Global fossil-fuel emissions predicted to decline for 2015


#1

From ScienceDaily:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151207113733.htm

Ed


#2

Achieving climate stabilization will require reducing emissions to near zero, he added.

Climate stabilization? :rolleyes:

Jon


#3

Pretty simple there…emissions are still emissions even if they aren’t growing.


#4

I think that that CO2 currently emitted by humans really doesn’t affect the climate that much. There’s a lot of holes in the theory of man-made CO2 emissions, not to mention the special interests of the alternative energy industry and politicians.


#5

It is simple human arrogance to believe we can stabilize something that has never been stable. Either arrogance or political propaganda

Jon


#6

You’re free to believe what you want…but I think the fossil fuel based interests have a bit more to lose (considering they represent many of the of the world largest corporations) than alternative energy companies might gain.


#7

First of all, there’s always too much talk of “belief” on this issue. Science is not about belief, it’s about logical parameters and uncertainty.

It is not a “belief” that mining rare earth metals in China is harmful to the environment, and I would say much more harmful than carbon dioxide.


#8

You know; I’m not some crazy environmentalist. But, putting climate change/global warming completely aside, what do we have to lose by reducing our use of fossil fuels? We know the following things for sure:

  • the mining and extraction of them creates pollution, leaks, and scars the land.
  • it involves us in the politics of some of the most unstable regions of the world
  • it involves our military in these unstable regions.
  • it funds people we’d generally rather not work with.
  • it sets up corrupt governments that reap the profits and share very little with the people.
  • Fossil fuels WILL run out or become too costly to extract at some point.

#9

You know as well as I that discussions on whether climate change is real or not generally go nowhere here.


#10

But we must be careful because alternative energies can:

  • involve us with a different set of oppressive or unstable countries for rare earth minerals or lithium.

  • harm the environment. Wind power kills birds, solar kills birds, hydro disrupts fish migration, and geothermal creates earthquakes.

  • disrupt economies. After installation many alternate energy solutions only require a small number of skilled people to maintain them. What will become of low skilled workers?


#11

Hello HerCrazierHalf. You mentioned . . . .

But we must be careful because alternative energies can:

  • involve us with a different set of oppressive or unstable countries for rare earth minerals or lithium.
  • harm the environment. Wind power kills birds, solar kills birds, hydro disrupts fish migration, and geothermal creates earthquakes.
  • disrupt economies. After installation many alternate energy solutions only require a small number of skilled people to maintain them. What will become of low skilled workers?

Fair enough admonition.

But do you know what I have disproportionately observed with the environmental movement?

(And I want to be clear, I am NOT accusing YOU of being a population control advocate. Just SOME people). . . .

I have observed . . . .

. . . . Many wealthy elite “social engineers” have been using “energy” to push for population control for my whole life.

[LIST]
*]Energy Issues = Pretext for Population Control
[/LIST]

And they would always play and grotesquely distort a grain of truth to meet their objective—population control.

**In the late 1970’s, lack of energy was a pretext for population control. **

We were warned, “oil” was not a renewable resource and that was the alleged problem.

They used to tell us the earth is out of oil (they even had a song about it).

We don’t have enough oil for ALL these “consumers”.

They pretended that’s what gas station waiting lines were all about.

But they never seemed to be to worried about petroleum being a non-renewable resource when it came to . . . . themselves (which seemed to detract from the “gospel” they were “preaching”).

One activist pop and country singer even had an underground built-in industrial sized gas storage facility built on his property to hoard gasoline. When it was found out, he said it was for others, and was for “conservation”. People literally picketed his home (if I remember correctly), and he had it removed due to so much bad publicity generated.

Then some people more frequently started to use alternative sources of energy (such as wood home heating units).

But “deforestation” and “pollution” quickly became the focus. Acid rain etc. (Now in some cases, farmers need to ADD acid to the soil because there isn’t enough acid in the rain).

We were given information about Brazil that pretended the world would be a desert in a matter of years.

And wood stoves were bad too. Even lately, we are still hearing that message (here for example).

Sat Feb 05 15:42:03 EST 2011

Air pollutants from fireplaces and wood-burning stoves raise health concerns

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5, 2011 — With millions of people warding off winter’s chill with blazing fireplaces and wood-burning stoves, scientists are raising red flags about the potential health effects of the smoke released from burning wood. . . .

And even though Brazil’s issues never turned the world into a giant desert, there was a grain of truth to this chicanery. (Essentially nobody was openly advocating for “deforestation”).

Nuclear energy was vilified as there might be an accident or terrorism. Again true as seen with Chernobyl disaster in the 1980’s (recently with the Fukushima nuclear accident too).

We Can’t Have Wind Energy!!

Wind energy is unsightly (the late “green” liberal Ted Kennedy fought against this) . . .

"Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha’s Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite.” Here) (emphasis mine)

And besides wind farms kill birds!

And who can forget the Ozone layer depletion scares? (Again. A grain of truth).

**Pretty soon you realize the “problem” isn’t “oil” or “deforestation” or “wind farms”, etc. **

The REAL “problem” is . . . . PEOPLE! That’s how the population controllers saw/see it anyways.

Yet the population controllers are wrong.

We see good things happening without Global governance.

We see cleaner air. We see cleaner water (at least in areas that are TRYING to minimize impact on the environment such as the USA has been getting better and better at).

The article cited here in this thread is one implicit testimony to that fact (below).

I think people (with God’s help and grace to be sure) are the “solution” to the problems of the world, not the “problem”.

We should be careful about “alternative energies” to be sure. But we must be vigilant about people in positions of great wealth and power who have a population-control mindset too.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Global fossil-fuel emissions predicted to decline for 2015

December 7, 2015, Stanford University

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels could drop slightly in 2015, according to a report from the Global Carbon Project led by a Stanford University researcher. This surprising result contrasts with the rapid growth in emissions before 2014, underlining the need for action to stabilize and permanently lower global CO2 emissions, the researchers conclude.

“In 2014, global CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels grew by just 0.6 percent,” said lead author Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford. “This year we expect total emissions to flatten or drop slightly, despite strong growth in gross domestic product worldwide.” . . .

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151207113733.htm


#12

I’m not into population control by force or coercion but yes, imo virtually all environmental issues are tied to the size and growth of human populations. It’s hard to calculate but each of represent a certain amount of habitat loss, water pollution, toxic waste, etc. Certain changes and tech have reduced that greatly but meanwhile the number of us has increased. So far the per capita pollution has decreased fast enough to outpace population growth, but only in some ways.

But in an odd way it almost seems like people limit their fertility when simple means exist, especially as population density or income increases. Compare rural vs urban tfr in the US or even the demographic issues of Europe or Japan.

The real population control is improving lifestyles around the world. Tfr drops as income rises.


#13

The last one is the key. When alternative fuels, without government interference, become cost competitive, and equal to fossil fuels in convenience and usability, fossil fuels become obsolete.

As for funding people who do not like us, get government out of the way so American companies can hire American workers to extract fuels from American land. It is government policies that keep us beholden to the sheiks.

Jon


#14

nytimes.com/2015/07/18/business/energy-environment/coal-miners-struggle-to-survive-in-an-industry-battered-by-layoffs-and-bankruptcy.html

Ed


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.