you aint gonna stop the 3rd world from having too many kids, using more and more coal and wood, paving more roads, making and driving more cars, polluting more, etc. People just INSIST upon making things worse, by having more than 2 kids per woman.
You have to do your part. I had two children. Abortion, and other contraceptives, should be widespread, easily affordable, and encouraged. It'd keep the population down and reduce the stress on natural resources. I ride my bike most places I go. Not only am I not polluting, I'm keeping myself in wonderful shape. My home is heated mostly by passive solar, even in the rain, and by the use of selected materials. Conservatives are all up in arms over the ACA requiring insurance policies to cover contraceptives. But just wait, as the act takes hold you'll see the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions decrease.
If the Catholic church is going to take the problem of global poverty seriously, it has to change its stance on contraception, especially in developing and least developed countries.
Global warming is not a threat, it would actually be better for all species on Earth if the planet heated up. Many consider the Earth with no permanent ice to be the norm. Animal and plant species multiply and there is more land and variety available. Hell, Antarctica alone is twice the size of Australia. Pollution is not global warming, they are very different and should be treated differently. I don't think you will find many people that support pollution. There is no population crisis. The Earth can easily handle 20 times the amount of people we currently have. We will need to more properly manage our resources, build massive farms and desalinization plants but there is easily enough resources to support everyone.
For every species that goes extinct, three will take its place....or something along that line. Scientists right now determine that (numbers vary widely) between 1-100 species go extinct from the planet everyday. Its nice that liberals only care about the fluffy cute ones but in the grand scheme of things that is irrelevant. The variety of species will grow with a warmer climate on both land and the Sea. Reefs will expand dramatically also, that is a huge one the environmentalists like to skip over.
The US and China alone make up 44% of global carbon emissions, more than the next 27 nations on earth combined. So no, we don't really have to convince Malawi and Paraguay to go along. What we need is a carbon tax with an import tariff keyed to the carbon tax in the exporting nation. Do that, and Malawi and Paraguay will go along on their own, for their own benefit.
If you really believe in AGW you should have had zero kids. - - - Updated - - - A libs answer to everything is raise taxes.
They will evolve. Galápagos penguins "The Galapagos penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus) is a penguin endemic to the Galapagos Islands. It is the only penguin that lives north of the equator in the wild. It can survive due to the cool temperatures resulting from the Humboldt Current and cool waters from great depths brought up by the Cromwell Current. The Galapagos penguin is one of the banded penguins, the other species of which live mostly on the coasts of Africa and mainland South America. The article notes that the discovery ‘promises to change the way scientists think about penguins and cold weather.
The climate change folks do not like to discuss the roots of the movement within the in the anti human, anti-population growth gang. That would link them to what many people might consider a racist origin, and therefore they won't even talk about it. They have a point of course, fewer people is a better thing (as opposed to the "only the people we like should live" gang, which has the racist tinge). But using it to force compliance, scare compliance, manufacture a fear mechanism through legislated behavioral change, or tax punishments, strikes me as a bit severe.
If you believe humans are causing climate change, what on earth makes you think it's the folks in the third world doing it? We consume 25% of the world's resources and we're 5% of the population. I'd say WE are a big part of the global problem.
A much worse factor to transportation emissions is manure that stems from cattle (animal farming). - The solution is to go vegan. Since that is not going to happen because governments such US abets global warming, there will be a few lines of defense. From a documentary that I saw, the goal is to deflect the sun beams back to space. That can be done by emitting special gasses that do that (I cant remember its name). It can be also done by producing artificial trees that absorb CO2. Humanity abnegates its responsibility in producing all that ecological damage.. all the animal killings, deforestation, factory pollution, transportation pollution etc. In the end the world will be wiped out, if it is in the coming years or in billions of years from now.. Another solution ,which invokes acerbity, is to evacuate earth and colonize another planet (there is a documentary about that too).
This (knowledge) All energy people put in politics will never lead to a switch in energy sources (from fossil to natural energy sources) Because you cannot change a system by a political fight or a revolution (all emotional processes, thus historical trouble) Decades of 'green' politics, demonstrations, actions Greenpeace have not prevent climate change to happen. Every effort has failed. This tells you that when you waste words and energy (emotions) via politics the situation is getting worse and worse all the time. Once people start to 'move' in the other direction of politics, by just let it all go, a system can start to change from within, because something is going to change in society, a system loses power and control over society, and that is needed to change from fossil energy to natural energy sources (like tidal and geothermical) When you stay away from politics and all the emotions in the media, people's minds emotional levels are dropping, and that is going to weaken a system that continues to burn fossil fuels. The world powers are not going to reduce chaos in the world soon (only they can fundamentally change energy sources in short time), because politically they win power and control by chaos and all the emotions and politics it generates. You will not see a first energy revolution coming from top of power. And when people try to change the energy sources by starting self innovation or by small diy energy projects, you only waste energy and emotions (because lots fail to become real sustainable and not expensive products), and the problem of climate change stays. Innovation means an energy revolution from within a population starts to grow (not good), and that is not going to change from fossil to natural energy sources. All that energy is going towards a revolution (hierarchically), means, emotions and movements in a population start to grow, instead of what the goal was, a switch from fossil to natural. A people's revolution will never stop oil companies and the powers that control everything. While an end to a people's revolution (politics and media are part of that) can stop them, because that way they lose power and control over society. A new system can take over and finally can start a non-fossil energy industry. That will be geo(thermical and thermal) and tidal, because that are the three biggest and inexhaustable energy sources in nature, are used at a minimum at this moment (Iceland has thermal energy power plants, a lot of other countries have vulcanoes or very old inactive vucanoes which still produce lots of heat, this geothermical energy, for a few billion years these processes will continue, while fossils will be depleted this century if this continues, and it will, because people continue with their struggle with the system.
Because there's no such link. The science is completely independent of such a movement. The fact that a few kooks latched on to AGW science means nothing. A few Nazis latched on to Darwinism, but that in no way discredits evolution.
