|
|
 15 Nov 2009 @ 22:28
Regarding the ensuing Copenhagen Meeting and Treaty on Climate Change
Nov 15 2009
Earth
Sunday
Okay lets simply what the problem is
the collective global car weve built is the size of the Country of Denmark with an exhaust pipe circumference of an area of 7 sq miles and runs a minimum of 12 hours a day 365 days a year and has increasingly been running for the last 100 years.
Now just off hand I would say that thats going to effect something in a closed system or Greenhouse such as is the Earth and its Atmosphere.
Okay insight
This Copenhagan Agreement cannot be done on a Geopolitical Framework ie Country Framework
Why ? Because climate does not recognize geopolitical borders. So right there things get screwed up. We can set a per person capita for a global average though of CO2 emissions ie .0.8 MT (mega tonnes) of CO2 per person, as a lowest common basic CO2 Emissions denominator for every person on the planet but then it has to be adjusted not on a Country or Nation basis per sae but on an Ecozonal basis. ie a person in an Tropical or African or some other benign like or type of ecozone or climate region does not necessarily need as much energy and or resources to survive at their current lifestyle as a person in a colder, harsher or more volatile climate. Just how much lee way we give each ecozone CO2 emission credits for is the question. They have established that there are about 20 to 100 major ecozones on Earth though so if you if you adjust accordingly to specific ecozones instead of countries or politics youre a little further ahead into it. If though climate is changing then you have factor in that ecozones will eventually follow suit though.
We thus can not all abide by the same rules though because it is in reality not a level playing field. Why? Because climate tends to be GeoRegion or Ecozone specific and not Political. We can though restrict per person CO2 emissions to an doable average around the globe for a starters to establish some kind of fair handle on the situation. Somewhere perhaps lower than the mean between the highest and lowest current rate . why lower?. Because we have already exceeded the Earths biocapacity by 1.3 % so we thus have to strive for perhaps at least a .3% global reduction of CO2 emissions below the mean per person average or current rate just to be in keeping with what the planet and environment can afford.ie we have to live within or Biocapacity and Environmental Means. So... how bout something like this... see the Climate Rules
The Climate Rules
Rule 1: The allowable global average of CO2 emissions per person will be capped at 0.8 MT CO2 Emissions per person. Countries or ecozones exceeding that limit will have to begin reductions or pay a fine to a global climate change insurance fund and developing countries can not exceed that maximum
Rule 2. Ecozone Exception Rule. Rule one can be modified to take into account the local ecozonal conditions of a certain region, that is that more CO2 emissions will be granted or allowed for ecozones on the basis and according to and of the survival and basic needs energy requirements of a particular ecozone.( 2.0 MT CO2 emission Ecozone Maximum exception allowance)
Rule 3. A Grandfathering Provision. Rule One and Two can be modified for Developed Nations/Ecozones that can and will be extended a certain amount of Grandfathered CO2 emission credits on the condition, basis and stipulation that they assist developing nations/ecozones with funds, research and technologies to develop cleaner, greener and renewable energy sources and that these grandfathered developed nations/ecozones work towards actively reducing their total Ecozone CO2 emissions to a lower 3.8 MT target.( 1.0 MT per person of CO2 emissions Developed Nation/Ecozone Grand Fathered Maximum allowance.)
So in Conclusion that brings the total maximum allowable CO2 emissions any nation/ecozone can have to 3.8 MT per person if the maximums of each rule is followed. At present the USA is at 5.0 MT per person (highest and above allowed ) or so and Africa at 0.47 MT per person (lowest and below )
It will thus take so doing but it is a start and perhaps doable
Hope this makes sense.
global citizen
........................................................................
Licquid wrote"
An easy way to think of it is:
... since there is a relatively finite amount of natural resources in our world, each of us will "spend" an average-daily-balance ... the + and - of those resources. That's where the truth will hit the road in terms of how much we're all entitled to, and what we're leaving our future generations.
Anyone to take a lead on this?
