Welcome to the Green Forums! Please Register For Free Now!


The Green Forums member base includes well over 3,000 green forums members and 9,000 green forums posts! Be green and join our green community by registering for free today! Registration will give you full access to the Green Forums and takes just a moment to complete.
Please Join Us Right Now!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    CQL
    CQL is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default Fight Global Warming - save polar bears

    save polar bears
    Fight Global Warming
    stop the melting of icecaps

    YouTube - Fight Global Warming - Polar Bears

    a PSA from fightglobalwarming.com

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2

    Default

    This video is very touching I will put it on my blog... Thanks for sharing

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    If only we could save the polar bears, everything else would fall into place, right? So then humanity could go right on growing its population and expanding its economy, because the polar bears were saved; and when the next series of tornados rip your house apart, or the big river floods you out, or drought burns away your food crops, etc., remember the polar bears are OK (!)

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9

    Default

    @CQL, @Val, @ Green Home- Eco..Yes a touching video and yes polar bears are really a thing to think for human mankind now. If man start learning from Mother Earth and uses its own renewable energy rather than plush homes and a/c's which increase the heat in the earth and indirectly raises the global warming...

    I have been growing plants in my home and saving the birds by keeping a small pot of water so that they do should not end their lives due to global warming....

  5. #5
    Val
    Val is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Kansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrdthxpr View Post
    If only we could save the polar bears, everything else would fall into place, right? So then humanity could go right on growing its population and expanding its economy, because the polar bears were saved; and when the next series of tornados rip your house apart, or the big river floods you out, or drought burns away your food crops, etc., remember the polar bears are OK (!)
    Yes, we will lose even more species before we can turn around AGW. This, of course, will take a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use within a decade, or will the reported tipping point reached of tundra methane self release be passed and thermageddon causes an 87% extinction "event'. Reducing emissions that much will require a complete moratorium on having kids for 20 years, and an increase in death rate for humans. Inducing the population to crash earlier rather than the mathematical certainty of mid-century, and changing over to completely green lifestyles and habits.
    Business as usual, or insufficient serious action, and the population crashes mid-century, with AGW momentum taking the biosphere well past the tundra, then delayed to ocean methane deposits releasing to complete turnover and the extinction by 2300-3500. Followed by a recovery period similar to that after Eocene Max---200K years and 2 or 3 million years for complete recovery.
    It is a hell of a thing that humanity has gotten to this drastic point when, if measures were started when we first knew back in the mid-1960s-early 1970s, it never would have got to this point.
    http://www.cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm
    http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/?p=276#more-276
    http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...54944866_n.jpg
    "If there is to be any hope of avoiding civilization-threatening climate disruption, the U.S. and other nations must act immediately and aggressively on an unprecedented scale. That means moving to emergency footing. War footing. "Hitler is on the march and our survival is at stake" footing. That simply won't be possible unless a critical mass of people are on board. It's not the kind of thing you can sneak in incrementally."
    Last edited by Val; 12-27-2011 at 11:43 AM. Reason: adding population clock, links, and quote

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    It is a struggle between instinct and intellect. Human beings are animals driven by their blind impulse to grow, kill and devour, today using advanced technology to devour the Earth while plotting to metastasize out into the Cosmic body, and so far, intellect has failed to persuade them to relent.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States,
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrdthxpr View Post
    It is a struggle between instinct and intellect. Human beings are animals driven by their blind impulse to grow, kill and devour, today using advanced technology to devour the Earth while plotting to metastasize out into the Cosmic body, and so far, intellect has failed to persuade them to relent.
    Yea. Just because humans are more advanced than any other species doesn't mean that that is a good thing. Combine humanity's intellect with our selfishness along with our rampant population growth and we're going to destroy our planet long before we're capable of inhabiting another one.

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    So, perhaps the cosmic body will be saved from humanity's global cancer because we self-extinct before we really explore outer space like "Star Trek". They can't launch rockets from a dead planet. I express this idea in a poem at "If Saving the Earth" via Google.

