Many scientists think that the CO2 emission by the Industry is not so important as the CO2 emission from the Ocean. What then other Human made factors may cause the Global temperature growth and ice melting?
I can name some factors:
The pollution of the Ocean suface diminishing its cooling via evaporisation;
The pollution of snow, leading to its accelerated melting;
The growth of deserts with elevation of their surface temperature;
The cutting off forests, also leading to the growth of the soil temperature;
What other factors and are they so influential as the greenhouse effect?
Dear Boris, the major model accepted by economists is that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels and rising of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere entirely. You try to add more reasons here. I know that CO2 is not the only reason; methane is also causing GHG effect. The carbon cycle involves exchange in carbon with the ocean. Change of land use (deforestation, snow melt in Arctic, etc) changes albedo and also contributes to change in carbon emissions.
But some physicists argue that we had such processes (GW) in the past and need to find what is really human contribution to this process. I also want to attract your attention to the discussion of global warming by physicists: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_ever-changing_Global_Climate_maintain_its_Dynamic_Equilibrium_with_Global_Water_Cycle_Which_one_is_the_initiator_of_Change_Any_evidence
We have a project about transition to renewables (and problems with doing that) as a solution to both threats - fossil fuel scarcity and global warming: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Energy-Threats-of-the-21st-Century-Global-Warming-and-Fossil-Fuel-Scarcity
Dear Boris and Yuri, I think we could add bad architecture and bad urban planning to the list. by "bad" I mean a process of thinking and design which is not intelligent and doesn't find integrated solutions for problematics. For instance a well tuned passive element could optimally respond to winds, the sun, gravity and more; while this could be substituted wrongly with four elements each responding to only one factor, and will lead to consuming more materials, energy and therefore producing more co2 and... We can find so many examples of wasted materials and energy just because of lack of intelligence in their process of design.
Dear Boris,
Anthropogenic sources contribute little to the energy that is showered on planet Earth by astronomic including the solar system as you will see from my paper:
ASTRONOMIC - TECTONIC INTERACTION IN GOVERNANCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279803918_ASTRONOMIC_-_TECTONIC_INTERACTION_IN_GOVERNANCE_OF_CLIMATE_CHANGE)
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
136-C Rafahe Aam Housing Society
Malir Halt, Karachi 75210
Climate is influenced by natural factors that include changes within the solar system, changes in Earth’s orbit, and intensity of Intergalactic Gravitational Forces (IGF):
Internal energy that maintains the mantle convection and drives the tectonic plates is only 0.019 percent of the energy that moves through the Earth. The energy being transferred from the interstellar space in particular the solar system is nevertheless high enough to induce: i) convection and compression in the interior of the Earth and ii) tides in the oceans in the hydrosphere. This paper has tried to illustrate that: Tectonic movement is astronomically related to changes in movement and orientation of the Earth, while intensification of intergalactic gravitational forces results in the onset of convection and compression waves in the interior of the Earth followed by earthquakes.
Ø Changes occurring in the sun itself can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface, and also alters the intensity of IGF. Alteration in the intensity of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun affects the pull and push forces comprising the IGF. It causes warming during periods of stronger solar intensity, and cooling during periods of weaker solar intensity. The Sun is known to follow a natural 11-year cycle of small variation in intensity; the effect on climate of the Earth is small but significant.
Ø Changes in the shape of orbit as well as obliquity of the axis of the Earth affect the amount of electromagnetic radiation reaching its surface.
Changes in Earth’s orbit have had a big impact on climate over tens of thousands of years. In fact, the amount of summer sunshine on the Northern Hemisphere, which is affected by changes in the planet’s orbit, appears to control the advance and retreat of ice sheets. These changes appear to be the primary cause of past cycles of ice ages, in which Earth has experienced long periods of cold temperatures (ice ages), as well as shorter interglacial periods (periods between ice ages) of relatively warmer temperatures.
Have a look at the paper and draw your own conclusion which are not likely to be different from mine.
Research ASTRONOMIC - TECTONIC INTERACTION IN GOVERNANCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
I was quite surprised to find out about the effects of Animal Agriculture (GHG emissions esp. Methane). This, later, was dramatically crystalized for me by the documentary Cowspiracy, a documentary on Cows and Animal Agriculture. Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day. I wrote a short account of Cowspiracy last year (link attached).