..........................................................
swanny wrote:
No no one can lead on such complex administrative nightmare
but a community together has synergistic advantages over the one.
Its not so much a division of labor though then but an allocation of resources and responsibilities.
If for instance we say China or no Japan perhaps make us the most efficient hybrids you can and we say Alberta give us some really clean energy and California provide us with some fresh greens during the winter
and so on if we can maximise perhaps thus the global communities potentials at what they do best and figure out some better transport and transit and currency system or simply communications over the internet. More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Nov 2009 @ 20:22
This is an independent chart of the data I compiled and correlated
of my study from a cross section of data I found.
Im pretty sure Ive posted it before.
anywho
swanny More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Nov 2009 @ 01:50
Link = [link]
Well I suppose if you had a global pool of funds to spread the risk that would be a good idea as some would have claims and some might actually benefit from climate change.
So you charge countries premiums based on per capita per person CO2 airprint and then perhaps adjusted for nation and perhaps local CO2 Airprints totals. But who would administer and review it and retain the funds and would they require what kind of retention fund More >
|
|
|
|
 11 Nov 2009 @ 10:18
Nov 11 2009
Wednesday
Earth
Dawn
THE DEFENDERS
If you will not defend these EarthLands,
then these EarthLands might die, for we are gone.
If you will not defend these Gardens,
then these Gardens might die, for we are gone.
If you will not defend these Laws,
then these Laws might die, for we are gone.
If you will not defend this Faith,
then this Faith might die, for we are gone.
If you will not defend these babes,
then these babes might die, for we are gone.
If you will not defend our ways,
then our ways might die, for we are gone.
If you will not defend our Love,
then our Love might die, for we are gone.
For you are as we once were, though now we are gone. More >
|
|
|
|
10 Nov 2009 @ 17:57
This is great .
It was a response sent to the bueracy in regards to
the states objection to
beavers building dams on a landowners property.
it is superb not to mention sublime
ed
RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Price,
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N;
R10W, Sec. 20;
Montcalm County
Reference your certified letter dated 12/17/2000 has been referred
to me to respond to. First of all, Mr. Ryan De Vries is not the legal
landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan.
I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the
(State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two
wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond.
While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project,
I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use
of natural building materials "debris." I would like to challenge
your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time
and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no
way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness,
their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination
and/or their dam work ethic.
As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they
must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of
dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to
discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers? or, (2) do you require
all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?
If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers,
through the Freedom of Information Act I request completed copies
of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been
issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of P!
art 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and
Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994,
being sections 324.3010,1 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws, annotated. I have several concerns. My first concern is aren't
the beavers entitled to legal representation?
The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to
pay for said representation - so the State will have to provide them
with a lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or
both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding
is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is
required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring
Pond Beavers alone rather than harass them and call their dam
names. If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition
- please contact the beavers - but if you are going to arrest them
they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter (being
unable to read English).
In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to
build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is
green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than
I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it
should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment
(Beavers' Dams).
So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be
referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait
until 1/31/2002 The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice
then, and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/
harass them then.
In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a
real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the
bears. Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe
you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the
beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam,
watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)
Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable
to contact you on your answering machine, I am sending this response
to your office via another government organization - the
USPS. Maybe, someday, it will get there.
Sincerely,
Land owner More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 ... 320 Older entries >> |
|
An introduction to the science and art of perception management.
The phrase "perception management" is filtering into common use as a synonym for "persuasion." Public relations firms now offer "perception management" as one of their services. Similarly, public officials who are being accused of shading the truth are now frequently charged with engaging in "perception management" when disseminating information to media or to the general public.
Although perception management operations are typically carried out within the international arena between governments, and between governments and citizens, use of perception management techniques have become part of mainstream information management systems in many ways that do not concern military campaigns or government relations with citizenry. Businesses may even contract with other businesses to conduct perception management for them, or they may conduct it in-house with their public relations staff.
|
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
Perception management is a term originated by the U. S. military. The U. S. Department of Defense (DOD) gives this definition:
Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator's objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.
[link] |
|
