forest can act as enormous sponge to soak up greenhouse gases, but deforestation and burning in the rain forest releases millions of tons of carbon into the air each year making Brazilian one of the leading emitters of greenhouse gases.
So. Reduce your population.
The report also found that increased energy efficiency, alternative fuels and even the reduction of trade barriers could go a long way toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
So would reducing your population.
The report suggested, among other measures, that a reduction of tariffs on Brazilian ethanol “would generate gains not just for Brazil, but for climate change mitigation.”
Without money from developed countries, the panel found, a warmer world “could stall and then reverse human development” in the countries where 2.6 billion people live on $2 a day or less.
A smaller population could mean $4 person per day.
Developed countries, meanwhile, are failing to meet their targets under the current climate treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, for cutting greenhouse gases by 2012, the report said. France, Germany, Japan and Britain have reduced their emissions somewhat, it said, but the European Union is falling short of its goal of a 20 percent cut by 2020.
Now that is an outright filthy lie.
Scientists have reported temperatures rose an average 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, bringing the prospect of a century of extreme weather, rising seas, widening drought and disease and harm to fisheries, forests and farmland.
“These impacts ... go unnoticed in financial markets and in the measurement of world gross domestic product,” the panel’s report said. “But increased exposure to drought, to more intense storms, to floods and environmental stress is holding back the efforts of the world’s poor to build a better life for themselves and their children.”
Which should be half as many as they have.
Because of global warming, he said, 600 million more people in sub-Saharan Africa will go hungry from collapsing agriculture, an extra 400 million people will be exposed to malaria and other diseases and an added 200 million will be flooded out of their homes.
Less people, less hunger, less diesase, less CO2, less deforestation.
“We’re suggesting 1.6 percent of (global) GDP—still very affordable,” Kjorven said. “The countries of the world that are the principal culprits, if you wish, for creating this problem in the first place need to act strongly to safeguard the future of those that have done nothing to cause this problem but are the most vulnerable.”
Whoda thunk it? The noble UN speaks out.
Reduce your population.
So. Reduce your population.
So would reducing your population.
A smaller population could mean $4 person per day.
Less people, less hunger, less diesase, less CO2, less deforestation.
Biafra’s final solution. Nice.
At this festive time of year I thought you might like a Xmas story
At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
‘They are. Still,’ returned the gentleman,’ I wish I could say they were not.’
‘The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?’ said Scrooge.
‘At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,’ said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ‘it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.’
‘Are there no prisons?”
‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
‘And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’
‘Both very busy, sir.’
‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’
‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’
‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.
‘You wish to be anonymous?’
‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’
‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’
‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Actually, Biafra is correct. Long before Global warming becomes an issue, overpopulation will already be an issue.
It is the elephant in the room, nobody is talking about.
Edit:spelling
Fifteen years ago, I read a book that warned that the 90s would be the decade that would decide the fate of the human race. If the world didn’t do something about the overpopulation crisis, everything would collapse and all the things that people are saying are being caused by “global warming” would happen. The earth just doesn’t have the carrying capacity to sustain the explosive growth we’re seeing in human population.
Fifteen years ago, I read a book that warned that the 90s would be the decade that would decide the fate of the human race. If the world didn’t do something about the overpopulation crisis, everything would collapse and all the things that people are saying are being caused by “global warming” would happen. The earth just doesn’t have the carrying capacity to sustain the explosive growth we’re seeing in human population.
But it’s all Bush’s fault, of course.
That might be true (well, not the all-Bush’s-fault silliness) - our fate may have already been determined. Pretty hard to confirm it though (now, and even later).
Actually, Biafra is correct. Long before Global warming becomes an issue, overpopulation will already be an issue.
It is the elephant in the room, nobody is talking about.
Edit:spelling
Has anyone stopped to consider just how profound the effect would be if, globally, every nation were to simply through birthcontrol, reduce their populations by 10% from current levels? Within thirty years there would be such a surplus of food and goods that it would be incredible. Economies all over the world would be destroyed by a lack of demand for products. The whole damn world’s economy is basically a pyramid scheme that will come crashing down if population growth ever halts.
Yep I think biafra and Diogenes have both got it right.