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cowspiracy-reveals-amir-hossein-rahdari
Dear Boris,
Procreation and the contribution of two billion new carbon feet comprises only a small share in the overall irreversible impoverishment of resources for which employment of technology to attain superiority in trade and weapons is to be held responsible. True that no body wants to go back to burning wood to live, yet we are still burning wood not just to live but survive.
I have a thesis which states that “Poverty per se is not a problem, it is the impoverishment of resources resulting from the Get- Rich-Quickly Syndrome in the developing countries and the Enjoying-the-Richness in developed countries that is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The poor anywhere have otherwise learnt to live with poverty, burning wood, for example, and they are content with whatever they get” (Social Pollution & Global Poor Governance, Analysis of Psyche of the Governing Hierarchy, Mirza Arshad Ali Beg, Research & Development Publications, Karachi, & Pakistan Book Foundation, Islamabad, 1999).
Generations have passed but the poor have lived in the same ecosystem and remained poor. Likewise the poor nations have not been able to improve the lot of their poor and on an overall basis they themselves have remained poor. The developed countries may seem rich because they are enjoying their affluence after exploiting the resources of their own and of the countries that they had subdued. Now that they have attained superiority in trade and weapons, they would like to maintain their upper hand through status quo.
Developing countries on getting independence after World War II, started to catch up with the countries that had reached the developed stage. In doing so they also adopted the same ladder of growth as the developed countries i.e. industrialization to attain superiority in trade and if possible weapons. Many such countries adopted the two-step-ladder and three-step-ladder for growth to achieve high rate of growth. Many who had ample resources survived but for many others the growth bubble had to burst.
In any case the result was impoverishment of resources. If one takes the example of Pakistan, it will soon be found that in aiming at a maximum rate of growth of over 6.0 percent, the country has on the one hand exhausted its resources of fossil fuel, lost the fertility of soil, and lost its high level manpower, and on the other hand it is a highly indebted country with a debt burden exceeding $70 billion. Since the focus was on achieving a high rate of growth, any improvement in the social sector was sidelined.
In terms of global hunger index (GHI), the index reduced in Pakistan from 25.5 in 1996 to 19.7 in 2012, and the country is at position 57 on a global scale. In India the GHI reduced from 30.3 in 1996 to 22.9 in 2012 and this country is at position 65. Sri Lanka had the same GHI in 1996 as Pakistan has in 2012 and it improved from 20.8 to 13.4; it is at position 37. Both Sri Lanka and Pakistan are in the serious state in terms of Global Hunger Index while India is in the alarming state.
In the three cases just cited, the hunger remained persistent despite the rapid rate of growth they went in for. High economic growth did not help India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka in reducing the hunger level of their people, according to the new Global Hunger Index (GHI), released on October 11. What is more, the level of hunger now is the same as it was in 1996. The index, prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute, has rated 120 countries, and that ranks India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka way down the list.
It is legitimate to seek an answer as to where have the benefits of rapid rate of development gone? In each case the answer lies in the governance system comprising a major component of its governing hierarchy which is itself being guided by a feudal frame of mind. The network partners of the feudal system have been manipulating to obtain command on management of public affairs so that maximum benefit could be delivered to the informal sector. This has been used as an argument for the expansion in the volume of the underworld economy which is now estimated at over 50% of the GDP and also for the wide gulf between abject poverty of the 40% population that lives below the poverty line, and the ostentatious living of the network partners of the feudal system which accounts for less than 5% of the population.
Describing the system in Pakistan and citing cases of a few other countries it has been observed in the above cited reference that an informal governance system has made strong presence in each country and that is running an economy parallel to the formal system. In the industrialized countries, such a system has been suppressed, though not eliminated; there are evidences that the same have been formalized there. The informal system is operated by partners of a network and is regulated by the psychological frame of mind or psyche that is peculiar to each society and country.
The driving force of these operations is social pollution, which is in essence the get-rich-quickly psyche, and that invariably induces the informal governance system to manipulate, maneuver and determine the role of each partner of the network. The role model is developed in accord with and in response to the psyche of the informal system. The psyche itself develops in an environment that has been socially polluted to the extreme or is likely to be degenerated with the development of intensity in the driving force of social pollution.
