Developed World Population Growth is the Major Source of Growth in Global Warming Gases per Person. Now I see the Republican Plan to bring on Armageddon. Their efforts to Ban abortions, Ban contraception, Ignore Global Warming, Bring on More Coal Fired Plants, Instead of reducing emissions, Increase them, and ignore the lessons of history such as deregulating Capitalism even more, and fight terrorists who oppose us from taking over their resources to feed our carbon dioxide obsessions. I find it amazing that those who advocate the Christian God most are still the most afraid to die and go to paradise.
One book I recommend you all read is "America on the Brink" by Frosty Wooldridge, www.frostywooldridge.com Although I think Wooldridge's chief parochial reason that the problem is primarily about too many immigrants being allowed into the USA is only partially the problem, but the major problem is that the rest of our consuming population is where the actual problem lies.
We all live in one world. The recent data below indicates that it is not the poor who use the most resources including increasing carbon dioxide and depleting our petroleum resources. He misses the real reason why we allow so many immigrants into our country. It is not because of concerns for those less fortunate than us but the well known economic principle of supply and demand. The more excess workers we have, the lower the wages.
All we have to do is look at why when corporations reach record profits, the next month they are laying off more workers. Yes, we now work harder for much less as measured by productivity which has increased greatly before and during this steep recession brought on by the Banks and Wall Street. Even with this financial disasters, JP Morgan who originated the derivatives of derivatives and Goldman Sachs which shorted derivatives got out before the disaster and only temporary suffered stock losses because every stock went down during the panic.
We hear a lot that these events really cannot be prevented. Bull Shit! Don't allow Wall Street to leverage so much that it can destroy the stock and bond markets. I knew the crash was coming, but so did many in Wall Street, but they kept raking in the profits anyway and allowed taxpaying Americans to save their asses.
I reported earlier this year that the average wages since 2000 for the top one percent was widely reported to be an 11 percent increase per year during the Bush years ignoring the huge tax cuts for the most wealthy, and an average of one percent for the rest of us which did not keep up with wages. But what is more revealing is that if we look at wealth which takes into account investments and property, the wealth of the top one percent has half the wealth of the country and the top 0.1 percent has 25%. Does this look like an equal opportunity capitalist system?
It is a myth that Wall Street is run to help grow our economy. Of course they mean the Financial Economy, not the American economy and its workers. Very little of the money entrepreneurs get is from Wall Street. Most of it is from private sources who make big bets to win big. Let Wall Street use their own money and not our investment money to make the stock market just another casino where the House Always Wins.
Jim Kawakami, Sept 15, 2009, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com
... In the United States, each baby results in 1,644 tons of carbon dioxide, five times more than a baby in China and 91 times more than an infant in Bangladesh, according to the Oregon State study. That is because Americans live relatively long, and live in a country whose long car commutes, coal-burning power plants and cathedral ceilings give it some of the highest per-capita emissions in the world.
Seen from that angle, the Oregon State researchers concluded that child-bearing was one of the most fateful environmental decisions in anyone's life.
Recycle, shorten your commute, drive a hybrid vehicle, and buy energy-efficient light bulbs, appliances and windows -- all of that would cut out about one-fortieth of the emissions caused by bringing two children, and their children's children, into the world.
"People always consider the financial costs, and they consider the time cost," said Paul Murtaugh, one of the Oregon State researchers, who said that he does not have children but that he is open to the idea despite his research. "We're just attempting to put on the table the ballpark estimate of the environmental cost." ...
The British study found that $220 billion, spent over the next 40 years, might prevent half a billion births and prevent 34 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The cost, measured in 2020, would be about $7 for each ton reduced, the report said -- far cheaper than solar power at $51, or wind power at $24.
Long-Shot Odds
But, for now, the world does not seem very interested.
"I don't know how to say 'No comment' emphatically enough," said David Hamilton of the Sierra Club. "I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but the primary solutions to climate change have to deal with what we do with the people who are here," such as pushing for more renewable energy and a limit on U.S. greenhouse gases.
The idea of using condoms to fight climate change still has the same long-shot odds as the idea to make the world's clouds more reflective, or to seed the ocean with iron to supercharge its carbon-capturing plankton.
The Obama administration declined to comment when asked about the family-planning idea. At the United Nations, which is overseeing global negotiations on reducing emissions, an official wrote in response to a query that "to bring the issue up . . . would be an insult to developing countries," where per-capita emissions are still so low compared with those in the United States. ... Washington Post, David A. Farhrenthold, Tuesday, Sept 15, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403308.html
No comments:
Post a Comment