Pag-init ng daigdig: Pagkakaiba sa mga binago
Content deleted Content added
m +interwiki, kaurian |
|||
Linya 114:
Ayon sa Association of British Insurers, ang pag-iwas sa pagpapaimbulog ng karbon sa himpapawid ay makakaiiwas ng 80% ng tinatayang dagdag na gastosin mula sa mga bagyo hanggang mga taong 2080. Ayon kay Choi at Fisher (2003) ang bawat pagtaas ng 1% sa taunang ulan ay magpapalaki sa halaga ng katastrope ng halos 2.8%.
Ipinalabas kamakailan ng United Nations' Environmental Program na ang mga grabeng panahon sa mundo ay nag-ulat na ang 2005 ang pinakamagastos na taon sa kasaysayan [36] kahit na walang paraan upang patunayan na [ang isang bagyo] ay sanhi o di sanhi ng pag-init ng mundo [36]. Unang taya na ipinakita ng pundasyong Aleman sa segurong Munich Re ay nagpapakita na mahigit 200 bilyong dolyar na ang talo ng mga nakaseguro na halos 70 bilyong dolyar. Ultimately however, as the fundamental root of "Global Warming" distills down to excessive numbers of global populations holding a sense of entitlement to consume more energy than is sustainable by any non "carbon dumping" technologies, the ONLY solution is curtailment of that unrealistic mindset. This can be accomplished by two means: The first is a global totalitarian regime that assumes control of all economies, and production nodes of fossil fuel resources and strictly limits the output to the bare minimum necessary to maintain critical infrastructures necessary to sustain societies on the most basic levels. This would require extreme adjustments of demographics, as nodes of worker productions must be within walking distances from the worker's homes in order that transportation expenses are minimized, and that populations are removed to climates where domestic heating requirements are no longer an issue, and thus eliminate the "carbon dumping" values associated with such. Also required is mandatory curtailment of current consumption levels of electrical loads. This is best accomplished by adjusting duty cycles of various consumption zones so that basic domestic household refrigeration of foodstuffs can be maintained in developed societies. A 1 hour on 3 hour off cycle of electrical access should be sufficient, provided the electrical loads are not allowed to exceed that minimum necessary for the operation of the refrigerant compressors and then a minimal extra allotment to operate a basic small television for communication requirements, as well as a minimal allotment for lighting. As anyone can observe, such radical curtailments will result in disgruntled and resentful populations. Revolts and uprisings are to be expected, resulting in breakdown of social order until such time as all non-compliant members of societies are subdued by imprisonment or otherwise elimiminated. This is a dark and onerous paradigm. However, it is less so than the only other viable solution now to be discussed. As ultimately, excessive populations demanding consumption are the problem, the ultimate solution is excessive population elimination. Even if a global totalitarian regime were able to implement "Draconian measures" so that no further population increases were allowed, the natural attrition rate will still take decades before natural "die off" has reached a level of sustainability tolerable to environmental homeostasis, being at least a 90% reduction in current levels of "carbon dumping/loading"to the atmosphere and aquasphere. Therefore as "time is of the essence" on the issue of global warming, the best solution is the immediate elimination of those excessive populations insistent on entitlements aforementioned. Ideally, if human nature were dominately altruistic, this would be realized by the vast majority of populations "self eliminating" voluntarily. However this is not likely to occur as the genetic disposition of humanity favors self preservation. Therefore an artificial means of effective population reduction would need to be implemented. Either by natural means allowed to run their course without interventions, or by contrived means. About the only natural means with remote possibility of occurring would be a global plague of some sort. Should such a plague appear, rather than attempts to curtail it's effects, it should more honestly be viewed as a natural balancing process manifesting in response to excessive global populations. However, again, "time is of the essence" regarding global warming. It being estimated that the current levels of "carbon dumping" need to be reduced by 90% within the next decade to have a 50% probability of not reaching a critical "tipping point" where environmental homeostasis can be maintained conducive to higher order life.(citations existant but needing location) Short of the previously mentioned "global totalitarian regime" scenario, the ONLY OTHER alternative is excessive population elimination. While wars are one means to such an end, wars are also extremely destructive upon infrastructural improvements as well. Further, wars can quickly escalate to states of total societal breakdowns, anarchy and chaos. And the threat is very real that any future global war will likely result in significant discharge of nuclear weapons, resulting in permanent environmental impacts. Therefore necessary population reductions are best achieved by either chemical or biological mechanism. Both of these allowing critical infrastructures to be maintained. The most likely way to implement such programs would be a closure of international borders, where no aircraft, shipping, vehicular or other means of entry are allowed and then whichever combination of agents are to be used are released upon those populations excluded from the mandated "safe zone". The "safe zone" having enough remnant population to be able to recolonize and operate infrastructures still remaining after the global population reduction event. By closing the borders, (most effective on a continental mass minimally subject to terrestrial migrqations) the excluded populations quickly succumb to the reduction mechanisms. Natural biological decomposition ensues, and after a period of approximately 2 years, clean up crews are dispatched from the safe zone to systematically begin the decontamination, clean-up, and reactivation processes. The net effect being a reduction of global populations to the desired 500 million level within a period of two years from the time of implementation. It is unlikely that such programs are not being considered by those governments taking a realistic look at the global warming dilemma, so it is therefore a matter of which goverment with the means will first implement such programs so that it's form of society ends up to prevail. While these forecasts will not be popular, unfortunately due to global overpopulation being the fundamental cause of global warming, the above are the only solutions that are possible.
==Produksyon ng biomass==
| |||