Economic and Environmental Integration

[numbersrule]

Now that there appears to be a consensus regarding the burning of fossil fuels over the last night on two centuries has been a significant contributor to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans and rising temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans, is it not also clear that the Fiat Currencies have also been a significant factor in driving the extraction industries to create arbitrary monetary wealth for human beings at the expense of the environment?

It seems the Fiat Currencies are flapping around in a rudderless global economy.

It is high time that world currencies should be recalibrated to a meaningful standard such as Environmental Assets so that human beings can strive for Environmental Wealth as opposed to arbitrary monetary wealth.

This can be achieved by proper economic and environmental integration.

This needs to be done before it is too late.

 

[fisicx]

Why are you posting here? Write to your MP. Start a campaign. Write to newspapers. Make lots of noise and gather support.

Unless you do something your idea will wither and die.

 

[numbersrule]

Thanks fisicx for your encouragement. I'm on the case.

 

[NickGrogan]

What happens to plants if you raise the temperature and increase the co2 in the atmosphere?

What about if you do the opposite?

 

[alan1302]

What happens to plants if you raise the temperature and increase the co2 in the atmosphere?

What about if you do the opposite?

Depends on the plant - they thrive in different conditions so there won't be a one size fits all.

 

[numbersrule]

What happens to plants if you raise the temperature and increase the co2 in the atmosphere?

What about if you do the opposite?

All else being equal, most plants do need CO2 and can benefit in some ways as CO2 increases.

However, in order to maximise that benefit, those plants would need sufficient water and soil nutrients, which can be depleted as temperatures rise, negating the benefit.

Also, increased CO2 isn't much use to plants in a forest fire initiated by climate change.

 

[fisicx]

Climate change will not result in a forest fire! If you do a bit of research you will see climate change will result in more extreme weather conditions. Expect to see more hurricanes, rain and floods.

 

[NickGrogan]

All else being equal, most plants do need CO2 and can benefit in some ways as CO2 increases.

However, in order to maximise that benefit, those plants would need sufficient water and soil nutrients, which can be depleted as temperatures rise, negating the benefit.

Also, increased CO2 isn't much use to plants in a forest fire initiated by climate change.

Oh dear, you don't do much fact-checking, do you?

What % of "wild fires" are arson? I'll give you a clue: most of them.

What % of "wild fires" happen in woods which are not maintained correctly? Same answer.

Are the trees that regularly burn in California a native species? Nope, if you look up what they are, you'll know why they burn so much.

If you raise the temperature, water vapour increases, not decreases.

 

[NickGrogan]

Depends on the plant - they thrive in different conditions so there won't be a one size fits all.

Interesting, which plants grow better when you reduce CO2?

 

[fisicx]

However, in order to maximise that benefit, those plants would need sufficient water and soil nutrients, which can be depleted as temperatures rise, negating the benefit.

How does that work? How does a temperature rise reduce water and nutrients in the soil? If this were the case we couldn’t grow anything considering the 30 to 40 degree changes we experience every year!

 

[NickGrogan]

Someone should tell the Rain forests to stop growing; they're all in countries that are hotter than the UK.

It amazes me how people will ignore things they can see with their own eyes in favour of something they've read online.

 

[numbersrule]

Oh dear, you don't do much fact-checking, do you?

Hi again Nick

Well, actually, yes I do.

What % of "wild fires" are arson? I'll give you a clue: most of them.

Actually, about 20%. And even those small proportion are partly due to the effects of climate change altering the way forest fires develop.

What % of "wild fires" happen in woods which are not maintained correctly? Same answer.

The reason that the above 'fact' is reported is because climate change has altered the standards which forest stewards are expected to achieve.

Are the trees that regularly burn in California a native species? Nope, if you look up what they are, you'll know why they burn so much.

There are numerous species of trees that have been burning in California, so focusing on one species does not do justice to the indiscriminate nature of climate change.

