Too Little, Too Late? - NY Times Finally Pulls Out the All the Stops on Climate Change
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Human Caused Climate Change is Real?
Well, no. Because hospitals (understandably) won't use new antibiotics for fear of bacteria becoming resistant to them. They just buy a small amount and keep it in stock for emergencies. So no one can make money out of antibiotics any more and that is why there are no new ones being developed.
Ummm...guys.... while interesting stuff, I can't even imagine how these posts about antibiotics have anything even remotely to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change. No heavy hand, just a nudge back to On Topic if you please.
I have just seen a serious suggestion (a "personal views" piece in the Evening Standard) that the United Nations should declare war on Brazil on behalf of the whole planet to save the Amazon rainforest. What do you think about that?
I have just seen a serious suggestion (a "personal views" piece in the Evening Standard) that the United Nations should declare war on Brazil on behalf of the whole planet to save the Amazon rainforest. What do you think about that?
Typical and ugly. I'd rather see them get paid to keep the forests intact since that does us all a huge favor, but it seems violence is actually only rarely "the last resort".
I have just seen a serious suggestion (a "personal views" piece in the Evening Standard) that the United Nations should declare war on Brazil on behalf of the whole planet to save the Amazon rainforest.
Why not a trade war instead. Sanctions and such.
I think it's a global issue.
I have just seen a serious suggestion (a "personal views" piece in the Evening Standard) that the United Nations should declare war on Brazil on behalf of the whole planet to save the Amazon rainforest. What do you think about that?
Are you sure it's a serious suggestion? It sounds like some kind of joke, since the UN doesn't have an army...
Typical and ugly. I'd rather see them get paid to keep the forests intact since that does us all a huge favor, but it seems violence is actually only rarely "the last resort".
Paying them would be a very bad idea.
60% of the rain forest is within Brasil's sovereign territory, with the rest distributed between Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, etc. I suggest that only pressure from the CAN and US sanctions combined would put on enough pressure to force more cooperation.
Without that kind of pressure and considering Bolsonaro's track record and spoken views on environmental matters, "Brasil's Trump" is probably happy enough to let the lot burn.
The problem is that cleared forest creates space for oil exploration and agriculture, etc...
60% of the rain forest is within Brasil's sovereign territory, with the rest distributed between Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, etc. I suggest that only pressure from the CAN and US sanctions combined would put on enough pressure to force more cooperation.
Without that kind of pressure and considering Bolsonaro's track record and spoken views on environmental matters, "Brasil's Trump" is probably happy enough to let the lot burn.
The problem is that cleared forest creates space for oil exploration and agriculture, etc...
That may all be basically true but underneath that is the reason why they want to burn it. They are following in the footsteps of every civilization that has ever existed - exploiting resources to progress and grow wealthy and powerful. Frankly I don't understand why Brazil and all of the countries that host the rain forest don't respond with, "So you want the rainforests intact? What's it worth to you?"
...Frankly I don't understand why Brazil and all of the countries that host the rain forest don't respond with, "So you want the rainforests intact? What's it worth to you?"
Neither do I... it would be one of the more cost effective measures for the rest of the world in terms of money (and so allow more effort in bringing "alternative energy" online).
You should have added another option to your poll enorbet. Like "Other" or "Climate Change is real but not human/man-made."
I'm sorry, but the climate has been changing since the dawn of time - so it can't be "man-made". It's a natural fundamental process that would have happened regardless of whether we graced the poor (and no doubt sorry) Earth or not.
We have accelerated a fundamental process and therefore, we have sped up that same process to be seeing what we are with wild weather, more destructive storms, hotter (and colder) temperatures, etc.
Well, jsbj001, if you're driving on an icy road and stomp on the accelerator, spin off the road and kill everyone in the car, I'm not going to blame the ice even though it is a factor.
I think it is important to note that civilization as we know it will not be severely impacted by the loss of gasoline and other fuels like diesel and jet fuel, compared to electricity which is absolutely fundamental to our way of life. Currently the most efficient means of generating electricity is under 30% efficient. The type of mini, underground, self-sufficient power plants described in the link I provided above easily reaches 50%, is 100% clean and has zero risk of meltdown since it requires no controls beyond gravity, yet functions for 30+ years before it needs to be refueled.
At the same time it consumes already existing radioactive materials such as military grade nuclear fuels for which we presently have no use and no completely safe means of storage. Consuming it is a huge solution for multiple problems and it's impact on the many billions of tons of carbon dumped into our atmosphere from burning coal is immense. It can't stop it but it surely can reduce the consequences to a very substantial degree. There are solutions but the denial it is even occurring is one of the main problems continuing our childish "If I cover my eyes you can't see me" business as usual stance.
That may all be basically true but underneath that is the reason why they want to burn it. They are following in the footsteps of every civilization that has ever existed - exploiting resources to progress and grow wealthy and powerful. Frankly I don't understand why Brazil and all of the countries that host the rain forest don't respond with, "So you want the rainforests intact? What's it worth to you?"
Because it conflicts with the goals of agroco and oil exploration.
Ironically it was deforestation which led to these fires...
The "west" wags it's finger, but Bolsonaro, is unfortunately somewhat justified in his approach/response - in that those same hypocritical countries are behind the already rampant deforestation for those aforementioned purposes. Now there are headline grabbing fires - and these same hypocrites are showing mock outrage. Something like over 80% of deforestation is due to beef, soy, palm oil and other internationally traded agroco products - most of which are destined for the US market.
The problem is that much of the deforestation is illegal. Another problem is corruption and any scheme involving "money for trees" - what I would call "throwing money at the problem" - has absolutely no guarantee of going into trees, especially with illegal logging going on in many areas and the difficulties with enforcement and maintaining preservation in such remote locations.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.