A significant number of problems would be alleviated (or actually solved) by not just slowing population growth but by decreasing our population. Obviously this is going to have much greater effect in those areas when those problems are more acute, but it would help if we all reduced.
But that throws up another set of problems in that we’ve structured our societies in such a way that requires continual growth.
The earth only has so much bounty to offer and inventing ever larger and more notional prices for that bounty does not change its real value.
This is aside from decreasing populations being something you couldn’t implement very easily. The freedom to have your own children is surely the most basic of all (it doesn’t matter how poor you are, what colour you are, etc). If we are obsessed with ‘freedom’ then how can we start to impose rules about giving birth?
The traditional Chinese conception of more children for more blessings and bringing up children for the old age is no longer popular among modern city women whose conception on birth-giving has greatly changed with the fashion.
One main reason is that pressure in work and studies and tight schedule deprive women of leisure to give birth to children.
Also some other people think that having children will affect present quality of life for the couple do not have a solid economic base.
Marriage with no sex is another reason. As many couples are busying with their work they do not even have leisure for a meal together, let alone to care of having babies.
You can soon blame global warming for earthquakes consistently reaching “10” and all hurricanes measuring “5”, but ultimately even a lil bit of number “2” will kill a bunch of people every time.
I’m surprised at how Malthusian everyone around here is. This reminds me of a famous lecture by Prof. Albert Bartlett on overpopulation. You can listen to it (or watch it) in it’s entirety here…
I can’t find a text version, but I’ll paraphrase some of the highlights myself…
In December of 1986, the news reports indicated that the world population had reached the population 5 billion people growing at 1.7% per year. Well, your reaction is, “that’s so small, nothing bad could ever happen”. So you calculate the doubling time and you find it’s only 41 years. More recently, in 1999, we read that the world’s population had grown from 5 billion to 6 billion. The good news was that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% to 1.3%. The bad news is that despite the drop in the growth rate the world’s population is growing by about 75 million additional people per year.
Now if this modest 1.3% per year population growth were to continue, the world population would grow to one person per metre on the dry-land surface of the earth in only 780 years and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 2400 years. Well, we can smile at that. We know it couldn’t happen… But there’s a very profound lesson here - that zero population growth is going to happen. Now we can debate about whether like zero population growth or don’t like it, but it’s going to happen, whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s absolutely certain. People couldn’t live at that density on the dry-land surface of the earth, therefore today’s high birth rates will drop and today’s low death rates will rise. That will certainly be in a time short compared with 700 years.
So what options are available if we wanted to address the problem. (Bartlett now refers to a visual display) In the left hand column, I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of birth and lower the rate of death and thereby make the problem worse. Just look at the list, everything on it is as sacred as motherhood. Medicine, public health, sanitation. These are all dedicated to the humane goal of lowering the death rate. And that’s very important to me if it’s my death they’re lowering. But I’ve got to realise that anything that just lowers the death makes the population problem worse. There’s peace, law and order. Scientific agricultre has lowered the death rate due to famine, that just makes the population problem worse. It’s widely reported that the 55 mph speed limit saved thousands of lives. Well, that just makes the problem worse. Clean air makes it worse.
Now in the right hand column are some of the things would should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth and in so doing solve the population problem. Well, there’s abstention, contraception, abortion, small familes, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents. Now smoking clearly raises the death rate. That helps solve the problem. Remember we’ve concluded that zero population growth is gonna happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms, it’s obvious that nature is going to choose from the right hand list. And we don’t have to do anything. Except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses. Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us and that option is to choose first. We have to find something we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease. We now have the capability of incredible war. Would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents. There is the human dilemma.
Let’s look at what happens when we have steady growth in a finite environment. Bacteria grow by doubling. One divides to become two. The two divide to become four… Suppose we had bacteria that doubled their number every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacteria in an empty bottle at eleven o’clock and then observed that the bottle’s full at 12. There’s our case of just ordinary steady growth. It has a doubling time of one minute and the finite environment of one bottle. I want to ask you 3 questions. Number 1. At what time is the bottle half full? Would you believe 11.59. Because they double in number every minute. Number 2. If you were a bacterium in this bottle, what time would you realise you were running out of room? Let’s look at the last minutes in the bottle. At 11.59, it’s half full. 11.58, a quarter full, 11.57 an eighth full. So at 5 minutes to 12 when the bottles only 3% full, with 97% open space just yearning for development, how many of you would realise there’s a problem...?
