Comments wolfger has made

  • Sorry, my last post was targeted at Tom Laskawy's article under related articles above.On The Copenhagen Conference on food security posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 7 Responses
  • Amazing! On the same day at Grist, this article telling us there's no food problem for the 9 billion of us, if we just change our ways of agriculture and then the Lester Brown article "The Copenhagen Conference on food security" telling us that it's all about the glacial melt water, so important to irrigationl agriculture. Are we to believe a simulation that may not have included our diminishing water resources or are we to believe what we actually are seeing in glacial melting? Optimists vs. pessimists?On Feed the world sustainably by 2050? Yes, we can! posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 5 Responses
  • Amazing! On the same day at Grist, this article telling us there's no food problem for the 9 billion of us, if we just change our ways of agriculture and then the Lester Brown article "The Copenhagen Conference on food security" telling us that it's all about the glacial melt water, so important to irrigationl agriculture. Are we to believe a simulation that may not have included our diminishing water resources or are we to believe what we actually are seeing in glacial melting? Optimists vs. pessimists?On The Copenhagen Conference on food security posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 7 Responses
  • Interesting discussions so far but all limited to large scale generation by traditional methods. I believe that the future is in more local production as is currently being instituted in Germany with residential cogeneration. The latest approach is residential heating with waste heat from small scale in-house generators remotely controlled. Since both the generator's waste heat and the generated electricity are being used, efficiencies in the high 90 percentile are achievable. Natural gas is the primary energy source so far. http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/30/german-company-wants-to-genera http://www.lichtblick.de This approach seems to provide a great "base load" in winter but I don't know about summer when the hot water isn't needed as much. It could be a good transition approach.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 164 Responses
  • All the graphs shown strongly correlate with the very first one. Does anyone think that we would be having most of these problems if the human population were only 1 billion? Rather that dream up another technofix lets do a human numbers fix that works and is much cheaper. When considering supporting efforts to reduce CO2 production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the future number of generators of CO2. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control have been shown to be the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that "The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar, $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles." http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar international organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates very effective radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries. http://www.populationmedia.org/ Let's work the human dimension!On Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures posted 1 month, 1 week ago 33 Responses
  • Ingrid, Umbra, some efforts to stem CO2 creation, call them offsets or whatever are very effective. When considering supporting efforts to reduce CO2 production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the future number of generators of CO2. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control have been shown to be the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that "The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar, $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles." http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates very effective radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries. http://www.populationmedia.org/On Ask Umbra on climate weapons posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses
  • Though I agree with reducing one's own carbon footprint first with money that may otherwise go to carbon offsets, the $ value of the typically suggested offset is usually insufficient for a major carbon footprint reduction effort. When considering supporting efforts to reduce carbon production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the number of consumers of carbon. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control are the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that "The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles." http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries. http://www.populationmedia.org/On Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses
  • Foodprovider's article from Michael Grunwald ends with: "As the world population rises, both of those figures are likely to explode unless agricultural productivity can explode as well. So by all means, we should ask industrial farmers to clean up their act. But first, we might want to beg them to save the planet and feed the world." which again takes an increase in human population to 9+ billion by 2050 as inevitable. It isn't inevitable and reducing the unwanted pregnancies through family planning education and direct birth control aid is the greenest act we can take with the most immediate impact. The human population is a multiplier to all of the environmental problems. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf CONTRACEPTION IS “GREENEST” TECHNOLOGY Family planning cheapest way to combat climate change Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change, according to research published today (Wednesday, September 9). Each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a tonne. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32 (£19). The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics*, concludes that “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions”, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies. It says family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. Meeting basic family planning needs along the lines suggested would save 34 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 between now and 2050 – equivalent to nearly six times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total. Roger Martin, chair of OPT, said the findings vindicated OPT’s stance that population growth must be included in the climate change debate. “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up. The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it’s economically sensible too. “The population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.** This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face – the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis. “All of these would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more. Meanwhile each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone’s share of the planet’s dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries. The taboo on discussing this is no longer defensible.” The study, based on the principle that “fewer people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide”, models the consequences of meeting all “unmet need” for family planning, defined as the number of women who wish to delay or terminate childbearing but who are not using contraception.*** One recent estimate put this figure at 200 million. UN data suggest that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 billion. Between 2010 and 2050 12 billion fewer “people-years” would be lived – 326 billion against 338 billion under current projections. The 34 gigatonnes of CO2 saved in this way would cost $220 billion – roughly $7 a tonne. However, the same CO2 saving would cost over $1trillion if low-carbon technologies were used. The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles. However, the study may understate the CO2 savings available because the estimates of unmet need are based on married women alone, yet some studies suggest up to 40 per cent of young unmarried women have had unwanted pregnancies. Mr Martin added: “The potential for tackling climate change by addressing population growth through better family planning, alongside the conventional approach, is clearly enormous and we shall be urging all those involved in the Copenhagen process to take it fully on board.”On Another Monsanto man in a key USDA post? Obama's ag policy's giving me whiplash posted 2 months ago 20 Responses
  • I was very disappointed in this movie; it didn't even keep me awake for some of it. It was a hyped rehash of much that's already known, imho. It didn't look at the real problem: too many of us for sustainability. And it didn't even enlighten us with the best way to start solving the CO2/development crisis which is family planning education, birth control aid, and the desirability of the two child max family. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/opt.sub.briefing.climate.population.May07.pdfOn Climate doomsday film 'The Age of Stupid' still hopeful, says director in video interview posted 2 months, 1 week ago 9 Responses

  • I am impressed by the many excellent arguments against C&T and for a simpler carbon tax approach. Simplicity does matter if you want buy-in from the affected public. As was already pointed out, the public wants to know where the money is going and they'd like it to go there directly, like Social Security.

