Human Health Dependent on Breaking our Addiction to Fossil Fuels

[Crick]

A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.

Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists

Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises

www.theguardian.com

 

[fncceo]

I'm not sure how freezing in the dark is conducive to promoting human health but, hey! If almost 100 experts say it's true, it must be.

 

[Oddball]

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What hogwash.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.

Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists

Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises

www.theguardian.com

The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease.

There would be less death, hunger and disease if we outlawed fossil fuels today.

 

[JGalt]

The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease.

There would be less death, hunger and disease if we outlawed fossil fuels today.

And there would be less greenhouse gases like CO2, if the entire left would just stop breathing.

 

[Crick]

And there would be less greenhouse gases like CO2, if the entire left would just stop breathing.

The right has been found to have a far higher gas content. But I will add this to my long list of AGW denier's death wishes. And, just FYI, the decomposition of the bodies of a majority of Americans (the ones you want to die) would produce enormous amounts of CO2.

 

[Rigby5]

A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.

Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists

Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises

www.theguardian.com

Wrong.
The normal carbon cycle is much larger than what humans use and create.
The only problem is that about 20% of what we create, is not absorbed by the natural cycle processes, so accumulated.
It still took over 100 years for that small amount to accumulate to the point that it is effecting climate.
But the POINT is we do NOT have to completely stop using fossil fuels.
All we have to do is reduce production of greenhouse gases by about 30%, and that is easily done just by switching to smaller vehicles with smaller engines.
And the problem in the US is the EPA.
They check emissions with Parts Per Million.
Which means that a 12 mpg, 2 ton SUV will have lower PPM number than a 50 mpg, half ton economy car.
That is because small and efficient engines will always have higher PPM, even though they produce a tenth the total emissions.
We just have to stop the EPA from using PPM, and to instead calculate total emissions be hour, at highway speeds.

 

[gipper]

A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.

Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists

Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises

www.theguardian.com

There is no such thing as fossil fuels.

 

[Rigby5]

The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease.

There would be less death, hunger and disease if we outlawed fossil fuels today.

Wrong.
If we outlawed fossil fuel today, there would be massive starvation, disease would decimate the population, production would drop to almost zero, and the human species would likely go extinct completely.

 

[Rigby5]

The right has been found to have a far higher gas content. But I will add this to my long list of AGW denier's death wishes. And, just FYI, the decomposition of the bodies of a majority of Americans (the ones you want to die) would produce enormous amounts of CO2.

Not nearly as much as SUV exhaust produces.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no such thing as fossil fuels.

Sure there is.
Carbon has a number of sources that cause it to keep increasing.
What holds it steady is that plants keep absorbing carbon, die, and get buried before they can fully decompose.
This sequestration of old carbon we then call fossil fuel, and we dig it up and burn it after it has fermented for 100 million years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
If we outlawed fossil fuel today, there would be massive starvation, disease would decimate the population, production would drop to almost zero, and the human species would likely go extinct completely.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

Libs are idiots. They worry about a few deaths from slight warming in 100 years, they
don't understand there would be billions dead, in a month, without fossil fuels.

 

[Crick]

Wrong.

What is wrong? The headline?

The normal carbon cycle is much larger than what humans use and create.

Humans are not creating carbon, they are removing it from geological sequestration and releasing it into the atmosphere. Your subjective comment: "is much larger" is meaningless without a great deal more context. Human combustion of fossil fuels have produced a 50% increase in CO2, a major factor in the total greenhouse effect warming this planet. CO2, by itself, is responsible for 1.0 centigrade degree of the 1.1 centigrade degree warming (ie 91%) since 1850

The only problem is that about 20% of what we create, is not absorbed by the natural cycle processes, so accumulated.

The term "so accumulated" you've tacked on here doesn't seem to have any relevance to the rest of the comment. However, the majority of the CO2 humans have released is absorbed by the oceans but that most definitely has consequences. The ocean is being acidified by it, which is interfering with a host of biochemical processes critical to the health and reproduction of numerous marine species, particularly the fixation of calcium chloride by molluscidae and all organisms relying on exoskeletal structures. Secondly, the oceans are being warmed directly (by IR) and indirectly (by convection) by the same greenhouse process which is reducing its carbonate solubility and increasing the CO2 that the oceans are releasing back to the atmosphere.

It still took over 100 years for that small amount to accumulate to the point that it is effecting(sic) climate.

I'm glad to see you agree it is affecting the climate. But your characterization here - if I'm not giving you too much credit - is disingenuous. 36.3 billion tons of CO2 were released to the atmosphere by the human combustion of fossil fuels last year. In 1920, roughly 100 years ago, that amount was 3.51 billion tons, 9.7% as much. GHG emissions has most assuredly not been constant over those 100 years.

But the POINT is we do NOT have to completely stop using fossil fuels.

We don't even have to stop increasing the amount we burn every year. But there will be consequences.

All we have to do is reduce production of greenhouse gases by about 30%, and that is easily done just by switching to smaller vehicles with smaller engines.

We HAVE been switching to smaller cars with smaller engines and the fuel efficiency of the average car has been dramatically increased. But there is already too much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Even if human CO2 production were COMPLETELY STOPPED right now, warming would continue for several years and would require centuries to cool down to pre-industrial levels. Sea levels would continue to rise because current temperatures are causing ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica.