Suppose that at 2 minutes to 12, some of the bacteria realised they were running out of space. So they launch a great search for new bottles. They search offshore and in the outer continental shelf and overthrust belt and the arctic and they find 3 new bottles. Now that’s an incredible discovery, that’s three time the total amount of resource they’ve ever known about before. Now surely, this will give them a sustainable society. You know what the third question is. How long can the growth continue due to this magnificent discovery? At 12, one bottle is filled. At 12.01 two bottles are filled. And at 12.02 all 4 bottles are filled and that’s the end of the line.
Now Bartlett compares this with fossil fuel consumption. What matters is not simply that we consume 84 million barrels a day, but that growth in consumption has grown at 7% per year since the discoveries in the early twentieth century. 7% equates to a doubling time of ten years. So if you take any decade in the twentieth century (except the 70s, because of shortages due to politics, not geology), the amount of oil consumed was equal to the total amount ever consumed. So for example, the amount consumed in the 40s was equal to all that consumed from 1900 to 1939. The amount consumed in the 80s was equal to the total amount consumed from 1900 to 1979. That’s the mathematical consequence of 7% growth. So when someone says we’re only about half way through the total amount of oil, what that means is we either have 10 years left, or the growth in consumption will have to fall. And when someone says, yes, but we have all that oil in the Alberta sands and it’s equal to all the oil ever consumed, then we have twenty years left. And when markets and analysts go ga-ga over modest discoveries like the Jack 2 oil field, you realise that they miss the point entirely.
And the point is we have growth culture in a finite environment (the earth), and that most of the problems in the world today are an expression of this irreconcilable conflict. That’s why we need to embrace the idea of sustainability. Few people, if walked through the idea, would be against sustainability. Of course, some people will differ as to what things are sustainable and what aren’t. Some people think that capitalism itself is unsustainable because it is based on growth. I’d challenge that assertion because capitalism, although sometimes problematic, is still fairer than any other system of social organisation over conceived.
My guess is that at some point in the future, some eco-nut is gonna play God and release some type of worldwide genocide agent, possibly a genetic bomb, to alleviate the population growth problem. With the advances we’ve made in genetics, it isn’t difficult to envision that possibility. Question is, what will be the criteria they’ll use to select what parts of the population to eliminate? Will they do it based on race? Before anybody jumps in and says that’s inevitable, its not. It could be done on the basis of susceptability/immunity to any of numerous fatal diseases. Will they shoot for a small percentage reduction, or a huge percentage that only leaves a preselected elite population? Oh, this provides all kinds of room for speculation!
Has anybody checked out the difference between these two methods of population control: contraception and death.
Which in his first post is Jabba referring to?
Because of global warming, he said, 600 million more people in sub-Saharan Africa will go hungry from collapsing agriculture, an extra 400 million people will be exposed to malaria and other diseases and an added 200 million will be flooded out of their homes.
Less people, less hunger, less diesase, less CO2, less deforestation.
Which is Scrooge referring to in mine?
If the answer to my frist question is yes, then why have you confounded this issue?
Has anybody checked out the difference between these two methods of population control: contraception and death.
Which in his first post is Jabba referring to?
Because of global warming, he said, 600 million more people in sub-Saharan Africa will go hungry from collapsing agriculture, an extra 400 million people will be exposed to malaria and other diseases and an added 200 million will be flooded out of their homes.
Less people, less hunger, less diesase, less CO2, less deforestation.
Which is Scrooge referring to in mine?
If the answer to my frist question is yes, then why have you confounded this issue?
Uhh, maybe ‘cuz r.j. raised an aspect of world (over)population that we find more interesting?