    No matter what system we end up with, for energy generation to reflect its true costs, it will end up costing more. If we tax the bad carbon-heavy energy producers, that money is best used to to support efficiency efforts and those most vulnerable to increased energy costs.

    Maybe the first thing we should do is to have fossil fuel prices reflect the true cost of using them for energy production. How about doing away with any remaining special tax treament, depletion allowances, etc. and start charging the oil companies for the military costs for stabilizing and supporting the oil-procuding nations and shipping lanes. Once carbon-based energy is priced to reflect its true cost, carbon-free energy sources will rapidly come on line.

    The twin energy and climate crises are incredibly complex and far-reaching? Not really, it's largely a problem of 6.7 billion and heading toward 10 billion people. It wouldn't be much of a problem with only 1 billion people. Maybe that's where we should be putting our real effort, reducing our population via education and family planning assistance, which really works and quickly. Technology alone cannot solve our energy problem.

    Finally consider that the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (Rockefeller Commission report) in 1972 stated, “After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.”

    On Myth: Climate policy must be simple posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

  • Cap&Trade doesn't work the demand side

    I'm fully supportive of a carbon tax with rebates after we eliminate all current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.  Cap&Trade is the devil's playground and that is why it has so much industry support.  It has too many middle men and will have little transparency, akin to the cause of our financial meltdown.
    If we do end up with cap&trade, carbon offsets should include demand side management.  Consider that around half of all pregnancies around the world are not planned because of lack of education or lack of birth control.  It costs around $40 dollars to prevent an unplanned pregnancy and that can save up to 1000 tons of lifetime CO2 generation.  Multiply that by the 70 million more people on this planet every year and you can see a tremendous CO2 emission saving.On Business/enviro alliance unveils climate plan, attracts critics posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

  • What about human population?

    There may be two so-called population groups on the list of endorsers but when you do a search of the word population in this document you won't find one word about human population numbers and how they might just be unsustainable or how they might just be the problem with all of the threatened species losing habitat. Disappointing but not unexpected. as the mainstream enviro groups are still avoiding the real problem witht he environment

    One would think that they might at least request that President-Elect Obama create a Population Comission and give them the task of recommending a Population Policy for the US, the largest historical carbon dioxide emitter.

    The again, we already had two population commissions which have basically said that there is nothing to be gained by having more people in the US.  Unfortunately, Obama's handlers will see to it that the population problem is not brought forth as an urgent issue needing attention.   Like the financial meltdown and the energy crisis we'll just have to wait until it's too late to do much about overpopulation.  3 million more this year, 3 million more next year, possibly 150 million more by 2050.On Enviro coalition delivers a whopping transition plan to Obamaland posted 12 months ago 11 Responses

  • ripening of bananas

    Commercial bananas are usually ripened at the wholesale distributor in large gas chambers using ethylene gas.
    See http://www.eatmorebananas.com/facts/ripening.htmOn Umbra on organic bananas posted 1 year, 9 months ago 22 Responses

  • Cold in Canada

    CIC, practice the big R - Reuse.  Honor the animals that gave their lives. And if you're concerned about friend's comments, add a homemade label of your own saying something like:

    Fur my Friends:  This coat is made from cage free animals harvested sustainably for life support.On Umbra on (inherited) fur coats posted 1 year, 10 months ago 60 Responses

  • We have met the enemy..

    I certainly agree with the need for solving our climate change related problems at the local level.  Furthermore, each country needs to solve its own climate change related problems with the help of the international community if possisble and without migration (leaving your problems behind and bringing your unsustainable habits to new territory) to other countries unless agreed upon.

    As Pogo said decades ago; " We have met the enemy and he is us".  This message unfortunately is so un-PC nowadays that no environmental organization  wants to admit that maybe our numbers have already become unsustainable and that the expected 50% increase in our human numbers by 2050 will only worsen the problems we already have.  The best investment we can make is in trying to immediately educate everyone as to the need for immediate population stabilization.  

    The infant not born has a zero carbon footprint.On It's too late to stop climate change, argues Ross Gelbspan -- so what do we do now? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 45 Responses

  • As the World learns

    Just finished reading Paul and Anne Ehrlich's book "One with Nineveh".  It covers just about every enviromental issue confronting us with several suggestions about what major changes are needed to prevent civilization's collapse.On Umbra on getting up to speed on enviro issues posted 4 years, 8 months ago 28 Responses