And man as a producer of CO2 and CH4

[plasmanu]

Uh. Bad
And the yellow star badge while we're at it. "don't deserve to live"

The curve clearly shows the differences and winters. Stipulating that the northern hemisphere is responsible for that.
It burns coal at a glance and tomorrow shale gas. So it's badly barred.

Eco responsible is not given to everyone.
It happens: but it's late.

[dedeleco]

our planet was self-regulating until the sixties and the vegetation absorbed enough CO2 so that the balance CO2 / O2 remains balanced.

is a misconception, the growth of CO2 started well before 1960!
More slowly but certainly !!

The self-regulated planet is an illusion, not belied by the curves of the past T, CO2, sea level, observed over thousands to millions of years ago.

Even the climate of the earth has become more and more unstable over the last few million years with little CO2.

125000 years ago the seas were 3 to 5 m higher and 2 to 3 ° C more on earth !!! what will happen in our future with the CO2.

There is 20000 years T much lower, 120m lower seas, thick glaciers in Lyon or London, all over North America, hundreds of meters on New York, etc ...

There was a rising seas of 120m inexorable sometimes 2 to 4m per century, between -16000 and -8000 years, which if we lived it would be appalling for us humans, installed at the seashore, drowned underwater in a lifetime, without being able to do anything !!

There is still 70m of glaciers to melt and we risk that our CO2 in excess, will inexorably in the future without being able to do anything, given the inertia of the climate of the earth, due to the oceans, with a huge thermal mass compared to that of our atmosphere, at least 1000 times !!! (average depth of water 4000m on air equivalent in mass of water 10m).
This inertia delays, but after it is too late and we can not do anything!

This is proven by what happened in the past, it is not a model, it is the past reality that has been inexorable and uncontrollable !!!

[Ahmed]

Jak said (sic!):

Not hard to understand that we are too many! ... and that without energy expenditure we are unable to feed everyone ... Yes?

It is true that this is not an "intellectual" reasoning! Quickly, badly done! The Navy will engage you in its think tank!

Without fossil fuel expenditure we are unable to feed everyone in our current agronomic design; fortunately there are other models and the FAO recently recognized that organic agriculture (in short) is a viable alternative to allow what "modern" agriculture is unable to achieve.

[dedeleco]

Right now on Arte a black cloud on the roof of the world, or black carbon, or black soot of all that we burn badly, oil and wood, warms the planet more than this CO2, especially in Asia, and melts the Asian glaciers and others.
We realize the neglected effect of this pollution, which reduces the available water.

It is essential that we, especially in Asia, burn oil and wood, with the minimum of black carbon, dust and soot fines, which heat and block the sun too, and kill people by breathing pollution, with good appliances and engines to the best possible combustion.

[Jak]

No "organic" agriculture is capable of feeding 7 billion people on our planet, it is not scalable!

And the evolution over millions of years has been without us, useless to always bring that back into history.

Producing Co2 is not the problem as long as the plants remain in sufficient quantity to absorb it.
Feeding 7 billion people has led to deforestation and if we wanted to go “all organic”, an entire cultivated planet would not be enough! I'm not even talking about concrete, roads etc. for 7 billion people which further reduces the cultivated areas.

Of course there is an alternative to reducing the population:
The cultivation of algae and the manufacture of concentrated and balanced food that one would take in pill form.
No need to cultivate submerged land, no need for intensive farming, recovery of vegetation on most of the planet and greater absorption of CO2.

Do not take my declarations to keep as many poor people as possible for "MY" will, it is only a question of provocation for those who did not understand!

Simply this kind of problem must be considered in a logical, mathematical way, not in an "affective" way.
You can all eat organic, cultivate organic if it makes you happy, it will certainly give you a good conscience, but it does not solve anything on the bottom.

Personally, I eat organic for a lot of products but it's more for taste (eggs for example) than to have the feeling of saving the planet!

Organic is a solution of the rich, the poor do not have the means. They, what they want, it's just not to starve ...

[sen-no-sen]

No "organic" agriculture is capable of feeding 7 billion people on our planet, it is not scalable!

Peremptory affirmation!
This is the current model that is going to be unable to feed the 7 billions of inhabitants of the planet.

You should know that more than a third of the world's cereal production is used to feed cattle in industrialized countries ... and that about 40% of the North American corn is used to make agrofuels!

If such a mismanagement were avoided, not only all humans could eat their fill, but they could also consume a quality organic diet.

Another mystification: organic farming would not have a good return.
This is false, in fact it is even possible to have a better performance with organic than with agro-chemistry, only it takes more labor, but in times of crisis it would be more salutary!

[sen-no-sen]

we do not need to always bring that back into the story.