All I know is that a few months ago two cats followed the dogs and me home from a walk and now our front porch looks like a set from a Stephen King movie. Rabbits got nuthin’ on cats gone wild…
In the nearly a decade since the U.S. rejected the landmark climate change agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. has become accustomed to being attacked at U.N. environmental gatherings. But the pounding it took in the tortured all-night negotiations that capped the UN climate change conference in Bali was unprecedented. Not only did developing nations big and small from India to Papua New Guinea openly chastise the U.S. for its last-minute refusal to endorse the new agreement dubbed the Bali Roadmap, but — with the exception of a confused statement from Japan — not one of the allies that had generally stood with the U.S. the past two weeks — Australia, Russia, Canada — rose in its defense.
Here comes the good news - dialogue toward a global village was initiated (cue Asimbonanga)
In the end, the U.S.’s total isolation was too much for even it to bear.
Unfortunately its typically boorish and hysterical behaviour found some imitators:
But delegates from India and China unexpectedly objected to aspects of the text, including the degree of technical assistance poor nations would receive from the rich for low-carbon development. The impasse — the latest in several tortured days of negotiations — led Rachlat Witolear, the chair of the conference, to twice suspend the open session for further behind the scenes meetings, leading to a real fear that diplomats might leave the island without a final agreement.
Death to America for inspiring such a possibility.
It was only with the help of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who made an emergency stop in Bali, that negotiations got kick started. The South Korean, in office for less than a year, is known as diplomatic even by UN standards, but he arrived without mincing words. “Frankly, I am disappointed at the lack of progress,” said Ban to a packed audience. “Seize the moment, this moment, for the good of all humanity.”
Cue “Asimbonanga” again.
With that, Ban left the chamber to a standing ovation. Witolear reopened talks, and a representative from China turned to speak. His anger audible, he asked why the UN secretariat overseeing the meeting had earlier restarted the session while negotiators were still meeting away from the conference hall — essentially accusing the officials of acting unfairly towards the developing nations. For Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the summit’s guide, it was too much. Visibly exhausted by all-night negotiations, the Dutchman appeared to momentarily break down and fled the session, leaving a stunned audience in his wake.
Boorish behaviour and harsh words are rather taxing on the tender poet Euro soul, but the fate of all tender poets hangs in the balance.
But the real drama was to come. After India reiterated its objection — and was essentially supported by the European Union — the lead American negotiator Paula Dobiansky turned to speak, and announced that the U.S. would not accept India’s changes, which sought to lighten the expectations from developing countries. (The UN negotiating process requires total consensus.) Boos rained on the U.S. delegation from NGO observers and even the press gallery, breaking the last remaining appearance of diplomatic placidity.
It’s hardly the first time the U.S. has been jeered at a UN event, but what happened next was unique. Nation after developing nation rose to criticize the U.S. in language more often reserved for a political debate than a UN conference. A representative from tiny Papua New Guinea — one of many small island states most immediately threatened by climate change — recalled the old Lee Iacocca line about leading, following or getting out of the way. “If the U.S. will not lead, get out of the way,” he said, to gallery cheers. “Please get out of the way”
What happened in Bali was fascinating stuff. Historic even. Sure, environmentalists would call it historic, but I mean from a geopolitical standput. That’s because America looked weak. I think America is right to expect more from China and India and other developing nations. But they seemed to lack the ability to project any authority in the talks. I mean the Papua New Guinea delegate gave a speech and everyone cheered. The Americans spoke and everyone booed. So then the Americans backed down. Can you believe that? USA 0 Papua Fuckin’ New Guinea 1
America is looking anything but a superpower, right now. It is fighting a military battle in the Middle East on various fronts with differing results, a currency battle with the Euro which it is flat out losing, an economic battle with China and India which sees America losing more and more of it’s slice of the pie. A geopolitical battle with a rapidly rearming Russia, which America is powerless to confront. Throw in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela. Throw in their growing inability to negotiate with OPEC. Throw in the growing divide inside America’s own borders (the culture war). America’s getting squeezed from all sides and they just aren’t in a position to throw their weight around.
This in turn gives confidence to foreign leaders and delegates to go on the counterattack. They know they can score points domestically by attacking America. It’s not just from the likes of Chavez, anti-Americanism goes down pretty well everywhere at the moment.
That’s one thing I’d factor in if I were voting for President. Can America afford another President (Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney come to mind) who’d be massively unpopular overseas? You might think that it doesn’t matter what others think, but I think it does. Bali shows that the US no longer has the leverage to pull in another direction from the rest of the world.
