EnviroLink Forum

Best Environmental Candidate?
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Johhny Electriglide wrote:
It is a bummer that so much fraud has gone on. Looking at the graph showing Arctic sea ice collapse, the tipping point of methane turnover, was 1980, and 40years for CO2 momentum puts zero global emissions should have been 1940 and population control globally should have started in 1880. So, who are you going to blame? When it was known, Nixon addressed the democratic congress, who with Carter chickened out on doing anything to lower the polluting US overpopulation, and leading the world back in 1969. Then Earth Day One and on with no rapid population reduction strategy and too late to stop methane runaway by easier methods than the present aerosol event 20% larger than Toba and its dismal 1% survival rate, 11 year global winter with caveats. Still, that is within the dormancy ability and actually much better than an extinction event worse than the Permian.

Who has the balls to do a Toba event with important caveats? Who has real knowledge and understanding of the East Siberian Arctic Slope methane clathrate deposits? Latent heat, solar thermal gain, open ocean effect with allowing for winter heat loss means clathrate ice cage failure and sudden release of methane 164 times in volume at 50 meters deep, 2023, in effect initiating a runaway process as irreversible, once started, as the firing of a gun. Who has 1250MGTs of H Bombs and the dedication to the species of Earth to use them to lift to the stratosphere 1,000 cubic miles of aerosols and restore the biosphere while the ESAS is kept refrozen?

Author:  Snowy123 [ Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Bob-a-rama wrote:
I'm an older guy, but I lean with the more progressives like Bernie, AOC and the like. I guess I never stopped being a hippie. The media didn't turn me into the 'me generation'.

I've seen well over 90% of the wildlife disappear from the Everglades. In ponds where there used to be thousands of wading birds, I can now count fewer than 10.

The lagoon where the fish used to almost jump in your boat is all but dead now. I don't fish it any more, but when my neighbor actually catches one, which is rare, it has tumors on it and it gets thrown back in the water.

We need the new green deal, but of course, corporate profits are at stake so there is a lot of propaganda disguised as news out there.

Capitalism has failed us. I don't know how to fix it, communism wasn't the answer, but capitalism depends on infinite growth, and we can't have infinite growth in a closed system.

Humans are like an algae bloom, but in slow motion, and we are killing our host 'pond', the Earth, and there is no where to go when we kill this one.


Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement yesterday is a good start, at the same time more than just the Paris Agreement has to be done to avert some of the more significant impacts from climate change down the road. And Biden does have more in mind than just rejoining the Paris Agreement. Biden's plan is pretty good overall when it comes to climate, but it is still shy of the Green New Deal.

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Snowy123 wrote:
Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement yesterday is a good start, at the same time more than just the Paris Agreement has to be done to avert some of the more significant impacts from climate change down the road. And Biden does have more in mind than just rejoining the Paris Agreement. Biden's plan is pretty good overall when it comes to climate, but it is still shy of the Green New Deal.

I agree. It's a great improvement over the environmental record of the previous administration, though not as much as many of us have wished for.

Still, IMHO it's a giant step in the right direction.


Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Approving 31 new oil drilling projects, and allowing in millions more people in an already overpopulated US is no way to reduce emissions. Another corporate bought environmental phony.

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

True, but the lesser of the two evils that were put before us.

I used to vote 3rd party if I didn't like either, but I realized it's more important to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

It turns out the lesser of evils was trump. At least he would have kept legal and illegal immigration a lot lower. No one has the courage to face the elephant in the room of overpopulation and the methane monster it has awoken. We need to close the borders, stop all immigration and institute permit-only to have kids, with illegal children and their entire families eradicated from the gene pool. It is very unfortunate that emissions should have stopped circa 1950. When the methane blows in a few years, it will be a world destroyers with 100 million year recovery period. IMHO.

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

I respectfully disagree.

Getting rid of controls on pollution, raping the national parks, etc., is a lot worse than population that is moving from one place to another.

Trump added more pollution, immigration doesn't add people, it just moves them from one place to another.

And I read that the so-called conservative media has overblown the population problem anyway.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sat Mar 27, 2021 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

1966 Martin Luther King Jr, clergyman and activist (1929-1968)

“Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.”

