Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 64003 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43641 Feb 17, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>but there's money in taxing co2!!! they want us to believe fossil fuels are the evil doers to climate. funny that the religious zealots don't complain about agricultural irrigation.
very telling isn't it!!
I'll tell you where this whole argument is flawed. There are 3 things that are the driving force working against our environment and our climate. First is man himself , second is Capitalism, third is Globalisation.

On the first point, man who does not give a stuff about their waste, what they consume or what it takes to meet his needs. Secondly Capitalism driven by man's desire to accumulate more takes no prisoners either. Thirdly globalisation driven by the second has made man grossly inefficient in meeting those needs. It starts with local factories closing to food producing farms all in the name of lower costs but totally ignores the energy used to get the imported product to the door. From clothing to apples. The energy consumed to grow an apple in China to be consumed in the US is about a 100 times that of one grown locally & transported to store. Pricing carbon is one way to address this major short sighted issue that goes with globalisation. If the focus shifted from energy consumed and the pollution it creates rather than the cost of the end product then that would be a quantum shift in thinking.

If that apple grown in China had to factor in it's environmental damage then it's cost might rise by 10c - 15cents. Therefore making a locally grown product competitive on price for consumers to totally ignore the imported one. That's one example of what pricing carbon worldwide can do for you!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#43642 Feb 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Well, others disagree with him and he does not resolve the difference.
So... the science isn't settled?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43643 Feb 17, 2014
Put up or shut up!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014...

Like, bring it on!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43644 Feb 17, 2014
On the Road: The Food Miles Question

And what about the distance food travels to get to our plates? Despite all the attention to food miles, emissions from food transport are not the biggest component of the sector’s impact on climate change.

While total emissions from transportation contribute to 13.1 percent of the global warming effect, this includes emissions from toting around all kinds of things—from people to pork chops. FTransport emissions specifically from food are just a sliver of these emissions.

Nonetheless, reducing food miles can still make a meaningful dent in our foods' emissions toll. Consider the fossil fuels wasted carting fresh tomatoes to New Jersey, a state with ample farmland that exports tons of tomatoes every year. Researchers at Rutgers University estimated that meeting the New Jersey demand for just one year’s supply of out-of-state tomatoes used up enough fossil fuel to drive an 18-wheeler around the world 249 times.

Food miles matter because so much of our food transport is unnecessary. Local food is also a better choice because it is fresher and therefore healthier for us. Buying local also supports our local economies. Purchasing local foods means supporting small-scale businesses and protecting green space in our communities.

Of course, direct trade with small-scale farmers in far away places can be a critical way to support economic development in other parts of the world. But most of the global food trade isn’t benefiting small-scale farmers — it’s benefiting the biggest grain traders at the cost of the climate. FAnd most of this global food trade is completely unnecessary, or redundant. Consider, for example, the fish caught off the coast of Maine, flash frozen, shipped to China for processing into filets, and shipped back to our mega-markets in the United States. Or, consider the business of beef. In 2007, the US exported 1.431 billion pounds of beef and veal (5.4 percent of our total beef production) Fand imported 3.052 billion pounds of the same, measured by commercial carcass weight. FThis cross-continent transport of food makes economic sense only because the true costs of such transport, including the big bill for its contribution to climate change, are not counted on the balance sheets of food corporations.

http://www.sustainabletable.org/982/agricultu...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43645 Feb 17, 2014
It’s not a secret that the Arctic Ocean is turning from white to blue as sea ice retreats. But a video compressing 25 years of satellite data into a single minute still drew gasps in a session here yesterday at the annual meeting of AAAS, which publishes Science. The movie, created late last year with data from satellites and buoys, shows how each year’s sea ice cover pulses like an amoeba, expanding and contracting with the seasons—and ending almost every summer a little smaller than the year before.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/vi...

