hi...just read this....get out ya speedo's!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/s...sts-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0#climate
bring it on I could do with a shorter walk to the beach.....
hi...just read this....get out ya speedo's!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/s...sts-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0#climate
Increased carbon dioxide in atmosphere means...possibly increase of shellfish in oceans, see the chalk formations, another regulating mechanism.
Trying my best not to get too involved in this conversation, but the opposite of this is actually true.
Google ocean acidification. Increased CO2 actually results in decreases in many/most shellfish, and results in huge changes in ecosystems, especially coupled with global warming.......
......Food importation isn't actually as bad as it could be, it's the method of importation that is the issue. Flying green beans from Egypt to the UK is obscenely bad for the environment. Shipping a ship full of grain from Canada less of an issue. Especially as we can quite happily do this by sailing ship.....
.....How long can we as a population reserve judgement for? It's no good standing on the edge of the desert with an empty water bottle, covered in sun burn and say "Oh, the scientists were right".
The problem here is not a case of "hey the scientists may be wrong", it's "what if they are right?"....
I believe I remember a recent thread stating the current UK population is a bit over 70,000. You're going to import enough grain to feed that many people on sailing ships?
.
Can't find it at the moment - usual silliness by lobbies on both sides come up on Google. The study I recall reading was good and unbiased (e.g. most pro cycle groups compare a bike with a car - ignoring the multiple occupancy possibility of a car). The study I read looked at things like food miles, energy expended and CO2 created in food growth (tractor diesel etc.) rather than just the CO2 produced by the cyclist exhaling. The point was made - with I think a measure of veracity - that its not about the CO2 produced by breathing but rather that made up in the "fuel" and a cyclists fuel is food.
I read the study. It was badly conducted twaddle, since it assumed that the entire calorie intake of the cyclist (for the day) was required to give them the extra energy for the cycling. Didn't take into account the calories used by the driver while driving.
.
So some of us believe it's pointless to lower our impact on the planet? You're probably the ones that go out into the woods and leave the mess that we see, after all, there's no point in "treading softly" or "leaving no trace" because either it will stay as it is (messy) or someone else will clear it up. As long as you're not inconvenienced, that's the main thing. If you're not willing to do what you can, no matter how small, to care for the planet, then you clearly won't be concerned for your immediate environment.
No, not you or anyone particularly, your cartoon made me laugh, and I'm sure everyone on here does strive to 'leave no trace' when they're out. I was trying to point out, probably unclearly, the dichotomy that would seem to exist in the two viewpoints of "no point in doing anything" and "leave no trace". I probably sounded harsher than I meant to, so I apologise to all for any offence.