If you raise the temperature, water vapour increases, not decreases.

During prolonged hot and dry spells, soil becomes dessicated.

 

[fisicx]

During prolonged hot and dry spells, soil becomes dessicated.

That is correct. But not because of climate change.

 

[NickGrogan]

Actually, about 20%. And even those small proportion are partly due to the effects of climate change altering the way forest fires develop.

Using google's search AI isn't fact checking, its very far from it.

https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2023/08/24/california-wildfires-human-caused

US Forestry says 86%, whilst California Fire service says 95%

Forestry maintenance rules haven't changed in 100's of years; trees are still trees. Budget cuts, however, are more recent.

 

[MikeJ]

"Human activity" isn't the same as "arson".

 

[NickGrogan]

"Human activity" isn't the same as "arson".

True

But lighting a portable BBQ in uncleared woodlands and then not putting it out properly and causing a fire comes close.

The point remains that climate change is not causing the fires.

 

[MikeJ]

The link you provided says...

"With climate change increasing wildfire risk in the West, fires can quickly spread, destroy property and become deadly."

and

"This summer's extreme weather and simultaneous climate disasters are the new reality across North America with unprecedented wildfires, heat waves and storms."

So, not causing, but certainly making the effect much worse.

 

[alan1302]

Interesting, which plants grow better when you reduce CO2?

Probably none do better with reduced levels as they will have developed round the existing CO2 levels and the stronger plants become the dominate ones. If you reduce levels or increase levels then different plants will get more/less common as time goes on.

 

[alan1302]

True

But lighting a portable BBQ in uncleared woodlands and then not putting it out properly and causing a fire comes close.

The point remains that climate change is not causing the fires.

It is causing the fires to be larger and more damaging though - which is what the issue is.

 

[NickGrogan]

Damaging to what? Wildfires are good for the forests, and more carbon is absorbed by new growth than is emitted by the fire within a short period of time.

If people stopped building houses without clearance from the forest edge and stopped setting fire to the forests, there would be no problem.

It's the same as building houses in a floodplain, stopping dredging rivers and then complaining when they flood.

 

[alan1302]

Damaging to what? Wildfires are good for the forests, and more carbon is absorbed by new growth than is emitted by the fire within a short period of time.

If people stopped building houses without clearance from the forest edge and stopped setting fire to the forests, there would be no problem.

It's the same as building houses in a floodplain, stopping dredging rivers and then complaining when they flood.

Damaging to the towns/villages nearby as well as infrastructure.

Also wildfires are good for forests - and some species do need them - however the greater amount that there are now is not good overall for the people or the forests/animals that rely on then.

If you live on a flood plain even with river dredging it can still flood.

 

[NickGrogan]

So, don't build houses in a forest, especially not the wooden houses and mobile homes popular with Americans.

If you live on a flood plain even with river dredging it can still flood.

I hope so, otherwise it wouldn't be a flood plain. Dont build houses on flood plains. Its really not that complicated.

 

[alan1302]

So, don't build houses in a forest, especially not the wooden houses and mobile homes popular with Americans.


I hope so, otherwise it wouldn't be a flood plain. Dont build houses on flood plains. Its really not that complicated.

What do you do with the houses already on the flood plains? Move them elsewhere?

 

[NickGrogan]

What do you do with the houses already on the flood plains? Move them elsewhere?

Compulsory purchase, knock down, remove foundations, strip right back and then turn back into flood plains - parks if in town, farmland if out of town.

It is cheaper in the long run than trying to hold back water, looks nicer, and works better.

 

[alan1302]

Compulsory purchase, knock down, remove foundations, strip right back and then turn back into flood plains - parks if in town, farmland if out of town.

It is cheaper in the long run than trying to hold back water, looks nicer, and works better.

Is there room to move that many people elsewhere in the UK?

 

[fisicx]

Is there room to move that many people elsewhere in the UK?