All manipulations have only one agenda and that is to see to it that any benefit of development has to reach the governing hierarchy through the informal system. The network of social pollution interfaces with the formal system and uses the psyche as the common denominator of the members of the two systems, to manipulate decisions in its favour. Under these circumstances the rapid pace of development will revolve in a vicious circle and the benefit of development will be limited to construction of roads, highways, flyovers so that the rich could operate their vehicles, consume the fuel resources, pollute the environment. In like manner they would establish industries and power plants that would produce goods and promote consumerism that make the industrialists and traders richer. The poor will not get employment since the industries are energy intensive, they are digitalized and no longer labour intensive. In each case the development processes in mimicking the developed countries, impoverish the country of the meager resources, irrespective of the hunger that looms large in the country concerned.
An interesting conclusion that can be drawn here is that the driving force in a socially polluted environment is entropy driven; it leads to increase in its entropy and is ultimately responsible for increase in the level of corruption. The corruption is of different type in the case of developing and industrialized countries. In the former the eyes of the persons involved in corruption are set on accumulation of wealth but not necessarily enjoying it. In the industrialized countries there is a change in expectations and hence the psyche of those concerned revolves around enjoy-the-richness. There, the amassed wealth is used for playing with it, sometimes by investments and at others by its total withdrawal. In the former scenario, i.e. investment, it is the growth of their wealth that is watched and in the latter the state of deprivation and impoverishment of a society is enjoyed and then help is offered to pull it out of it.
{(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280777461_Hypothesis_Poverty_Per_Se_Is_Not_A_Problem_It_Is_The_Impoverishment_Of_Resources_Resulting_From_Get-_Rich-Quickly_Enjoy_the_Richness_Syndrome) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301751891_SOCIO-PHYSICOCHEMICAL_THEORY_Part_4_Entropy_of_Resource_Impoverishment_Wealth_Accumulation)}
So, Boris, IT IS NOT just the two billion carbon feet that has raised the temperature of the Earth but employment of technology to attain and maintain superiority that is inducing most harm/damages to the environment; global warming being an indicator of the damages done while irreversible depletion of resources is an indicator of the intensity of the rising trend in entropy.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Research Hypothesis: Poverty Per Se Is Not A Problem; It Is The Impov...
Research SOCIO-PHYSICOCHEMICAL THEORY Part 4: Entropy of Resource Imp...
Totally agree with professor @Kenneth M Towe that the animal agriculture and other main sources of GHG emissions are anthropogenic. Take the massive acidification of oceans, for example. It is, more or less, believed to be a major force in the extermination of planktons and coral reefs. It also results in the extenuation of natural forces. "Preliminary research hints that ocean acidification may promote some types of algal blooms that make people and animals sick" (Valerie Brown, 2012, Scientific American). So, in most cases, it boils down to humans and population control can be seen as a logical strategy.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/increase-in-harmful-algal-blooms-possible/
The human effect is so evident. As we can see in the big city like beijin, the co2 is so high. In the ocean the carbon cycle is natural. The co2 polution also enter in the ocean by polluted river which contain carbonic acid from gas carbonic company. In the reaction calcium carbonate from sea rocks in acid condition produce more C02
Ashkan Wafadar,
The data provided by the US Census Bureau suggests as follows:
(https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php)
The world population growth rate rose from about 1.5 percent per year from 1950-51 to a peak of over 2 percent in the early 1960s due to reductions in mortality. Growth rates thereafter started to decline due to rising age at marriage as well as increasing availability and use of effective contraceptive methods. Note that changes in population growth have not always been steady. A dip in the growth rate from1959-1960, for instance, was due to the Great Leap Forward in China. During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau | International Programs | International Data Base Revised:September 27, 2016 Version: Data:16.0804 Code:12.0321)
The Census Bureau suggests as follows: Economics are more important in governing population growth, since essentially all countries that become developed see their population growth fall. Again, the reason for this is that children are more economically beneficial in a developing country.
Apparently the World population is decelerating and not accelerating. CO2 emission is on the other hand increasing, if not accelerating. This observation is in conflict with the data that supposedly perfectly correlates Population with atmospheric CO2.
Such being the case, the correlation has to be sought between economic activity of the population and emissions. Indeed there are enough data to support the contention: "IT IS NOT just the two billion carbon feet that has raised the temperature of the Earth but employment of technology to attain and maintain superiority that is inducing most harm/damages to the environment; global warming being an indicator of the damages done while irreversible depletion of resources is an indicator of the intensity in economic activity and the rising trend in entropy".