Isaac Asimov, author (1920-1992)

“…democracy can not survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.”

“Which is the greater danger — nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to do something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values-there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally — and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing.”

Jacques Cousteau, ocean explorer and conservationist (1910-1997)

“We must alert and organise the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises — exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.”

Adrian Hayes, polar explorer and adventurer, Population Matters Patron (born 1957)
“I’ve seen melting ice caps with my own eyes and got very wet in the process, but it is pointless campaigning against climate change or to ‘save the Arctic’ without addressing the root cause behind it and virtually every other environmental issue we face: our unsustainable numbers on this planet. That is the real ‘inconvenient truth’.”

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Which is why the world needs a one-child policy. But it will never-ever happen.

Corporations need never-ending increasing profits, and that won't happen without never-ending increasing population. And since large corporations control the media, there is zero hope.

We are on the road to extinction. We might even be past the point where we can be saved at the last minute by some unforeseen discovery.


Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Even zero people born will not stop it, and zero emissions were needed 1950 at the latest, to prevent Arctic Sea ice collapse, 1980. It was bad enough in advanced biology to have a stimulated mammalian population crash by 2050, in my 1967 work, but very advanced geology held the horror story, and my instrument flying ability helped to combine the data sources. I walked the talk, built the solar Earthship all trades and professions last century, one child only. It never helped, all the leading, all the writing, all the Earth Day booth operations, nothing has changed, except the awful geologic uplift since the Eemian of 700m deep massive methane clathrate deposits to only 50 m deep. Of course, you have to understand the methane clathrate at that depth is similar to the silver fulminate I made as a smart kid with his own laboratory in the basement. Or read Clive Cussler's "Fire Ice".

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best Environmental Candidate?

Humankind is doomed. All we can do is try our best to slow our demise.

And as long as we have a corporate based economy, which only thrives on perpetual growth and expansion, that isn't going to happen.

I'm glad I was born in the 1940s. I probably won't see the most severe hardships before the end.

I do my best for my own conscience, knowing what I am doing doesn't amount to much, but I wouldn't feel right criticizing others if I wasn't doing my best.

  • We don't use the Air Conditioner but open the windows
  • We have a bright white roof to reflect the heat back out of the atmosphere
  • We hang laundry outdoors instead of using an energy eating clothes dryer
  • We don't have a lawn.
  • I have a xeriscape half acre in which I planted native vegetation, including a canopy of 30 trees - it survives only on what mother nature provides
  • The minimal yard work needed is done with hand tools, no charger sipping energy all year
  • Our total trash for the week would fit in one of those little grocery store t-shirt bags
  • We don't eat ultra-processed foods and shop locally whenever possible
  • I have the most fuel efficient vehicle I need for my profession, and they way I drive it, I get over 100 extra miles per tankful
  • I drive my vehicle until it is no longer reliable, usually over 200k miles
  • We don't decorate the outdoors with light, use LED bulbs indoors and out
  • We shun fashion, buy sturdy, classic clothes and wear them until they are worn out, then they become cleaning rags
  • We don't use perfumes and other unnecessary artificial scents
  • We consume as little as possible, pre-cycle and recycle
  • I had 2 kids in the 1960s and got fixed. Today I wouldn't have any.

This will only delay the end if millions of people join me.

Looking across the street the house is never opened (constant AC), many, bright lights outdoors are on all night lighting the entire house and yard, huge pickup trucks for the family car that never have more than a bag of groceries in the 2 ton bed, a sprinkler system goes on every other day, 2 huge bins of trash twice a week and spillover most of the time, one small tree left on the lot, all bushes have been removed. They believe the propaganda that 'there ain't no global warming'.

Oh well, it'll take a lot of folks like us to make a difference. And we won't be able to stop it.

But I'll live my life content to know I did what I could.

Back on topic, I'm happy to see Biden undoing much of the damage his predecessor initiated on the environment. I'd rather see more, but I don't think the majority of the people who finance political campaigns would support more, and without campaign tacit bribe money, nobody gets elected.


Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group