  9. #9
    Val
    Val is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Kansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Val View Post
    Yes, we will lose even more species before we can turn around AGW. This, of course, will take a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use within a decade, or will the reported tipping point reached of tundra methane self release be passed and thermageddon causes an 87% extinction "event'. Reducing emissions that much will require a complete moratorium on having kids for 20 years, and an increase in death rate for humans. Inducing the population to crash earlier rather than the mathematical certainty of mid-century, and changing over to completely green lifestyles and habits.
    Business as usual, or insufficient serious action, and the population crashes mid-century, with AGW momentum taking the biosphere well past the tundra, then delayed to ocean methane deposits releasing to complete turnover and the extinction by 2300-3500. Followed by a recovery period similar to that after Eocene Max---200K years and 2 or 3 million years for complete recovery.
    It is a hell of a thing that humanity has gotten to this drastic point when, if measures were started when we first knew back in the mid-1960s-early 1970s, it never would have got to this point.
    Overpopulation: The Human Population Crisis
    Grain of truth: why everyone cannot be fed | Your Medieval Future
    http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...54944866_n.jpg
    The last is a link to a photo with a quote by Obama. Of course he has not lived up to those words, as politicians are influenced more by big money corruption and lie to the people too often. Positive change promised has not occurred and negative change has. Negative change has been happening for a century after humans went past maximum long term carrying capacity, and has accelerated even faster than the population.
    We may not be able to save all the species, but we must reduce our emissions and our numbers. We must stop those ways which are poisoning our biosphere, and live within the replenishment rates of our vital resources.
    Here is another link on overpopulation;
    http://bravenewworld.in/overpopulati...ources-famine/

  10. #10
    Val
    Val is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Kansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Here is a link to more on global warming and the tundra methane positive feedback loop;
    Permafrost Carbon Network

    and this one;
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...n-1906484.html
    Last edited by Val; 09-04-2012 at 05:35 PM.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    If we are going to save the polar bears, we need ordinary people to take action and live more sustainably. We can't leave it up to politicians and big business. There are organisations out there trying to mobilise people to action, like the DoNation. We have to stay positive and encourage people to do good things

  12. #12
    Val
    Val is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Kansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    the DoActions | The DoNation
    Some good things to do to live green with the omission of the biggest one---reducing the UK's population to sustainable. I have read where they must import 85% of the necessary for health nutrition, fruits. That means 85% of the population is over the long term sustainable. The biggest thing to do then is to have one or none with children and totally stop immigration, and increase the death rate for criminals.
    Unless all of the UK goes to green practices and population reduction policies, not just the few, polar bears will go extinct along with people at thermal max time.

  13. #13
    Val
    Val is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Kansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Overpopulation, Resources & Famine
    December 10, 2011 · by Sufyan bin Uzayr · in Environment, Issues. ·

    "Global overpopulation is a far more important issue than global warming or other matters that now dominate the mainstream news-media. However, the problem of overpopulation contains its own “solution,” at least if we can use such a positive-sounding term to describe something so grim: the decline in global resources, and in particular the decline in fossil fuels, will lead to famine, which will then decrease the population.

    An attempt to avert these problems by means of “rapid population decline,” i.e. a drastic birth-control program, would not make much difference. In the modern world, most energy comes from fossil fuels. If the fossil fuels were not there, the population of seven billion would also not be there. Petroleum is (or will soon be) declining at an average annual rate of between 2% and 6%, perhaps closer to 4% (Campbell, 2009, November 16; Foucher 2009, February 25; Oil Drum, 2010, February 4). Other fossil fuels have similar peaks and similar rates of decline, perhaps contrary to popular belief. Even with the most stringent “zero-child policy,” there would be no way to reduce population growth quickly enough to match the decline in fossil fuels. Even with a birth rate of 0% (an utterly impractical goal anyway), the death rate would still be only about 1% (CIA, 2010) for decades to come. (The death rate would change over time, as the remaining population aged, but not enough to make much of a difference.) The result would be a decline rate in population not large enough to match the decline rate in fossil fuels.

    Overpopulation receives a remarkably small proportion of the press coverage. The reason is that overpopulation is “good for business,” at least from a capitalist perspective. Manufacturers like seeing a large and impoverished population (particularly in the form of illegal immigrants) because it means an endless supply of cheap workers for the sweat shops. Merchandisers like seeing a large population because it means large numbers of buyers. Religious leaders don’t talk about overpopulation because the issue touches on the taboo of birth control. Political leaders with a primitive, tribal mentality don’t like to talk about overpopulation because they believe that the only way to increase the power of their own tribe is to use breeding as a means to push other tribes off the land. In the industrial world, politicians don’t touch the subject because it means losing votes (Kolankiewicz & Beck, 2001, April). The average middle-class member of the industrialized world doesn’t think about overpopulation because the issue doesn’t come up when he stretches out sleepily on the couch, grabs the remote-control, and switches on the evening news.

    Resource decline is also a forbidden topic. As with overpopulation, the reasons are many, but perhaps most significant is the almost-superstitious belief that any company (e.g., in the petroleum business) that openly admits that it is running out of product (e.g., petroleum) is regarded as a bad risk for investors — “almost superstitious” because, from a global perspective, if a product is globally declining, then it is actually globally increasing in financial value per unit (Simmons, 2006). Nor does the socialist goal of “spreading the wealth” do much good: spreading already-diminished resources among 7 billion people means only universal poverty rather than localized poverty. Spreading already-diminished resources among 8 or 9 or 10 billion people obviously presents an even less workable solution.

