Have we reached a tipping point?

[Ashful]

Very rarely have I ever seen people use their extra cash to reduce their carbon footprint.

No kidding:

It feels a little disheartening, when most of my favorite cars come with a gas guzzler tax, and many private yachts or private jets burn more fuel in a single day than I can run thru all of my cars combined in a full year.

 

[begreen]

Yes, manor lawns, huge houses (often multiple houses), a lot more household consumption, frequent flights, etc. all add up. Affluence is why Saudi Arabia US , Canada, Australia are the top 4 per capita emitters in the world.

 

[SpaceBus]

Perhaps tree farming on a global scale could deal with the sea level rise and the carbon issue at the same time. This morning I was thinking about all the water being released into the atmosphere as rainforest are being burned. Recently I saw a series on Netflix about earth from an astronaut's perspective and there's a literal river of water above the amazon rain forest. These forests are being destroyed world wide and that means loads and loads of hot water is being dumped into the atmosphere.

Trees are the most efficient carbon scrubber ever made. We can make stuff out of them and they store huge amounts of water. @Seasoned Oak said something along these lines in an earlier post I believe.

 

[SpaceBus]

No kidding:

It feels a little disheartening, when most of my favorite cars come with a gas guzzler tax, and many private yachts or private jets burn more fuel in a single day than I can run thru all of my cars combined in a full year.

I do agree, it is disheartening. At least he's using his wealth to try and make the planet cleaner and generally nicer place to be. That's pretty cool to me.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

This means the most important thing the climate preaching elite can do is promote tree planting. Are they doing that? Or just flying around in private jets trying to make the rest of us feel guilty. Ill take them seriously when big al goes OFF THE GRID.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Yes, manor lawns, huge houses (often multiple houses), a lot more household consumption, frequent flights, etc. all add up. Affluence is why Saudi Arabia US , Canada, Australia are the top 4 per capita emitters in the world.

Which is exactly why they sound so hypocritical preaching to us.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Perhaps tree farming on a global scale could deal with the sea level rise and the carbon issue at the same time.

Instead i think we are going the other way . We need more but are getting less(trees).

World losing area of forest the size of the UK each year, report finds

Chance of ending deforestation by 2030 seems lower than when pledge was made five years ago

www.theguardian.com

[/QUOTE]

 

[begreen]

I wish the answer was as simple as planting a lot of trees. It's not. There are two obvious problems, one is time. Trees take a while before becoming effective. The old growth lost was exceptionally effective. But prairie grasslands are also very effective and they grow much faster. Massive hemp and bamboo farms would help reduce deforestation while acting as renewable carbon sinks that don't need fossil fuel fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. And our current industrial agriculture systems are removing a huge amount of carbon from the soil instead of using the soils as a carbon sink. But all of this is just a portion of the big picture. To slow down the massive accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere will take a dramatic change on many fronts.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Wouldn't it depend on the type of tree grown? It seems like you'd want 2 things, fast growth, and a woody stem to hold your carbon. Poplar would do that. They grow pretty fast and are well suited for growing on disturbed soil. Furthermore, your climax and undergrowth can start under their canopy and take over once the poplar has matured and died.

Many of the family farms have gone back to forest in north America. There are more trees in NA now than during the civil war. It's one of the reasons why ticks have exploded. More habitat.

 

[begreen]

That is not incorrect, but this is still talking a 10-20 yr time frame and it would have to be large scale. I have read arguments for young forests' uptake vs old growth. Each appear to have their benefits. And yes, we have regrown a lot of forests in the US, but in other areas here clear-cutting still happens large scale. And global deforestation is still large scale. The lost of tropical rainforests is devastating in the Amazon and Indonesia.

Land use is complex and sometimes the important issues are missed. Coastal development and pollution have destroyed a lot of mangrove forests, eel grass and kelp beds which turn out to be surprisingly good carbon sinks as well as tremendous marine habitats.

 

[semipro]

My next door neighbor, a fatherly older gentleman, visited this weekend while I was working on my solar PV installation. He mentioned that he didn't see what all the fuss was about with climate change, that the air was visibly cleaner than when he was a kid, and that "when half the scientists tell you one thing and the other half tell you the opposite, what are you going to believe?" I remarked that the split was more like 97%/3% and that I've seen first hand the impacts of climate change occurring in our 18 years on our property (e.g. flora,fauna, snowfall, temps, etc.). I could tell he wasn't buying that and I wasn't going to sway his opinion so I changed the subject. I wondered where he was getting his data, 50/50?