Producing Co2 is not the problem as long as the plants remain in sufficient quantity to absorb it.
Feeding 7 billion people has led to deforestation and if we wanted to go “all organic”, an entire cultivated planet would not be enough! I'm not even talking about concrete, roads etc. for 7 billion people which further reduces the cultivated areas.

Totally wrong!
In France 65% of the agricultural surface is devoted to the feeding of the cattle.
In the USA it is close to 80% of the agriculture which is used for the feeding of the cattle!
The need for intensive farming is therefore our wish to eat a lot of cheap meat.
So you have to eat less meat.

Feeding 7 billion people has led to deforestation and if we wanted to go “all organic”, an entire cultivated planet would not be enough!

Inaccurate!
If we went organic, abandoning the current model, there would actually be much less space dedicated to agriculture, it would instead a re-development of forests.

Organic is a solution of the rich, the poor do not have the means. They, what they want, it's just not to starve ...

It's quite the opposite!
Organic is the agriculture of our (great) grandparent, and many more countries of the "third world", originally there was only organic farming.
On the contrary, it is the fact of the rich countries to make the cultivation doped with the pesticide, chemical fertilizer, and possible that thanks to a large mechanization and very energy-consuming.

[dedeleco]

Totally agree with sen-no-sen, the bio avoids the absurdities of dangerous products that sterilize the earth and so it is the only viable solution in the long term, with few CO2 and CH4.

Organic, even if it looks more like the cultures of yesteryear, with more manpower, remains more efficient than before, with a better understanding of natural life on earth, especially parasite parasites.

Bio benefits from serious scientific studies and unbiased by industrialists.

Once used as Asian, we could instead of the meat, eat the proteins of the insects, collected on the organic cultures, without insecticide !!!

Simple and effective solution against CO2 and CH4 meat!

The competitors of Koh Lanta are still alive to have eaten big insects, many years later !!!
Just a question of habit !!!

We already eat a lot of seaweed without knowing it!

Jak says sure of himself:

Simply this kind of problem must be considered in a logical, mathematical way, not in an "affective" way.
You can all eat organic, cultivate organic if it makes you happy, it will certainly give you a good conscience, but it does not solve anything on the bottom.

Jak has too clear and peremptory ideas and forgets to analyze the implicit assumptions hidden in his logical, mathematical statements, which can be totally changed in the future, with the immensity of the possibilities of our current knowledge, underused !!

Concrete is not the only solution, the solar energy received is enormous, organic productivity on a land not muffled or sterilized, comparable to or even higher than the industrial one, it is optimized only for the short term.

In France a lot of farmers die in addition, dangerous products that they are advised and to eat organic, it is first of all to help the farmers to live by going to organic, without being killed by pesticides and fungicides !!

jak must analyze the hidden assumptions and avoid being manipulated by the claims of the industrialists and other gurus.

[Jak]

Dream my friends ... I live in today's reality!

You are gentle utopians who have no awareness of the macroeconomic reality. Organic production is about 3 at 10 times lower per hectare depending on the crop. I do not even talk about diseases, parasites etc so some of them decimated complete territories.

You only remove from history what interests you and forget the famines of the Middle Ages, viticultural production completely destroyed in France at the beginning of the 20ème siécle.

And for those who have a bit of knowledge man is omnivorous, it is neither a ruminant nor a vegetarian.

But stay in your certainty, given the score of the ecologists in the last presidential, we see that your smoky speeches are taken seriously!

Ecology I practice every day making sure to turn off unnecessary lights, using little water, avoiding to take my car or buy products with unnecessary packaging.

Your ecology is a rich ecology, what do you do in Africa, in India? Intellectual masturbation to explain to those who are hungry that phosphates or potash is not good, even if their soils are poor and produce nothing? Do not plant transgenic maize but leave an infant mortality of 30%?

As I do not want to pollute your sweet delirium any longer, I will quickly disincribe myself, since apart from your post-sixty-eight fantasies, your ecology is an ecology of bobo shows ...

[Obamot]

Bein 3 mios of deaths due to irradiation at low dose, it is not so innocuous!

And it's a shame that you're leaving, we do not fear the confrontation of points of view here ...

Besides, we are rarely agreed between us!

And if you want to know, I come back from Asia, in regions where the smic if it existed, should be 50 € per month. The salary of an executive in the public service is 130 € (but for many it's America! Because the Smic does not exist ...) there are some who live with 1 € per day. We are far from not thinking about it, and very far from your cliché!

And then in your outburst, you've probably zapped this passage:

Jak said (sic!):

Not hard to understand that we are too many! ... and that without energy expenditure we are unable to feed everyone ... Yes?

It is true that this is not an "intellectual" reasoning! Quickly, badly done! The Navy will engage you in its think tank!

Without fossil fuel expenditure we are unable to feed everyone in our current agronomic design; fortunately there are other models and the FAO recently recognized that organic agriculture (in short) is a viable alternative to allow what "modern" agriculture is unable to achieve.