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#43648 Feb 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
It’s not a secret that the Arctic Ocean is turning from white to blue as sea ice retreats. But a video compressing 25 years of satellite data into a single minute still drew gasps in a session here yesterday at the annual meeting of AAAS, which publishes Science. The movie, created late last year with data from satellites and buoys, shows how each year’s sea ice cover pulses like an amoeba, expanding and contracting with the seasons—and ending almost every summer a little smaller than the year before.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/vi...
And yet the Antarctic is 25% ABOVE normal while the Arctic is a mere 5.25% below normal.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/17...
Maybe you'd be better at getting grant money if you went after a new battle: Climate Shift
LOL

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#43649 Feb 18, 2014
Oh nooooooooooooooo. We'll all be dead due to Climate Shift!!!!
Save us Al Gore.
truth facts

Mount Orab, OH

#43650 Feb 18, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Oh nooooooooooooooo. We'll all be dead due to Climate Shift!!!!
Save us Al Gore.
No they have a new jack a$$, John Kerry out there making a complete a$$ out of himself and the warmer trolls.Com paring climate change to weapons of mass distraction oops(destruction).How do you get an agenda,you scare people.I'm surprised he didn't have a bunch of so-called scientist in white jackets behind him like when Obozo had all the doctors in white coats when he sold the fools Obozoscam.What an embarrassment this administration has become.GW is for sissies.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43651 Feb 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a troll, pops, and you wouldn't know a fact if I smacked you in the face with one.
try me, son. until now.....you've just spouted ridiculous opinions.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43652 Feb 18, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! You should talk!
I haven't seen any science from you, just bullshit gum-flapping. It's become a very identifiable pattern.
I don't even have to ask your political persuasion. All you give are the ignorant right-wing talking points.
is this a scientific response, son........or just another of your opinionated rants?

i heard that 'science' in mississippi asserts that southern girls have a close genetic relationship to bears because they both lick their 'paws'!

lol

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43653 Feb 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you where this whole argument is flawed. There are 3 things that are the driving force working against our environment and our climate. First is man himself , second is Capitalism, third is Globalisation.
On the first point, man who does not give a stuff about their waste, what they consume or what it takes to meet his needs. Secondly Capitalism driven by man's desire to accumulate more takes no prisoners either. Thirdly globalisation driven by the second has made man grossly inefficient in meeting those needs. It starts with local factories closing to food producing farms all in the name of lower costs but totally ignores the energy used to get the imported product to the door. From clothing to apples. The energy consumed to grow an apple in China to be consumed in the US is about a 100 times that of one grown locally & transported to store. Pricing carbon is one way to address this major short sighted issue that goes with globalisation. If the focus shifted from energy consumed and the pollution it creates rather than the cost of the end product then that would be a quantum shift in thinking.
If that apple grown in China had to factor in it's environmental damage then it's cost might rise by 10c - 15cents. Therefore making a locally grown product competitive on price for consumers to totally ignore the imported one. That's one example of what pricing carbon worldwide can do for you!
i don't want to pay more for an apple regardless of where they're grown.......and even if i did it wouldn't alter climate, now would it, son?
seems to me you just hate capitalism...... and love bigger and bigger government!!

lol

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43654 Feb 18, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
Put up or shut up!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014...
Like, bring it on!
has an experiment been conducted showing that reducing man made co2 emissions will result in less extreme weather or climate altering?

put up or shut up!!

LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#43655 Feb 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>has an experiment been conducted showing that reducing man made co2 emissions will result in less extreme weather or climate altering?
put up or shut up!!
LOL
Good idea. Worth a try.:)

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43656 Feb 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>try me, son. until now.....you've just spouted ridiculous opinions.
Pathetically predictable projection, pops.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43657 Feb 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>has an experiment been conducted showing that reducing man made co2 emissions will result in less extreme weather or climate altering?
put up or shut up!!
LOL
That's brian g's troll bait. What an unimaginative, third rate troll you are, pops.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43658 Feb 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So... the science isn't settled?
You have a good example a few posts previous.

Scientific consensus that global warming made the UK storms worse.

Political consensus that global warming made the UK storms worse.

