Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Carbon Fever / Climate Security

edited December 2010
I'm into gathering best intelligence and practice about reducing the volume of greenhouse gases in the modern world.

This thread could be a place where stuff about that goes.

Comments

  • edited December 2010
    This is the official count of atmospheric CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as of last month: 388.59 parts per million.

    See all the cool data at CO2NOW.org .

    Generally speaking, many smart folks think 350 parts per million is the long term maximum limit required to reverse current ocean acidification trends, etc. If the ocean stays acidy, some real bad stuff will happen pretty quick. Stuff like: oxygen breathers on the planet will lose the source of 2/3rds of their oxygen supply.

    For the record, Earth's atmospheric CO2 passed the 350 ppm threshold in the late 1980's.

    The last time Earth's CO2 concentration was at this level was 2,100,000 years ago.

    This doesn't have to be a bummer because it doesn't have to happen.

    Fortunately, being soulful and changing culture is fun for humans to do.

    In general, I'm optimistic because I think modern folks are ready, especially young folks. What we have is a leadership problem, which is to say, a power problem.

    A speedy shift of power away from the current tiny, money-based, leadership class toward more democratic, long-term structures of collective responsibility and management would probably be a good thing planet-wise. Tools and practices that help people do that would be handy. Again, I'm optimistic because lots of those tools are coming out and spreading around and people like them.

    Unfortunately, we have still have to contend with several stanky old institutions that stay propped-up to promote large-scale irresponsibility, dissension, falsehood, despair and violence as distracting smokescreens to cover the financial interests of a fraction of the top percent of the world's wealthiest families.

    I think the best way to deal with this situation is to be clear, open and direct about the planet-scale dilemma the current institutions pose while encouraging the rise and consolidation of modern, democratic, global, open alternatives.

    Also, it's structural, not personal with the elites. Everybody should have a fair shot at a good life on Planet Earth, even folks that show up a hundred years from now. Personally, I have enjoyed hanging out with rich folks. Many of them know what's up and want to help with their time and creativity. Many also know that nothing lasts forever and they would like to see something better.

    Those that are assholes, bullies and tyrants will be hard to deal with. But it will be easier when rational folks have fair and constructive social institutions to work with.

    Too dreamy?

    Maybe, but again, culture isn't linear. Surprising stuff can happen surprisingly quickly. And so much of what passes as conventional wisdom about the way the world works is just so wrong.

    It's like the eggshell that can't believe there's a chick inside.

    It's time to do it the right way.

    Overdue, really. Don't you think?

  • What are the top five ways in which greenhouse gases are created?
    At what rate are greenhouse gases being created?
  • edited December 2010

    I know that in the Seattle region (several counties in a consolidated planning agency called the PSRC) 40% of greenhouse gases emitted come from transportation.

    More stats later.

    Personally, I like to look at this kind of thing at various scales: personal, block, neighborhood, metro-area, region, nation, continent, globe.

    It maps to different scales of personal and collective responsibility and the kind of institutional work that would be useful.
  • edited December 2010
    I'm somewhat surprised that 40% is transportation as opposed to "heavy industry" or something.

    But I'm not sold on the idea of a "speedy" shift in power. Doesn't that kind of imply violence? :)

    disclaimer: as a registered republican i am not allowed to believe in global warming and no part of this discussion, even if i am entertaining the idea, should be seen as an endorsement of your hippie lies (keep your laws off my overseas factory?)
  • edited December 2010
    The Northwest is different than the rest of the US because of the prevalence of hydropower. Elsewhere in the country coal-generated electricity is much more common and drives up that share of the CO2 released.

    Speedy, to my way of thinking, means within about a lifetime, say 50 years. Major non-violent social shifts of many kinds have occurred since 1960. So, you know, there's hope. ;)

    (I understand your position as a Republican. This conversation never occurred. By the way, you are beautiful, man.)
  • edited December 2010
    2003 Data courtesy of sightline.org.


    WASHINGTON
    image


    OREGON
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.