4 ms·

OP did say article not study. The bunk bit is micronutrient deficiency is only amongst the real poor, less than $2 per day. Not the rich (US/Europe) or middle

OP did say article not study. The bunk bit is micronutrient deficiency is only amongst the real poor, less than $2 per day. Not the rich (US/Europe) or middle class or US/European poor. And it's happening TODAY, they way forward to the problem, which ALREADY exists is to fix it by getting a variety of foods to the real poor. Rice alone is always not enough, this is a today issue. A - Stop pushing today's issues until 2050 to push CO2 agendas. B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. C - Other plants with the required micronutrients will become cheaper/increased yields with the increased CO2. So stop making up possible issues when it's a today issues.

youareostriches 7y ago
>B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. Fossil fuels need to stop being used altogether, and as quickly as possible. This means that it’s up to the wealthy nations who currently use the most CO2 per capita (https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...) to drastically reduce their share. And guess what happens if the price of fossil fuels doesn’t match the ecological impact and their use is not drastically scaled down? It’s precisely the poorest of the world who will suffer the greatest consequences of global warming.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Mate, you want to see the poor suffer...then immediately ban all use of fossil fuels. THAT will cause suffering of levels unseen in modern times.
  - youareostriches 7y ago
    It’s not that simple. You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle on the basis that any wholesale transition would harm poorer people—-on the contrary, it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels in order to allow poorer countries to continue basic necessities such as heating and nitrogen-fixed fertilizers from natural gas. The wealthy countries have the economic means to rapidly transition their economies away from fossil fuels. This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis.
    - kaitai 7y ago
      It is a massive win-win for rich countries to develop technologies to prevent pollution and transfer it to poorer countries at low or no cost. It's like cleaning your own house & then ensuring the neighbors don't dump trash in through the windows. Self-interest alone dictates this! And self-interest also says we should make sure the poor in highly-populated countries get the nutrition they need to live decent lives, rather than having so little to lose that they start wars!
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      You are not adequately calculating the economic effects of rapidly attempting to refactor an economy the size of the United States nor the trickle down effects on the world economy and all the poor countries you claim to wish to help. This is extremely hand wavey and over simplistic.
      - youareostriches 7y ago
        Yes, it’s hard; it will probably require greater mobilization than WWII and the Apollo program combined, but the longer the world waits, the harder it’s going to be and the faster that mobilization will need to occur. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml (BTW those scenarios are now extremely optimistic based on leaked drafts of the upcoming IPCC report) But people should understand that this degree of mobilization is mostly necessary because we insist on subjecting ourselves to a capitalist mode of production based on endless growth. A much easier alternative is simply to shutdown large parts of the economy and transition the lost jobs into land conservation/stewardship and geoengineering, while providing a basic income for everyone else working only a couple of days per week. (See Degrowth.) No, this will not create “profit”. Yes, this will require a mass redistribution of wealth. The sooner people acknowledge that The Party is Over, the sooner they can move on to real solutions.
        chrisco255 7y ago
        Capitalism works better than anything else in history. Party isn't over. Let me ask you something: of the warming that is occurring now, what percentage is due to humans and what percentage is due to natural fluxes in climate? If we were to disappear off the face of the planet tomorrow, what would happen to the climate? Would it cool or would it warm?

youareostriches 7y ago

>B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. Fossil fuels need to stop being used altogether, and as quickly as possible. This means that it’s up to the wealthy nations who currently use the most CO2 per capita (https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...) to drastically reduce their share. And guess what happens if the price of fossil fuels doesn’t match the ecological impact and their use is not drastically scaled down? It’s precisely the poorest of the world who will suffer the greatest consequences of global warming.

chrisco255 7y ago
Mate, you want to see the poor suffer...then immediately ban all use of fossil fuels. THAT will cause suffering of levels unseen in modern times.
- youareostriches 7y ago
  It’s not that simple. You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle on the basis that any wholesale transition would harm poorer people—-on the contrary, it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels in order to allow poorer countries to continue basic necessities such as heating and nitrogen-fixed fertilizers from natural gas. The wealthy countries have the economic means to rapidly transition their economies away from fossil fuels. This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis.
  - kaitai 7y ago
    It is a massive win-win for rich countries to develop technologies to prevent pollution and transfer it to poorer countries at low or no cost. It's like cleaning your own house & then ensuring the neighbors don't dump trash in through the windows. Self-interest alone dictates this! And self-interest also says we should make sure the poor in highly-populated countries get the nutrition they need to live decent lives, rather than having so little to lose that they start wars!
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    You are not adequately calculating the economic effects of rapidly attempting to refactor an economy the size of the United States nor the trickle down effects on the world economy and all the poor countries you claim to wish to help. This is extremely hand wavey and over simplistic.
    - youareostriches 7y ago
      Yes, it’s hard; it will probably require greater mobilization than WWII and the Apollo program combined, but the longer the world waits, the harder it’s going to be and the faster that mobilization will need to occur. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml (BTW those scenarios are now extremely optimistic based on leaked drafts of the upcoming IPCC report) But people should understand that this degree of mobilization is mostly necessary because we insist on subjecting ourselves to a capitalist mode of production based on endless growth. A much easier alternative is simply to shutdown large parts of the economy and transition the lost jobs into land conservation/stewardship and geoengineering, while providing a basic income for everyone else working only a couple of days per week. (See Degrowth.) No, this will not create “profit”. Yes, this will require a mass redistribution of wealth. The sooner people acknowledge that The Party is Over, the sooner they can move on to real solutions.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        Capitalism works better than anything else in history. Party isn't over. Let me ask you something: of the warming that is occurring now, what percentage is due to humans and what percentage is due to natural fluxes in climate? If we were to disappear off the face of the planet tomorrow, what would happen to the climate? Would it cool or would it warm?