Dear Boris and colleags,
The mismatch between decelerating growth rate of population and accelerating CO2 emission, and the correlation between economic activity of the population concerned and emissions, suggests reassessment of Ehlrich's Equation: I = PAT where I is impact of activity, P is population, A is affluence and T is technology.
For developing countries with a large weightage of population (P), low weightage for Technology (T) and Affluence (A), the value of Impact factor (I) will be (-).
I = (-) Large (P).Low(T).Low(A)
Control of population will, in case of developing countries, have an average impact if the values of both (T) and (A) are reasonably high.
I = ≥ Large (P).High(T).Low(A)
The impact will be much more negative if the impact of social pollution, given by Corruption Perception Index (CPI) devised by Transparency International, is also taken into account.
I = (--) Large (P).Low(T).Low(A).High(CPI)
Based on the above modifications of Ehrich’s equation, the following is expected to induce a practical, non-violent and humane approach to development and optimization of the ecological footprint:
Application of
a) appropriate technology (AT);
b) drastic reduction in consumerism;
c) restraining consumption and economic growth rate to match up with availability of resources; and
d) reducing social pollution to the extent that the CPI is much above 8.0 instead of 1.0 to 4.0 as generally observed for developing as well as developed countries,
Consumerism is contrary to the norms of conservationism and its slow down will not be acceptable to industrialized and industrializing countries with high (T) and (A), low population (P) and average (CPI in the 4-8 range). In the case of reduction in consumerism they will have to cut down their growth rate.
Cutting down the growth rate will imply application of appropriate technology (AT) as against high technology (HT), reduction in affluence (A) and saving the Earth’s resources from impoverishment and the Earth from over-exploitation. Conservation of resources and development within the limits of resource availability will therefore have to be adopted for the sake of sustainability.
The developed countries have however attained affluence and superiority in trade and weapons by applying technology; they are least inclined to retract because they would fall back into average category. They would rather prefer to allow migrants to settle and thus replace the retiring/ aging work force.
So, Boris I. Sedunov and colleagues, this analysis and reassessment shows that contribution of Technology has been and will remain highly influential in contributing to global warming.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Dear colleagues, thanks for your interesting and informative comments!
The discussion on the Research Gate site is free from political limitations and may bring more comprehensive vision of the Global warming problem. I hope, together we can generate new valuable ideas.
I wish you all a great success in your own fields of research!
Boris
Kenneth M Towe, Boris and Colleagues,
The two graphs still show the mismatch, and why not!! The 2 billion increase in population between 1987 and now has a cumulative addition of only 50 ppm. This is not proportional to observations recorded in 1958 at the US Mauna Loa weather station and the South Pole which showed that atmospheric CO2 was 315.2 ppm; the world population then was 2.9 billion. The level of CO2 with no anthropogenic activity has been deduced from Ice core analyses in Greenland. It has been found that 18,000 years ago CO2 levels were 225 ppm; they rose to 271 ppm around 1300 A.D. when the continental glaciers started melting.
Changing patterns of climate, energy generation and consumption, deforestation and desertification are some anomalies that contribute to the rising trend of CO2. In other words development and harnessing of technology by the growing population and not just the increase in population, has contributed to increases in the level of CO2. This is aptly derived by Ehlrich’s equation:
I (impact) = P (population) x A (affluence) x T (technology).
For developing countries with a large weightage of population (P), low weightage for Technology (T) and Affluence (A), the value of Impact factor (I) will be (-).
I = (-) Large (P).Low(T).Low(A)
Control of population will, in case of developing countries, have an average impact if the values of both (T) and (A) are reasonably high.
I = ≥ Large (P).High(T).Low(A)
The impact will be much more negative if the impact of social pollution, given by Corruption Perception Index (CPI) devised by Transparency International, is also taken into account.
I = (--) Large (P).Low(T).Low(A).High(CPI)
Based on the above modifications of Ehrich’s equation, the following is expected to induce a practical, non-violent and humane approach to development and optimization of the ecological footprint:
Application of
a) appropriate technology (AT);
b) drastic reduction in consumerism;
c) restraining consumption and economic growth rate to match up with availability of resources; and
d) reducing social pollution to the extent that the CPI is much above 8.0 instead of 1.0 to 4.0 as generally observed for developing as well as developed countries,
Consumerism is contrary to the norms of conservationism and its slow down will not be acceptable to industrialized and industrializing countries with high (T) and (A), low population (P) and average (CPI in the 4-8 range). In the case of reduction in consumerism they will have to cut down their growth rate.