Scientific uncertainty about whether or not global warming cause the storms to get stuck over the UK causing much worse damage.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43659 Feb 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
On the Road: The Food Miles Question
And what about the distance food travels to get to our plates? Despite all the attention to food miles, emissions from food transport are not the biggest component of the sector’s impact on climate change.
While total emissions from transportation contribute to 13.1 percent of the global warming effect, this includes emissions from toting around all kinds of things—from people to pork chops. FTransport emissions specifically from food are just a sliver of these emissions.
Nonetheless, reducing food miles can still make a meaningful dent in our foods' emissions toll. Consider the fossil fuels wasted carting fresh tomatoes to New Jersey, a state with ample farmland that exports tons of tomatoes every year. Researchers at Rutgers University estimated that meeting the New Jersey demand for just one year’s supply of out-of-state tomatoes used up enough fossil fuel to drive an 18-wheeler around the world 249 times.
Food miles matter because so much of our food transport is unnecessary. Local food is also a better choice because it is fresher and therefore healthier for us. Buying local also supports our local economies. Purchasing local foods means supporting small-scale businesses and protecting green space in our communities.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/982/agricultu...
Yes, I think it best we use the structure of our cities, and make them more self sufficient and more reliant on local production and agriculture. From the 1950s to the latest global economic crisis, the growth rate of international trade was almost consistently twice that of economic activity as a whole. From 2000 to 2008 world trade increased by an average 5.4 per cent each year, while economic activity, as measured by the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), increased by only 3 per cent per annum. Due to the spectacular rise of trade vis-à-vis economic growth, world trade since the 1950s has more than trebled to 45 per cent of the global GDP, while goods destined for the processing industry have in fact more than quadrupled.
s mentioned, the main reason behind the massive increase in shipping was the growth in world trade. But institutional and technological factors also had a role to play. In the past, the liberalization achievements of GATT and its successor the WTO provided a new momentum to world trade. China’s economic opening to the outside world, which led to their admission to the WTO in 2001, was also very significant – its exports quadrupled within 5 years. Another example of integrated markets boosting international trade is a trebling of exports from Mexico to the USA within 6 years of NAFTA being established.
The appetites of the industrial nations and newly-industrializing emerging economies, particularly China and India, for energy and mineral resources led to increasing quantities of goods being transported from far-distant countries.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43660 Feb 18, 2014
The information and communications technology revolution dramatically reduced the costs of mobility and accessibility. It allowed new network connections and production processes such as just-in-time production, outsourcing and offshoring, and provided a tremendous stimulus to logistics
The Canadian Tar sands for example is mostly a heavy crude oil, it still has to be refined in either Texas or China, Texas is one of the worlds largest plastic producers, the plastic pellets are then shipped to China, where the manufacture all the plastic products, that are then shipped to North America and the rest of the globe, Wal-Mart being the largest buyer and seller, 85% of everything bought here is made in China, compared to 90% of all consumable products made in North America in the 50s-60s.It would be in Canada's interest , to refine and manufacturer its own crude oil by-products, while at the same time weening itself off of , crude oil-byproducts, and replacing them with hemp, and other more environmentally safe products. Why not make diapers out of hemp, disposable and biodegradable.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43661 Feb 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>i don't want to pay more for an apple regardless of where they're grown.......and even if i did it wouldn't alter climate, now would it, son?
seems to me you just hate capitalism...... and love bigger and bigger government!!
lol
Not the brightest bulb in the room are you. Capitalism is redundant, its peak died with Enron, your just to thick to see it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43662 Feb 18, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>And yet the Antarctic is 25% ABOVE normal while the Arctic is a mere 5.25% below normal.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/17...
Maybe you'd be better at getting grant money if you went after a new battle: Climate Shift
LOL
Your a rather clueless fellow. Ignorance is not bliss, and really inexcusable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min yoj sdrowkcab 1,618,221
Benghazi, the REAL story. 50 min DeadCryingOut 4
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 11,425
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr loose cannon 242,768
Jon Trott of JPUSA protects child molestors 8 hr John Trott 9
Film on Sex Crimes at Jesus People USA 8 hr John Trott 11
Child Molestation at Chicago Cult 8 hr John Trott 44

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages