That's a 33% increase.

Along with deforestation. Within 100 years all tropical forests on the planet will be gone through human activity. Never to return.

That means a lot of sequestering gone ... a massive knock to the water going into the  atmosphere ... our ability to breath oxygen, gone.


The denialist arguing over percentages are also opposing global action on stopping the destruction of the planet's rain forests, and so closing our small window of avoiding extinction within decades.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:




Stoichiometry

____ wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 9:33pm:


Because everyone on the planet is a fricken idiot who wants to cut down all the trees on the planet. Everyone, except GreensWin and his friends. Because when there are no more trees on the planet, the nice people are just going to look around for more until they are exhausted from searching, and a lack of oxygen.

Are you really not giving people any credibility, here?

On a global scale, this increase represent a very high gross artificial release of CO2 into the atmosphere.   Which we know are intricately related to all carbon based life forms, as well as the weather.   This rate of increase is higher than previous recorded natural variation.   Now, in addition to CO2 been released, our current forms of energy production also produce other dangerous substances as well.   

With worlds's population on the increase, and the decrease in biodiversity, the loss of land / environmental damage just to extract stored carbon, plus the decreased availability of carbon energy.  It does NOT take a rocket scientist to realize that in order for human civilization to flourish, we need to find alternate means of energy production - namely renewable sources.

One do not have to listen to scientist to get a feel that change to our way of life is required.  Governments of the world are preparing for rising of sea levels, and challenges associated with predicted more extremes of weather.    Alot of multinational companies - like APPLE, are setting up their infrastructures to meet the challenges.  In 2015, Apple claimed that all of its US operations are run by renewable sources, as with 87% of its global operations. 

And even the large oil companies are changing.   On 01 June 2015, and I quote:

Major oil and gas companies, BG Group plc, BP plc, Eni S.p.A., Royal Dutch Shell plc, Statoil ASA and Total SA, today announced their call to governments around the world and to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to introduce carbon pricing systems and create clear, stable, ambitious policy frameworks that could eventually connect national systems. These would reduce uncertainty and encourage the most cost effective ways of reducing carbon emissions widely.

With this unprecedented joint initiative, the companies recognize both the importance of the climate challenge and the importance of energy to human life and well-being. They acknowledge the current trend of greenhouse gas emissions is in excess of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is needed to limit global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Centigrade, and say they are ready to contribute solutions.

So, even if you dont believe in the scientist, perhaps believe in the most successful companies in the world, on what they are doing, and preparing.   And if you still think that this is a hoax, and decided not to contribute to the overall well being of the human race, then well... no one can help you. 

Swagman wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:51pm:



That would mean radioactive waste is acceptable to you. That's just repeating the folly of fossil fuel only knowing the consequences at the beginning.

Swagman wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:51pm:


I am always a little sceptical about nuclear fission as energy source.  Mainly because of safety issues.   Safety tissues regarding the containment of the radioactive by products, the security issue of radioactive by products, and also the storage of the by products which can last thousands of years - which could well become a health hazard for our future generation <--- basically, the radioactive materials last alot longer than anything we have build so far - even the great pyramids.  SO at sometimes, someone,  need to move it from the existing facility to another.  Which can be a logistical nightmare..... 

There may be a role in fusion reactors.  The waste products remains dangerous for about 50 to 100 years.   So this could be a solution, but we have not perfected the technology yet = e.g. trouble containing and stabilizing an extremely hot core with electromagnetism.

So until then, we need to both change the way in which we live, increase energy efficiency, and improve other existing renewable technologies.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 10:27pm:

Tonys figures for replanting trees are a complete joke: are you sure you want to go over them?