4 ms·

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation,

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of scientists who study this field agree we are causing the planet's climate to shift away from the temperate climate we thrived in) not enough is being done at present to truly solve the problem. What really is disheartening and what no one in the media and government is talking about is how in 2015 CO2 levels rose by the largest amount in human recorded history. 3.05 PPM http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html We are being lied to, often mislead by our governments that uniform actions are being performed to save the planet for the future of man. Vested interests in the fossil fuel industry continue to drive climate change. Yes, solar and wind energy are starting to become incredibly efficient and cheap but not enough of it is coming online in proportion to fossil fuel burning that persists and is also installed annually. If we do not rally against it, our ability to live on this planet is at stake. The lives of our posterity are also at risk because of the burning. Even if you chose not to have kids, it still makes our work and lives meaningless if our species and other species on this planet go extinct because we allow dumping in our atmosphere to go on unfettered. It will not be until we take extreme actions not on a country level but as humanity together that we will slow the burning and save ourselves. What are these actions you might ask that will actually be effective? These can range from banning fossil fuels entirely, global carbon pricing system, banning deforestation, changing human diets, extreme uniform investment in renewable energy and potentially fourth generation nuclear reactors, more funding for developing nations to install alternative energy sources, and to shift the transportation grid towards sustainability.

pmyjavec 10y ago
Deforestation is so serious, I visited Indonesia last year and all I could see from the plane was smoke from illegal burning of forests for palm oil plantations and cheap mass animal agriculture. It was the worst fire in known history and a really, really sad thing to witness, the baron charred fields left behind are really a terrible thing to see. I wonder why on earth more wealthy Governments don't send in the "defense forces" to help stop this illegal activity, instead of going to Syria, it's such a no brainier. Countries like Brazil and Indonesia shouldn't be required to protect everything on their own, nor should activists, murders of activists are a reality because they're just getting in the way of business. It would also be easy and relatively cheap to start replanting and re-generating damage forests, I know it won't bounce back immediately, but it does regenerate eventually if assisted (apparently). For those that are unaware, palm oil is in pretty much in all packaged foods sold in super markets, often hidden as vegetable oil, the WWF has information about identifying products that use it http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-contain-palm-oil http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-c... After the destruction I saw, if one wants to continue living and has any loved ones, I would cross it off your shopping list now, along with any imported animal products. Also, be highly skeptical about any "certified products", having spent time in Indonesia and seeing corruption first hand, I doubt such things truly exist, better to just get off the palm for good.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  > I wonder why on earth more wealthy Governments don't send in the "defense forces" to help stop this illegal activity, instead of going to Syria, it's such a no brainier. Countries like Brazil and Indonesia shouldn't be required to protect everything on their own, nor should activists, murders of activists are a reality because they're just getting in the way of business. Pardon me, but why the hell do you think that sending in the military, especially foreign military, would effect any changes on the ground? The problem is corruption, a purely political problem, and as the Iraqi surge very well demonstrated, a military solution cannot solve a political problem.
  - pmyjavec 10y ago
    As far as corruption goes, I don't think it has a lot to do with Indonesia and Brazil. These are large places and it's hard to police every square inch of it without pretty good technology and money, once someone gets away with burning forest down, that's the end of it, why would there be a need for corruption in that case? If there is any serious corruption happening, it's in the west, imagine freely being allowed to sell products that contain palm oil with no penalty's or taxes attached. People in these countries are poor and desperate, they have more of a reason for behaving that way, McDonalds et al doesn't. I also never suggested sending in the cavalry or a repeat of shock and awe, I'm suggesting policing in co-operation with government of said countries to help protect a vital asset to not only humans but all species. Imagine using satellites to help quickly identify fires for example? When large parts of priceless Indonesian rain forest were burning to the ground, and still are, there was very little international discussion and assistance with: - Raising awareness, I doubt major western corporations wanted people to know about it. - Putting the fire out. - Stopping additional fires being started. - Regeneration and repair. Considering people starting fires aren't exactly friendly / educated people, maybe military assisted protection of the forest is better than innocent people just doing there best, I never suggested a war, I'm suggesting a peace keeping / guarding force.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

pmyjavec 10y ago

Deforestation is so serious, I visited Indonesia last year and all I could see from the plane was smoke from illegal burning of forests for palm oil plantations and cheap mass animal agriculture. It was the worst fire in known history and a really, really sad thing to witness, the baron charred fields left behind are really a terrible thing to see. I wonder why on earth more wealthy Governments don't send in the "defense forces" to help stop this illegal activity, instead of going to Syria, it's such a no brainier. Countries like Brazil and Indonesia shouldn't be required to protect everything on their own, nor should activists, murders of activists are a reality because they're just getting in the way of business. It would also be easy and relatively cheap to start replanting and re-generating damage forests, I know it won't bounce back immediately, but it does regenerate eventually if assisted (apparently). For those that are unaware, palm oil is in pretty much in all packaged foods sold in super markets, often hidden as vegetable oil, the WWF has information about identifying products that use it http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-contain-palm-oil http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-c... After the destruction I saw, if one wants to continue living and has any loved ones, I would cross it off your shopping list now, along with any imported animal products. Also, be highly skeptical about any "certified products", having spent time in Indonesia and seeing corruption first hand, I doubt such things truly exist, better to just get off the palm for good.

jcranmer 10y ago
> I wonder why on earth more wealthy Governments don't send in the "defense forces" to help stop this illegal activity, instead of going to Syria, it's such a no brainier. Countries like Brazil and Indonesia shouldn't be required to protect everything on their own, nor should activists, murders of activists are a reality because they're just getting in the way of business. Pardon me, but why the hell do you think that sending in the military, especially foreign military, would effect any changes on the ground? The problem is corruption, a purely political problem, and as the Iraqi surge very well demonstrated, a military solution cannot solve a political problem.
- pmyjavec 10y ago
  As far as corruption goes, I don't think it has a lot to do with Indonesia and Brazil. These are large places and it's hard to police every square inch of it without pretty good technology and money, once someone gets away with burning forest down, that's the end of it, why would there be a need for corruption in that case? If there is any serious corruption happening, it's in the west, imagine freely being allowed to sell products that contain palm oil with no penalty's or taxes attached. People in these countries are poor and desperate, they have more of a reason for behaving that way, McDonalds et al doesn't. I also never suggested sending in the cavalry or a repeat of shock and awe, I'm suggesting policing in co-operation with government of said countries to help protect a vital asset to not only humans but all species. Imagine using satellites to help quickly identify fires for example? When large parts of priceless Indonesian rain forest were burning to the ground, and still are, there was very little international discussion and assistance with: - Raising awareness, I doubt major western corporations wanted people to know about it. - Putting the fire out. - Stopping additional fires being started. - Regeneration and repair. Considering people starting fires aren't exactly friendly / educated people, maybe military assisted protection of the forest is better than innocent people just doing there best, I never suggested a war, I'm suggesting a peace keeping / guarding force.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]