Cutting down the growth rate will imply application of appropriate technology (AT) as against high technology (HT), reduction in affluence (A) and saving the Earth’s resources from impoverishment and the Earth from over-exploitation. Conservation of resources and development within the limits of resource availability will therefore have to be adopted for the sake of sustainability.
The developed countries have however attained affluence and superiority in trade and weapons by applying technology; they are least inclined to retract because they would fall back into average category. They would rather prefer to allow migrants to settle and thus replace the retiring/ aging work force.
Climate is, however, influenced more by natural factors than just the anthropogenic factors the former include changes within the solar system, changes in Earth’s orbit, and intensity of Intergalactic Gravitational Forces (IGF):
Internal energy that maintains the mantle convection and drives the tectonic plates is only 0.019 percent of the energy that moves through the Earth. The energy being transferred from the interstellar space in particular the solar system is nevertheless high enough to induce: i) convection and compression in the interior of the Earth and ii) tides in the oceans in the hydrosphere. This paper has tried to illustrate that: Tectonic movement is astronomically related to changes in movement and orientation of the Earth, while intensification of intergalactic gravitational forces results in the onset of convection and compression waves in the interior of the Earth followed by earthquakes.
Ø Changes occurring in the sun itself can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface, and also alters the intensity of IGF. Alteration in the intensity of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun affects the pull and push forces comprising the IGF. It causes warming during periods of stronger solar intensity, and cooling during periods of weaker solar intensity. The Sun is known to follow a natural 11-year cycle of small variation in intensity; the effect on climate of the Earth is small but significant.
Ø Changes in the shape of orbit as well as obliquity of the axis of the Earth affect the amount of electromagnetic radiation reaching its surface.
Changes in Earth’s orbit have had a big impact on climate over tens of thousands of years. In fact, the amount of summer sunshine on the Northern Hemisphere, which is affected by changes in the planet’s orbit, appears to control the advance and retreat of ice sheets. These changes appear to be the primary cause of past cycles of ice ages, in which Earth has experienced long periods of cold temperatures (ice ages), as well as shorter interglacial periods (periods between ice ages) of relatively warmer temperatures.
Kenneth M Towe and Boris I Sedonov,
Analysis of the situation emerging from development and harnessing of technology by the growing population and not just the increase in population, has contributed to increases in the level of CO2, in view of the observation: “Of course it is both... and there is nothing that "we" can do about it... other than to carefully try to adapt. I say carefully because the climate may decide to change course. It has already done so in the last 20 years. It did so in 1975 after having cooled for many years until the late 1930s.” leads one to think that since the rate of growth of population has now been decelerating, it is now the turn of exploitation of resources by technology to slow down.
Development of the capacity to apply technology aims to set the driving force DG in motion and use the internal energy DH (resources), but increasing the entropy in the meantime. The driving force infused by technology has i) helped the forward reaction to yield high dividends, ii) made the rich upper stratum of the society richer, iii) depleted the resources to the limits of exhaustion, and iv) increased the entropy of the Earth in the meantime, as suggested by the following equation:
ΔSuniverse = ΔHsurrounding - ΔSTechnology promoted system
(SOCIO-PHYSICOCHEMICAL THEORY, Part 4: Entropy of Resource Impoverishment & Wealth Accumulation, Mirza Arshad Ali Beg, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301751891_SOCIO-PHYSICOCHEMICAL_THEORY_Part_4_Entropy_of_Resource_Impoverishment_Wealth_Accumulation)
Affluence and poverty have assumed new dimensions after WWII in that the rich/rich nations with its/their entrepreneurial skill is/are in a better position to transform the resources into available and unavailable forms, and separate out from the impoverished environment, as suggested by the paper. The vehicle for elevating from average to commanding position is technical competence to exploit the resources at a rapid rate as suggested for spontaneous reactions with DG < 0 but high values of entropy, T.DS, leads a country to attain higher overkill capacity and rapid increase of entropy. I hold the firm opinion that if we persuade all nations to “carefully slow down the rate of growth” particularly if it aims at gaining superiority in trade in arms and weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear arsenals developed at the cost of a few trillion dollars have to be protected at the cost of another few billion may be trillion dollars. Their possession as well as disposal are both entropy driven. For Humanities sake such wasteful propositions should meet the logical end.