And the problem in the US is the EPA.

No, it's not.

They check emissions with Parts Per Million.

The EPA's rules to limit the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases use MILEAGE requirements, not concentration levels. The latest rule will require passenger vehicles to get 55 mpg by 2026. The Clean Air Act of 1970, its several updates restricted the emission of common pollutants: nitrous oxides, particulates and hydrocarbons. It is not physically possible to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by the combustion of a given amount of gasoline and thus CO2 production is restricted through fuel efficiency requirements. Exhaust components are displayed on required "Fuel Economy Labels" which separately inform the consumer of a new vehicle's "GHG Rating" and "Smog Rating". CO2 makes up 99% of a gasoline-powered vehicle's GHG emissions, the rest being from methane (CH4). The Smog Rating is determined by levels of nitrous oxide, particulates, non-methane organic gases, non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde.

Which means that a 12 mpg, 2 ton SUV will have lower PPM number than a 50 mpg, half ton economy car.

There is no reason for this to be true. The same efficiency and mitigation measures, scaled for differing engine displacements, are available for different vehicles. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning here.

That is because small and efficient engines will always have higher PPM, even though they produce a tenth the total emissions.

And why would that be? There is nothing intrinsically efficient or intrinsically less polluting about small engines.

We just have to stop the EPA from using PPM, and to instead calculate total emissions be hour, at highway speeds.

The total emissions will certainly be higher in a larger vehicle with a larger engine. However, the larger vehicle has a higher passenger and cargo capacity. You may have seen a video that made the rounds several years back comparing the pollution consequences of transporting 40 school children in a poorly-tuned diesel-powered bus versus taking them all in a single, fuel-efficient VW Beetle (this WAS a few years back). The bus put significantly less pollutants (and GHGs) into the air than did the many separate trips the Beetle required. Now I fully agree that the common case of a single person riding to work in a Ford Expedition or Chevy Suburban versus four Gen-Xers crammed into a sub-compact hybrid or even riding their bicycles to the office is something to think about. But the American public would very likely find that restricting total emissions PER ACTUAL PASSENGER MILE, which is what would be required, far too intrusive. Better to allow social and indirect economic pressures move things towards the needed goal: the complete end of fossil fuel use.

 

[Crick]

There is no such thing as fossil fuels.

Nor a meaningful response to that claim.

 

[ReinyDays]

The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease.

There would be less death, hunger and disease if we outlawed fossil fuels today.

We have double the population these past 50 years ... according The Liar's logic, we should see double these tragic deaths ... ha ha ... truth is we see SUBSTANTIALLY less than double ...

Burning fossil fuels here in the United States ended hunger ... and burning fossil fuels will end hunger throughout the world ... and it has been ...

I got some information from one of those "send money" websites promoting feeding the poor ... strange that their "facts" line up perfectly with my claim above ... "This most recent [Global Hunger Index] estimates that as many as 828 Million people, in the 134 poorest countries in the world, will not have enough food to eat this coming year due to Conflict, Climate Change and the Covid-19 Pandemic." {Cite} ... 828 million is half the world's population in the 1870's ... only 10% today ...

Lying with statistics ...

 

[Crick]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

Libs are idiots. They worry about a few deaths from slight warming in 100 years, they
don't understand there would be billions dead, in a month, without fossil fuels.

How many have died so far from the increased fuel economy of our vehicle fleet and the introduction of significant amounts of alternative energy sources to our energy infrastructure?

 

[Crick]

We have double the population these past 50 years ... according The Liar's logic, we should see double these tragic deaths ... ha ha ... truth is we see SUBSTANTIALLY less than double ...

How about a link to support that claim?

Burning fossil fuels here in the United States ended hunger ... and burning fossil fuels will end hunger throughout the world ... and it has been ...

What US hunger was relieved by fossil fuels? And a claim that fossil fuels "will end hunger throughout the world" is sadly laughable.

I got some information from one of those "send money" websites promoting feeding the poor ... strange that their "facts" line up perfectly with my claim above ... "This most recent [Global Hunger Index] estimates that as many as 828 Million people, in the 134 poorest countries in the world, will not have enough food to eat this coming year due to Conflict, Climate Change and the Covid-19 Pandemic." {Cite} ... 828 million is half the world's population in the 1870's ... only 10% today ...

I'll give you the rest of your edit window to think about what you've just said here before I comment.

Lying with statistics ...

Well, someone here is attempting to do so, but...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.

Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists

Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises

www.theguardian.com

^ posted from a computer made with "fossil fuels" transmitted across the world using electricity generated by burning "fossil fuels". Best way to save the planet? Stop posting Dire, hysterical WE HAVE TO SAVE THE PLANET BY CUTTING CO2!! posts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How about a link to support that claim?

What US hunger was relieved by fossil fuels? And a claim that fossil fuels "will end hunger throughout the world" is sadly laughable.

I'll give you the rest of your edit window to think about what you've just said here.

Well, someone here is attempting to do so, but...

Ever hear of Diesel powered farm equipment?

Stop posting! Save the Planet!