The Philippines disaster

[wizard]

Is this an act of god! If it is gods will should we not just sit back and do nothing

Is it the planet saying there are too many people to support? And maybe we should do nothing and think ourselves lucky it’s not us.

Is it just a national disaster and we should do all we can to help

 

[marcros]

I think no 3 is the only rational option.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Nice to see that a government that is prepared to spend tens of billions of borrowed pounds on a pointless railway line can afford ten million.

 

[Mr_P]

It might not feel like it but we are on of the richest economies on the planet and my ancestors and me are far more to blame than the average Tacloban if it is indeed down to global warming.

Dread to think the difference in my carbon footprint and theirs.

Even if it is a natural disaster, once in a thousand year type event we have a duty to help our fellow human beings.

 

[cedarwood]

Your carbon footprint ha these extracts taken from another forum

What % of CO2 do humans produce?
Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule
0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.

Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.
Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the
Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC)
has never produced any proof.

There is lots more but the fact is your carbon footprint has nothing to do with global warming its a myth put out by goverments to get us to pay more in TAXES

 

[RogerS]

Here we go again.

 

[cedarwood]

Should of also put this in my post, all these disasters are Natural Nature at work, we supposedly have lots more warning these days about whats coming our way weather wise and do what we can to minimize the danger.
In the end after its over WE should ALL do our bit to help those that are in need it.

 

[Jacob]

For cedarwoods benefit:
Nobody ever said CO2 was a "pollutant".
No it isn't harmless - in sufficient quantities in will kill you but that isn't the issue; in quite tiny quantities in the atmosphere it alters the heat balance through the greenhouse effect. If you want evidence for the greenhouse effect you just need to google away - it was known about 200 years ago in the laboratory. The atmospheric effects have been known about for 50 years or so.
Climate change theory says we should expect more severe weather events. That's what we are getting. They forecast a very high probability of more. When sufficient evidence accumulates that will constitute "proof". In the meantime, to ignore it is stupid. Whether or not anything can be done is another question.

 

[wizard]

we send aid to india and they build a rocket to mars
Drop food from planes yes send money and the rich will get richer

 

[cedarwood]

For cedarwoods benefit:
Nobody ever said CO2 was a "pollutant".
No it isn't harmless - in sufficient quantities in will kill you but that isn't the issue; in quite tiny quantities in the atmosphere it alters the heat balance through the greenhouse effect. If you want evidence for the greenhouse effect you just need to google away - it was known about 200 years ago in the laboratory. The atmospheric effects have been known about for 50 years or so.
Climate change theory says we should expect more severe weather events. That's what we are getting. They forecast a very high probability of more. When sufficient evidence accumulates that will constitute "proof". In the meantime, to ignore it is stupid. Whether or not anything can be done is another question.

My point was that the human carbon footprint is minuscule compared to that of nature itself, it may well be the cause the "greenhouse effect" as a gas imbalance in the atmosphere, but some of the governments of this world and the EU in particular are using it as an excuse to tax us more.

 

[Jacob]

For cedarwoods benefit:
Nobody ever said CO2 was a "pollutant".
No it isn't harmless - in sufficient quantities in will kill you but that isn't the issue; in quite tiny quantities in the atmosphere it alters the heat balance through the greenhouse effect. If you want evidence for the greenhouse effect you just need to google away - it was known about 200 years ago in the laboratory. The atmospheric effects have been known about for 50 years or so.
Climate change theory says we should expect more severe weather events. That's what we are getting. They forecast a very high probability of more. When sufficient evidence accumulates that will constitute "proof". In the meantime, to ignore it is stupid. Whether or not anything can be done is another question.

My point was that the human carbon footprint is minuscule compared to that of nature itself, it may well be the cause the "greenhouse effect" as a gas imbalance in the atmosphere, but some of the governments of this world and the EU in particular are using it as an excuse to tax us more.

I think a few Filipinos would say western governments aren't taxing enough or doing enough.

 

[JustBen]

For cedarwoods benefit:
Nobody ever said CO2 was a "pollutant".
No it isn't harmless - in sufficient quantities in will kill you but that isn't the issue; in quite tiny quantities in the atmosphere it alters the heat balance through the greenhouse effect. If you want evidence for the greenhouse effect you just need to google away - it was known about 200 years ago in the laboratory. The atmospheric effects have been known about for 50 years or so.
Climate change theory says we should expect more severe weather events. That's what we are getting. They forecast a very high probability of more. When sufficient evidence accumulates that will constitute "proof". In the meantime, to ignore it is stupid. Whether or not anything can be done is another question.

My point was that the human carbon footprint is minuscule compared to that of nature itself, it may well be the cause the "greenhouse effect" as a gas imbalance in the atmosphere, but some of the governments of this world and the EU in particular are using it as an excuse to tax us more.

I think a few Filipinos would say western governments aren't taxing enough or doing enough.

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

 

[Jacob]

.....
My point was that the human carbon footprint is minuscule compared to that of nature itself, it may well be the cause the "greenhouse effect" as a gas imbalance in the atmosphere, but some of the governments of this world and the EU in particular are using it as an excuse to tax us more.

I think a few Filipinos would say western governments aren't taxing enough or doing enough.

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

It's a global problem. Per capita CO2 production is highest by far in USA with Europe not far behind. The Chinese have some way to go to catch up.

 

[doctor Bob]

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

Thats the attitude, if we are all going to die or become ill due pollution and greenhouse effect we can all be proud it wasn't our fault................................ ohhhhh hang on, didn't we used to create smogs and have massive industrial pollution

 

[Jacob]

Ozzies are worst according to this. Not surprised - it's all those barbies on the beach.

 

[Mr_P]

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

Thats the attitude, if we are all going to die or become ill due pollution and greenhouse effect we can all be proud it wasn't our fault................................ ohhhhh hang on, didn't we used to create smogs and have massive industrial pollution

Yes we solved the problem with the clean air act and shifting manufacturing to the other side of the world.

Len SEVEN from strictly was flogging his book the other day, the good old days in London doors left open, smog so bad you couldn't find your house.

Going a bit off topic here, these people are dead / injured, innocent, homeless, hungry and thirsty.

 

[JustBen]

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

Thats the attitude, if we are all going to die or become ill due pollution and greenhouse effect we can all be proud it wasn't our fault................................ ohhhhh hang on, didn't we used to create smogs and have massive industrial pollution

Taken out of context. The comment was regarding tax.

 

[RogerS]

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

Thats the attitude, if we are all going to die or become ill due pollution and greenhouse effect we can all be proud it wasn't our fault................................ ohhhhh hang on, didn't we used to create smogs and have massive industrial pollution

Taken out of context. The comment was regarding tax.

I cannot see any reference to tax in your original response. Your point was that China were the polluters. Yes..because as has already been said, we have exported our pollution to them as they make all our goods (more or less).

 

[JustBen]

I think a few Filipinos would say western governments aren't taxing enough or doing enough.

IF it is caused by humans, it's more likely the east than the west Particularly china.
It was only a few weeks ago that smog levels were so high, visibility was reduced to about 50ft(might be meters)

 

[markturner]

I think the Chinese are very glad we have exported our pollution to them. It has enabled them to become the worlds pre eminent superpower while our country slowly slides down the pan.........

And while I don't want to be callous, we are obsessed as humans in trying to stop mother natures checks and balances on an massively overpopulated planet like disease and natural disasters - we can't and should not try and stop everyone dying all the time. There are not enough resources on this planet to support us all as it is.

How much are you sending to help Jacob ? You could pretend you were paying 70% tax and send a few months salary if you feel so strongly.......imagine how smug you would feel..........