Our Oceans are Under Attack

When you or somebody else thinks in american or another country, you can generalize because this problem is worldwide. Is an addition to the main problem also global.

 

I think the politicization of environment is a BIG problem. CO2 isn't.
The world is not nearly as fragile as some want us to believe.
The planet has negative forcing to overcome positive forcing and all stays in equilibrium mas o minus.

If you look at proposed solutions, you will see the true agenda. The socialists want to conquer the world, always have since Marx.

Clean coal? Nope don't want that! Reclaim deserts? Nope. Renewable energy? Not interested. What then will make them happy?
SOCIAL CHANGE! Nope, WE ain't falling for THAT!

 

The problem with political strategy, is sometimes they introduce the problem because already they have the solution.
Ever I wonder how in west the problem is called overheat, and in the east the problem is a possible new glaciation. And in between the big corporations looking for profit.
In my humble opinion, the solution comes from commom sense of the normal people, and an increased love for nature as must be normal. Responsability and concience

 

I agree. I maintain a low carbon footprint, not because I believe carbon is bad. Because the carbon police are monitoring me!
Yep, the carbon gestapo is IN MY HOUSE.
I keep telling my kids, take their brats home, or get them off my case!

 

In my country the cows produce more CO2 than the cars. But we have trees and plants to convert it to oxygen.
Good I don't need to become vegetarian as our friend.

 

I like cows, just not as house pets.

 

You're misquoting me. What I said is that a carbon tax need not result in a greater tax burden overall. Whether it does or not is a question of how the tax system as a whole is implemented, but just taking the basics:

Assume you need a certain amount of government revenue to fund certain services. You can argue all day about how much revenue is needed to fund which services, but I think everyone will agree that some level of both will be required. So, this is your required revenue R.

If part of R comes from a carbon tax, that means that portion does not have to come from other taxes. That means the total of other taxes can be lower.

If part of R does not come from a carbon tax, then the total of other taxes will have to be higher to provide the necessary end result of R. Either way, R is the same amount. It's not rocket science.

 

Big corporates leading the way on climate change with carbon pricing | THE GUARDIAN

 

Climate change report: prevent damage by overhauling global economy | THE GUARDIAN

 

7 things we learned from Lord Stern's New Climate Economy report | THE GUARDIAN

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...arians_impact_on_the_economy_antibiotics.html

Suppose everyone in the world voluntarily stopped eating meat, en masse. I know it’s not actually going to happen. But the best-case scenario from a climate perspective would be if all 7 billion of us woke up one day and realized that PETA was right all along. If this collective change of spirit came to pass, like Peter Singer’s dearest fantasy come true, what would the ramifications be?
Advertisement
At least one research team has run the numbers on what global veganism would mean for the planet. In 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published their projections of the greenhouse gas consequences if humanity came to eat less meat, no meat, or no animal products at all. The researchers predicted that universal veganism would reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050. Universal vegetarianism would result in similarly impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What’s more, the Dutch researchers found that worldwide vegetarianism or veganism would achieve these gains at a much lower cost than a purely energy-focused intervention involving carbon taxes and renewable energy technology. The upshot: Universal eschewal of meat wouldn’t single-handedly stave off global warming, but it would go a long way toward mitigating climate change.

 

A second major ramification of global vegetarianism would be expanses of new land available. Currently, grazing land for ruminants—cows and their kin—accounts for a staggering 26 percent of the world’s ice-free land surface. The Dutch scientists predict that 2.7 billion hectares (about 10.4 million square miles) of that grazing land would be freed up by global vegetarianism, along with 100 million hectares (about 386,000 square miles) of land that’s currently used to grow crops for livestock. Not all of this land would be suitable for humans, but surely it stands to reason that this sudden influx of new territory would make land much cheaper on the whole.


http://www.occupyforanimals.org/human-starvation.html

 

http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

Some truths

Fact is Global warming is all hot air. Agenda driven fear induced governmental useless meddling eating up billions of dollars and enforcing change on people to combat what is a myth.

Never let a man made up crisis go to waste! True or false makes no difference to them. It is ideology alone that they follow.

 

Yes, ok. Whatever.

 

Ah, it's dawning on NoEyeDeer, the climate change, global warming, experiment the world has decided we are going to do is:

'WAIT AND SEE"!