    The final reality is famine. As cheerless as it may be, the solution to overpopulation is exactly that: famine. We can talk around the issue all we like, but there is no other reality unless we can change the rules of mathematics. If, as seems likely, the world’s annual oil supply will drop from 30 billion at present to about 2 billion by 2050, then the world’s population must drop proportionately (unless we continue to believe in the various “miracles” of “alternative energy”). Simple arithmetic tells us that this means a total of about 2.5 billion famine deaths, and perhaps a similar number in lost or averted births."

  14. #14
    Val
    Val is offline
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Kansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Here is another similar one from the yourmedievalfuture link above;
    Grain of truth: why everyone cannot be fed
    Posted on July 1, 2011 by Norman

    “A hungry world is a dangerous world. Without food, people have only three options: they riot, they emigrate or they die.” Josette Sheeran, World Food Programme
    1 July 2011
    Jo Smit and Norman Pagett write:
    We owe our lives to technology that uses 10 calories of energy in the process of growing food to produce a single calorie of energy in the food we eat.
    On average, we need to consume about 2500 calories a day, so each of us has to find 10 times that amount of energy in order to stay alive. Our existence rests on that fundamental equation. Looked at in cold print, this might seem irrelevant to our day-to-day lives but it means that global agricultural production and food supply systems are consuming 10 times more energy than they deliver as food. In case you still haven’t got the point, let’s put that more brutally: 9 out of 10 people exist only because fossil fuel energy made it possible.
    The numbers speak for themselves. The world kept itself in population balance until we started using fossil fuels, then the population exploded and we became a plague species in global terms.

    Few of us ever stop to consider the embodied energy in what we eat. Why would we? Calories have become purely the currency of dietary fads, something to be limited in our constant battle with obesity. We have been well fed for so long that we imagine that supermarket shelves will always be amply stocked to support our affluent comfort. Until now, in the developed world at least, the food production, distribution and supply infrastructure has been able to obtain all the energy it needs, and in ever increasing amounts.
    We are far more prosperous than the third world countries that are constantly being brought to the brink of food deprivation or outright starvation. Yet we are only marginally safer. We have a blind faith in our supply systems and expect our foodstores to have everything we might want to buy available fresh every day. Remove our collective expectation of seven-day-a-week food supplies and supermarkets would be stripped bare within hours.
    Our food supply is extremely precarious; it takes very little disturbance to disrupt it severely. During an oil delivery tanker drivers’ strike in the UK in 2001, the government was given the stark warning by a consortium of major retailers that the food chain delivery system carried only three days’ supply. This information was not released to the public at the time. The fuel supply emergency lasted only a week, but if it had gone on for longer rapidly emptying supermarket shelves would have provided the impetus for food hoarding and panic. This is what happens when there is a temporary break in just one link in the energy chain that supports our highly complex food supply system.
    As fossil fuel energy declines, renewable sources will not be able to maintain our complex, energy-intensive food systems in their present form. As a result, we will not be able to feed our present numbers. Our food production level will return to roughly what it was 500 years ago, when one calorie had to be put in as manual labour or animal manure to produce one calorie to eat. By that reckoning, our food supply system will only support one tenth of us. In stark terms, around six billion people don’t have much of a future.

  15. #15
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    I know you're right, but I hope it's not as bad as that. What about community gardens in every neighborhood? I was hoping the human population could be reduced peacefully with family planning education. Yet, considering the adamant attitude of the fossil fuel industry and everyone's dependence on it, there may well be a food crisis in the next several years. The USA is now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, so there is also a financial aspect.

Green Forums Thread Information for Fight Global Warming - save polar bears

Users Browsing this ThreadFight Global Warming - save polar bears

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Green Forums Threads

  1. State of Alaska to sue over polar bears (AP)
    By Cass in forum Green News | Global Warming Articles | Pollution | Recycling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 01:24 PM
  2. Companies fight to keep global warming data secret (AP)
    By Cass in forum Green News | Global Warming Articles | Pollution | Recycling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 01:30 AM
  3. Oceans are new front in fight against global warming: UN (AFP)
    By Cass in forum Green News | Global Warming Articles | Pollution | Recycling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2010, 09:23 AM

Members who have read Fight Global Warming - save polar bears

There are no members to list at the moment.

Green Forums Posting Rules for Fight Global Warming - save polar bears

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Fight Global Warming - save polar bears

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1