 

[SpaceBus]

Indeed, it will take some dramatic action, like stopping the Amazon from burning down, find out why California is on fire again, prevent another Smoky Mou

My next door neighbor, a fatherly older gentleman, visited this weekend while I was working on my solar PV installation. He mentioned that he didn't see what all the fuss was about with climate change, that the air was visibly cleaner than when he was a kid, and that "when half the scientists tell you one thing and the other half tell you the opposite, what are you going to believe?" I remarked that the split was more like 97%/3% and that I've seen first hand the impacts of climate change occurring in our 18 years on our property (e.g. flora,fauna, snowfall, temps, etc.). I could tell he wasn't buying that and I wasn't going to sway his opinion so I changed the subject. I wondered where he was getting his data, 50/50?

Fox News. They give an equal voice to both sides despite unequal representation in the scientific community.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Indeed, it will take some dramatic action, like stopping the Amazon from burning down, find out why California is on fire again, prevent another Smoky Mou

Fox News. They give an equal voice to both sides despite unequal representation in the scientific community.

Fox news is the only news giving both sides of issues these days. Most other sources are one side only. The lines between opinion and real news have disappeared.

 

[begreen]

There are about 2% of the world's respected climate scientists that are championing climate change denial. 98% of the world's climate scientists agree in human-influenced climate change. Why should there be an equal representation of views, especially when a large portion of that 2% are fossil fuel industry paid deniers? Fox has very little news, it is almost all opinion and that formula has infected other cable news shows too. Science is often the victim in this pundit-based landscape.

 

[begreen]

If you want to learn specifics about the role of soil, plants, and trees on carbon in the atmosphere, here is a good lecture by a world-respected soil scientist, Rattan Lal.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Fox has very little news, it is almost all opinion and that formula has infected other cable news shows too.

98% of other networks is Liberal opinion. CNN is 98% liberal opinion. 2% news. I watch them both ,just to see how whacky they can get. Also the waters continue to get muddy conflating climate deniers with those who absolutely accept the science but also accept the science about just whats possible and probable to be done about it. For all the screaming i dont see masses of people on either side giving up their modern day carbon creating lifestyle.

 

[WinterinWI]

There are about 2% of the world's respected climate scientists that are championing climate change denial. 98% of the world's climate scientists agree in human-influenced climate change. Why should there be an equal representation of views, especially when a large portion of that 2% are fossil fuel industry paid deniers? Fox has very little news, it is almost all opinion and that formula has infected other cable news shows too. Science is often the victim in this pundit-based landscape.

At one point in history, 98% of scientists believed the world was flat, so I wouldn't discount anything based on that argument.

Do humans have some effect on this planet? Obviously yes, everything on the planet has influence to some degree. There is no shortage of scientists that claim to know exactly the effect that humans have on the climate, as well as what will happen in the next 10, 20 years if nothing changes. Been watching that recurring arrogance my entire life.

Nowadays whenever I hear the doom/gloom predictions and solutions that just so happen to always line up with a certain political party's objectives, I just roll my eyes, go on with my life, trying to be responsible and minimize my impact on nature.

 

[begreen]

Haven't watched cable news since the 1990s. Pulled the plug back then. I am no fan of pundits and talking heads trying to fill up a 24hr broadcast cycle.

 

[begreen]

At one point in history, 98% of scientists believed the world was flat, so I wouldn't discount anything based on that argument.

That is not a true statement, they were not scientists.

Nowadays whenever I hear the doom/gloom predictions and solutions that just so happen to always line up with a certain political party's objectives, I just roll my eyes, go on with my life, trying to be responsible and minimize my impact on nature.

This is not a political objective and curse Al Gore for making it one. That said, I applaud all that take personal responsibility to minimize their impact.

 

[Ashful]

Guys, the networks taking up defense for both sides of the aisle are almost equally deplorable. Which you find “objective” versus “opinion” is going to be entirely dependent on your world view.

They both mix opinion with facts to a degree that make it difficult for any casual observer to distinguish one from the other. Fox, CNN and MSNBC all have a long history of reporting factual news, but only the fraction of it that supports their narrative. You need to watch them all, if you want any real perspective, but few people seem to do that.

 

[begreen]

Or don't watch any of them. Read and do some meaningful research.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Or don't watch any of them. Read and do some meaningful research.

Dont believe everything you read either.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Most of us here are taking personal responsibly for our impact ,but we live in a world with a sea of people taking none at all. And growing.

 

[begreen]

Dont believe everything you read either.

I should hope not!

 

[Ashful]

Or don't watch any of them. Read and do some meaningful research.

I may not be as well-read as some here, but it appears to me that written news is even less peer-reviewed or fact checked than what’s on TV, today. Don’t assume that just because it’s written, that it’s somehow more noble, or less for the entertainment of one half the population.