Yes. But developers don’t want to build on brownfield sites. And people want to buy big expensive houses on exclusive developments to show off their wealth. There is one near use where prices start at £1m.

 

[NickGrogan]

Is there room to move that many people elsewhere in the UK?

We increased the population by 1M last year via immigration, so apparently the government thinks there is.

Being serious, there is no shortage of land in the UK, there is an artificial shortage of houses as not enough built but that's an entirely different problem.

Also easily solved.

 

[Justin Smith]

All else being equal, most plants do need CO2 and can benefit in some ways as CO2 increases.

However, in order to maximise that benefit, those plants would need sufficient water and soil nutrients, which can be depleted as temperatures rise, negating the benefit.

Also, increased CO2 isn't much use to plants in a forest fire initiated by climate change.

Higher temperatures, means higher humidity means more rain.

The Times - 10 Oct 22 p8 :
Rising carbon emissions make trees grow bigger
Trees feasting on increased CO2 emissions have grown thicker and larger researchers at Ohio State University suggest.
Academics examined the volume of trees in ten temperate forest groups across America and found that the volume of tree trunks was up 30% bigger than 30 years ago.
The phenomenon, known as Carbon fertilisation - when an influx of CO2 increases a plant's rate of photosynthesis - is likely to be replicated across the world.

Whatever, the fact is nobody has ever voted for this stuff, and we're supposed to live in a democracy :

The Times 14 Aug 23 (p8)
Parties urged not to fight over climate change action
A government adviser and former Shell economist [Steven Fries] has warned politicians against making climate change action into a "wedge issue".
"The UK has done a very good job in keeping climate change and decarbonisation to be[ing] a cross party issue. It's very important that all political parties in the UK and elsewhere resist going down the path of turning this into a wedge issue or a divisive issue for society".

Does this idiot know the meaning of the word democracy, because make no mistake he is openly suggesting the political parties should collude and not give the population of this country, or any other country, any say in a major issue which will significantly affect how they live their lives.
Utterly outrageous.

 

[numbersrule]

Democracy's biggest challenge in this digital age is that there is so much information available for the populations to digest, that no one can agree on the most basic facts any more.

Freedom of information and freedom of speech has become an unintentional problem for democracy.

 

[NickGrogan]

" I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations"
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1886

Marcus Aurelius said something similar 2000ish years earlier and he was quoting an earlier source.

Nothing is new

 

[fisicx]

Democracy's biggest challenge in this digital age is that there is so much information available for the populations to digest, that no one can agree on the most basic facts any more.

Not true. The problem is not the amount of information but the amount of misinformation. Many people are intelligent enough to determine what is true and what isn’t.

Which is why I know the earth to be flat. Or is it hollow?

 

[eteb3]

Compulsory purchase, knock down, remove foundations, strip right back and then turn back into flood plains - parks if in town, farmland if out of town.

It is cheaper in the long run than trying to hold back water, looks nicer, and works better.

Who knew this sort of thread existed in UKBF.

Unless things have changed in the last decade or so, it will still be the case that the taxpayer underwrites flood insurance on floodplains. This was a brilliant idea (suggested by developers, I assume) to make floodplains economic to build on. At least, the idea is brilliant until HMG realises we have to build flood defences for areas that have flooded for millennia. Naive homeowners pay no less for a home there, which pads the bottom line nicely, and so makes it more attractive for developers to build on floodplain.

So we should probably end that subsidy and then we’d have more rational behaviour.

 

[Justin Smith]

Not true. The problem is not the amount of information but the amount of misinformation. Many people are intelligent enough to determine what is true and what isn’t.

Which is why I know the earth to be flat. Or is it hollow?

So who gets to decide what "misinformation" is ?
That's the question.

 

[fisicx]

So who gets to decide what "misinformation" is ?
That's the question.

You do. By not grabbing at click bait material and verifying your sources. It’s not difficult.