Stop the World for a Week?

How long would we have to stop the planet functioning to make a significant impact on our Eco System.
Example.
Every country planned a total shut down in say five years time. Lets say for one week.
No electricity.
No gas.
No manufacturing, or work of any kind.
No flight, no travel.
No car travel, motorbikes etc.
No cfc release, hairspray etc.
Total shutdown.
Every country, and person within that country, planned to survive without these resources for one week. Food stocks, candles, water, heating, blankets etc.
Emergency services must run of course.
What does the group think the effect on the enviourment would be. If you sit and think about it the effect must be very significant. Im not saying it would repair our current climate problems but who knows.
Any thoughts.

James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, claims that we can do nothing now to stop global warming. All the recent revelations of increased glacial runoff, increased hurricane activity and the UK having the warmest decade since records began all point ot the fact that the 'tipping point' of the ecosystems degradation was reached last century.

In five years we'll see lowlands covered by the rising seas.

Now is the time for adaptation to what will happen.

It's an interesting thought..

I'd like to see this done for completely different reasons though, I'd like to see this done for 24 hours.. Just to see what happens.. All major radio and electrical systems shut down, Nothing going out or in.. Just to see what happens

No doubt if there is some sort of other species in the Universe, perhaps shutting all this down will get their attention.. Who knows.. Just sounded like a good idea at the time..

Search for the effects on the climate after 9/11, when the majority of planes were grounded and you'll have a good idea of what will happen.

Yeah, ive read some of the Gaia Theory. What i cant get my head round is all the pollution etc was always here. All we have done is changed the chemical structure of its components.
i.e.
Coal to fire.
Water to steam. etc.
We havnt introduced anything from outside the planet, so all the necessary components needed to creat the current climate problems where already here. We have just altered their state.
Surely if we stop using the comodities they will return through natural process.
I realise a week, or indeed 24 hrs isnt long enough to turn the problem around, but surely i can be done.
I will however bow down to what the experts say.

Originally posted by byhiniur
Search for the effects on the climate after 9/11, when the majority of planes were grounded

Do you have this info? I'd like to see it but don't have time.

Could you please post? Links, quaotes, whatever. Thanks, sofi

It took a while but here it is.

NARRATOR: September 12th 2001, the aftermath of tragedy. While America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually fine. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin a climate scientist called David Travis was on his way to work.

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater): Around the twelfth, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it, then I realised the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

This was just planes in the US, so if we stopped everything like you suggest at beggining we might see results very quickly.

Edit: I'm always messin up the html codes...

[edit on 28/3/06 by byhiniur]

No probs on HTML.
Good find.
I do believe a great deal can be recovered in a short space of time, todate though im struggling to find expert backing of this. Its more of a feeling.
Surely we understand the basics.
e.g.
Boil the kettle - water to steam. Keep it boiling - steam. Keep it boiling - steam.
No more water.
Steam - water. Steam - water and so on.
Is this not true of most of the fossil fuels we manipulate. They will either return or re-grow.
Mmm, not sure. Anymore thoughts.

The difference between water-steam-water and fossil fuel-pollution-fossil fuel is that water doesn't change its chemical composition, it is a time reversible event. Fossil fuel being burnt is a time irreversible event, the chemical change can't just be reversed. I seriously think early adaptation to the new climate is our only effective course of action. The reduction of green house gas emissions was an issue for my grandparents. Now, unless we start early, the only people able to effectively survive follwing the changes in climate will be those with alot of money.

I think you might find the 'tragedy of the commons' article on wikipedia interesting.

Well, let's see....

Originally posted by jehova620
How long would we have to stop the planet functioning to make a significant impact on our Eco System.
Example.
Every country planned a total shut down in say five years time. Lets say for one week.
No electricity.

No hospitals, all babies and mothers at risk, immediate death of anyone on any kind of medical support, in hot areas, high death rate from heat (ditto cold) in elderly and those who are otherwise fragile/sensitive, high rate of death from allergies, certain infections running the risk of getting out of control ....

(yes, I know you said "emergency services" but a lot of things rely on multiple systems. Hospitals and so forth don't need just electricity -- they need water, sewage, disposal, trucks, helicopters, ambulances, etc, etc. And when someone's in need (sudden cold spell) how are you going to stop people from stealing or killing to get the resources to have their families survive?)

And then there's everyone who needs water running to the nearest creeks with shotguns, fending off everyone else.

And with no running water, you would have to defecate and urinate in the streets (hello typhoid fever and dysentery), runoff from any rain would turn nearby lakes into giant sewers, and the ocean would quickly be overrun by sewage...

No gas.
No manufacturing, or work of any kind.
No flight, no travel.
No car travel, motorbikes etc.

Riots, death of anyone who is perceived to have food/water and is hoarding it, rise of private armies and security groups...

Where rivers border two nations, accusations of water theft will arise as people try to haul/dig irrigation ditches, dig ponds in places that may not be appropriate for them.

No garbage pickup. The New Yorkers can fill you in on the smell and misery associated with that. If people start using animals for transportation, imagine your city (or my city of 200,000 people) if one in five people start riding horses. They poop. They urinate. They require a lot of food to be hauled in to feed them.

Anyplace where it's cold will see an immediate deforestation. If people start burning wood and coal, cities will become far smoggier (see the London killer smogs as an example of how this worked to kill thousands of people) and health will decline. In poor countries, the deforestation will become severe if they don't have access to other fuel.

Every country, and person within that country, planned to survive without these resources for one week. Food stocks, candles, water, heating, blankets etc.