Research SOCIO-PHYSICOCHEMICAL THEORY Part 4: Entropy of Resource Imp...
I share the opinion of Kenneth fully. The economic system as sold us a precise future secenario by 2050: 9.5 billion people ; need od doubling the food production ( that will need to deforest more); price of food will raise ( good business for sgribusiness); consumption of oil will double ( because of the need of fertilizers and processing). This scenario is a convenient one for those who produce and sell food and oil, We , as society have accepted thuis scenarios, but without propossing alternatives solutions: a) we have ( all cpountries) to slow down population growth and put a target of 8.5 billion people; encourage urban and family farming with higher organic content to increase food security and healthy and nutricious food; reshape our diet, diversifying domestic production instead of depending on a hand full of commodities; give value to the forest for people in a way that they generate income form the forest to buy food; forget oil and do an effort ( even id the Kw is more expensive , because the extra price is an investment for the future) and change for famility generators with wind, sun, termal, hydro, sea waves, etc.). We need to go out of the (convenient) fatalism of the projections, that have vested interests. This is a challenge for small scale technologies and science. Regrads and thanks for the opportunity
Kenneth M Towe
First the question: Are "we" in the real world?
Yes we are in the real world which is mostly entropy driven.
Next: "Development and harnessing of technology by the growing population and not just the increase in population, has contributed to increases in the level of CO2".
Development has proceeded with unabated harnessing of technology to dare natural processes, to exploit resources, convert them irreversibly into unavailable forms e.g. in accumulation of wealth.
Development activities being exploitative in character have used up the available resources, and irreversibly converted and fixed them ( ΔH, or enthalpy in Gibbs Equation) thus increasing the entropy; it has additionally decreased the ΔG, the driving force of the system.
The soil lost its fertility due to overuse of water available from irrigation system; that created waterlogging and salinity problems besides losing its fertility. Drainage system was introduced only after the damage had been done. Fertilizers and soil amendments were introduced to restore the fertility of the soil but the farmers have to depend on the factories for mass production of fertilizers. The factories require fossil fuel for production of products as well as power. This chain is the source of massive production and emission of CO2 in addition to what the human and animal population contributes.
Supply chain of fossil fuel is in the hands of powerful countries and equally powerful MNCs, which hold key to the segment of vicious circle just mentioned and this where the greed factor given by CPI comes in.
Technology has provided immense benefit but at the cost of resources, (the enthalpy in Gibbs Free energy equation) and increase in entropy.
Kenneth M Towe, Ronnie V. de Camino and Boris, You have to pay heed to the inferences drawn from the modified Ehlrich’s equation:
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology x CPI (corruption perception Index), where CPI has been included as a correction factor to account for greed.
Next: Should the interests of some undefined location at the equator, or on some Pacific atoll, some remote desert area take precedence?
The answer is NO. But who are we or which of us to decide. We have to heed to the basics of Sustainability principles. All entropy driven actions and reactions must be slowed down. Conflicts must be suitably resolved peacefully and not by force, because Hate begets hatred and terror begets terror but terrorism cannot be annihilated; it just assumes another form. Let us avoid taking natural laws in our hands.
Please consider the release of methane from landfills, fossil fuel production, domestic herds of ungulates, thawing permafrost and methane hydrates--all combined potentially contribute to more global warming than CO2.
Kenneth M Towe
Do you hold your opinion on alternatives despite the stunning upset by Trump, who has routinely suggested that climate change is a hoax. Donald Trump's victory has turned the climate action plan upside down, setting back U.S. environmental policy and threatening the international drive to cut carbon pollution and slow global warming. He had realized that technology is the main culprit in raising the level of CO2 and that is why he is striking at the root. I think he understands that deceleration of population has been ineffective in controlling CO2 emission.
I would again suggest that you pay heed to the inferences drawn from the modified Ehlrich’s equation:
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology x CPI (corruption perception Index), where CPI has been included as a correction factor to account for greed.
Trump will otherwise prove that economy and social well-being are the only components of sustainability while environment does not matter perhaps the Americans will take care of it themselves.
.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Environmental Science