Click for Westport Click for Glendinning Click for Llebroc Click for Nordhavn Click for JetForums

Global Warming & rising sea level

Discussion in 'General Yachting Discussion' started by OutMyWindow, Aug 18, 2007.

  1. Delfin

    Delfin Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2014
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Anacortes, WA
    I suppose that if humans had the ability to destroy the world as you suggest by contributing to an increase in CO2 levels to what they have been for millenia before I might get a bit more agitated. But as I said, if actual data means anything in the debate, CO2 has been increasing while the rate of temperature increase has been decreasing. That is just an empirical fact, so I think I'll concentrate of trying to solve real problems, not imagined ones.

    Also, not too clear where the moral basis is for your advice to ignore the effects of unsound tax and regulatory policies. Let them eat cake if they're hungry - is that the idea? If so, this is a pretty good summary of the effects of green energy/carbon sequestration policies on the third world:

    "
    Bioenergy

    In response to rising oil costs, the production of biofuels as an alternative source of energy is also contributing to dramatic changes in the world food situation. According to the report, increased production of bioenergy will adversely affect poor people in developing countries by increasing both the price and price volatility of food. Subsidies for biofuels, which are common, exacerbate the negative impact on poor households, as they implicitly act as a tax on basic food.

    Using state-of-the-art computer modeling, IFPRI has projected the possible price effects of biofuels for two potential scenarios up to the year 2020:

    1. Under scenario one, which is based on the actual biofuel investment plans of many countries and the assumption that high-potential countries will expand their production of bioenergy, maize prices would increase by 26 percent and oilseed prices would rise by 18 percent.
    2. Under scenario two, which assumes that the production of biofuels would expand greatly, to twice the level of scenario one, maize prices would increase by 72 percent and oilseeds by 44 percent.
    In both scenarios, rises in crop prices would lead to decreases in food availability and calorie consumption in all regions of the world, with Sub-Saharan Africa suffering the most. As biofuels become increasingly profitable, more land, water, and capital will be diverted to their production, and the world will face more trade-offs between food and fuel."

    -International Food Policy Research Institute
  2. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    11,218
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Agreed. The only thing that will get the planet cleaned up is if we can find a way to make it more profitable than polluting it.
  3. carelm

    carelm Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    407
    Location:
    fairfax va
  4. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,294
    Location:
    Sweden
    And when you have captured the CO2, you call the garbage truck..?

    The Audi "invention" is even better, you take CO2, charge it with electricity and transform it back to CO2 again!

    As I said, it is a profitable industry...
  5. Blue Ghost

    Blue Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    The Regina systen in the Spinward Marches
    I think if the effects are severe enough something will be attempted. It may actually be the basis for another military conflict; those who are profiting verse those who aren't and a need for a more stable global climate.

    Right now the world's economies are interlocked, so what affects one affects all, and therefore if India or China are bellowing out more pollutants like the US, Taiwan and Japan were in the 70s and 80s, then we need to get them to regulate somehow.

    Or, reintroduce manufacturing to a revitalized US and Japanese economies, but with environmental friendly technology.

    But all that's assuming it's mankind's industrial activities are to blame. I'm still of the opinion that it's the sun's output that it's the primary factor. But, we won't really know until things get so bad that something, regardless of what it is, is finally done and we see the effects of those efforts.
  6. Opcn

    Opcn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Nordland (near Port Townsend), WA, USA
    value_added-large.png
    Reintroduce?
  7. RER

    RER Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,421
    Location:
    Newport Beach CA
    Growth of manufacturing output per worker is not synchronized with manufacturing output as a percentage of the overall economy. Apples to oranges.
  8. RER

    RER Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,421
    Location:
    Newport Beach CA
    ...well, I see you've edited your data.

    While you are no longer referencing output per worker, the fact remains that US manufacturing has shrunk as a percentage of the world economy, and for the most part where manufacturing has increased the process is less friendly to the environment.
  9. Opcn

    Opcn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Nordland (near Port Townsend), WA, USA
    I made the edit immediately once I noticed that I grabbed the wrong graph. I thought I had gotten it done before anyone had a chance to reply, guess I didn't. My point was that we still make lots of things.
  10. Blue Ghost

    Blue Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    The Regina systen in the Spinward Marches
    Well, we used to make cars and mass produce computer chips and all kinds of stuff here in the US. We still do some manufacturing, but it's gotten so expensive that it's cheaper to fabricate overseas. We have a lot of restrictions here in the US that are designed to cut down on pollution. This is not the case overseas, which means it's cheaper to makes there than it is here, and pay the freight of shipping it in.

    My solution; stabilize foreign currency, give the dollar back some of its buying power, and things'll hopefully be cheaper all around both here and abroad, which means we can manufacture on a large scale again, and with all the restrictions designed to keep you me and mother nature thriving :)