No offense, but I don't think you realize how many families live on the edge of their resources. I work in a city 60 miles from my home. By the time I walked there under your plan, I would have spent 4 days traveling to do 8 hours of work. Nor can I afford to move to that place for a week. My husband is not in the best of health and he would have an 8 mile hike to work through various types of Texas weather.

I'm not the only person like this.

What does the group think the effect on the enviourment would be.

No weather satellites, no ability to quickly mobilize for things like fires or tornados, and if a hurricane or large storm hits an area then deaths and destruction would be far larger than if everything was up and running.

Most people aren't aware of just how destructive the low tech lifestyle is. It has a very high impact, particularly in terms of the amount of waste created.

I think the solution lies in better high tech.

Is it just me or did anyone notice how clear and blue the skys looked after 911 ?
I could swear it had something to do with no airplanes flying.

Im sorry, Byrd, but I think you took that a little too far, he did just say a week. there would not be such big effects from just a week. Think of this as a week of vacation from work,school etc. World Relax Week

It's done all the time now.

Power outages following winter storms means small rural communities do exactly what you propose. The air gets dirtier as people switch to wood heat. I was out of power about 12 hours a few weeks ago.

As to the 9/11 airplane theory -- commercial airliners were shutdown. Small private airplanes kept flying. Other researchers looked at visibility and found no significant difference.

Originally posted by Ox
It's an interesting thought..

I'd like to see this done for completely different reasons though, I'd like to see this done for 24 hours.. Just to see what happens.. All major radio and electrical systems shut down, Nothing going out or in.. Just to see what happens

Nice thought, how many businesses would get robbed/burgled without security systems.Looting,revenge attacks,violence, thats just the desperate housewives devotee's!

Hate to be a downer but seriously folks too many deranged individuals out there. No electrical systems! Hospitals! Dead people!

And worst of all no ATS


EDIT Sorry byrd hadnt read your post.My bad.



[edit on 28/3/06 by mojo4sale]

Originally posted by dave_54

As to the 9/11 airplane theory -- commercial airliners were shutdown. Small private airplanes kept flying. Other researchers looked at visibility and found no significant difference.

NO every single plane was grounded down to 152’s with the threat of permanent suspension of there license or military intervention.

There is absolutely 100% no way we could even think of doing this its just crazy the world is addicted to power.

As for this clear sky bs 9/12 sucked here it was over cast and muggy. Maybe it looked so blue b/c they looked up with the intention to look at the sky thinking of what they have and not about there problems. I live out in the country and the sky is blue b/c I look at it a lot. There is no scientific evidence for this its just speculation and suspicion.

Maybe we need to look deeper into the benefits a "World relax week" (Good phrase).
Imagine not one tree cut down for a week. Not one piece of paper used. Not one piece of iron ored. No coal burnt. No petrol or oil used.
The list could go on for ever.
Surely this would have a massive effect on the resources - enviourment.
Maybe not. I am sure we will never find out. Greed rules after all.

Originally posted by byhiniur
It took a while but here it is.

NARRATOR: September 12th 2001, the aftermath of tragedy. While America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually fine. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin a climate scientist called David Travis was on his way to work.

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater): Around the twelfth, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it, then I realised the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

This was just planes in the US, so if we stopped everything like you suggest at beggining we might see results very quickly.

Edit: I'm always messin up the html codes...

[edit on 28/3/06 by byhiniur]

Originally posted by acura_el2000
Im sorry, Byrd, but I think you took that a little too far, he did just say a week. there would not be such big effects from just a week. Think of this as a week of vacation from work,school etc. World Relax Week

Actually, there would.

Here in Dallas, we have well over a million people. It might not hit YOUR area, but it would hit ours heavily -- as it would any town/city where more than 1000 people lived in a fairly small area.

Remember that services (sewage, garbage, light, heat, phone (how would folks call for help?)) and so forth are all interdependant. Take a look at some of the stats when a storm shuts down power and other services to a city for a few hours or a few days... it's misery, not a vacation. Those with medical problems have to leave the area (kidney dialysis, etc) and recovery is expensive when the services start up again.

If it was during summer, we'd see a real spike in death rates across the South and Southwest (and this would be true in other countries as well... remember the heat wave of Europe. We have a yearly heat wave.)

As for garbage and health problems -- just check back to what happened in New York when the garbagemen went out on strike for a week (within the last 20 years.)

I'm for something a bit saner and less damaging to the environment -- start a Technology Awareness Week. Spend a week highlighting commercially available technology and start promoting the savings to the environment and to your pocketbook. Take the products to classrooms, have news specials on them, work with retailers to have special financing (for example, on installing solar energy panels here in Texas) on products that are far less damaging.

Make lobbyists and politicians everywhere aware that companies need to find better solutions. Give incentives for recycling at a personal and corporate level.

Earth Awareness Week seems to have lost a lot of momentum lately. That's another time when we can promote "Modernize For Efficiency" measures. Too often these are just a kind of token awareness effort. We need to put some real "oomph" in it -- after all, reducing the amount of electricity that homes in your city use on a permanent basis is FAR more useful than spending a week without electricity.

We could all try this in our own house. Take a day off from work (or a few), keep the kids home from school, and give it a whirl.

You could call it a disaster drill or whatever. But your family would still think you dropped off the deep end.

Its a great idea in theory but Im not so sure that today's child could survive a day without Nintendo.

Good idea.

I,ll speak to the wife and kids see if they can last without Sky. etc. for a full 24hours.

That would be a no then.