Highgate Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, SillyBilly said: Pretty much zero interest in what Greta has to say or any other adult induced terror-stricken child for that matter. When elephants in the room are completely ignored it endorses my view that the West washing out yoghurt pots is p*ssing in the proverbial. There are arguments to be won here and there is a trodden path already of where triumphs have been made; the Montreal Protocol in the late 80s springs to mind, but ultimately children need protecting from their impending ruination by sensible adults...so they can be left to have childhoods. We terrified kids then too and I am not convinced good can be had from it, particularly when you simply cannot comprehend the complexities of life on planet earth at such ages. Refer back to elephant in the room remark... What's the elephant in the room? I think kids can source their own information on Climate Change these days, it's not plausible to hide them from the reality or to 'protect' them from it. You'd have the change the science curriculum for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: Mind you, as much as I don’t like the idea of conspiracy theories and ‘the world is out to get me’, it does piss me off that there are so many campaigns to get us to not waste a drop of water, or not use that plastic straw, putting the blame on the individual, making you feel guilty as hell for forgetting to put your tissue in the recycle bin, to deflect from the fact that one big corporation pledging to cut its carbon footprint by 10% would probably do as much good as 1000 individuals could ever hope do (made up stats, but you get the gist), they just won’t do it cos it eats into profits. Grr, will they care about the profits when their grandkids are the generation that’s left to turns the lights off at the end of the world? The EU (ironically) has introduced a carbon tax which along with consumer pressure will help reign in larger corporations. It seems that post-Brexit, this will be an initiative that is maintained at time of writing. In a nutshell, entities will be allotted a 'carbon allowance' with any excess emissions taxable at a rate of £16 per tonne. Whether this is sufficiently punitive is debatable but some entities if not all will at least be forced to address wasteful energy profiles and one suspects that allowances will become increasingly stringent over time. A start I suppose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, bcnram said: Burning fossil fuels was part of our development, we had no other means or knowledge regarding the damage it could do. That is not the case now, countries like Brazil, India and China have all the technology in the world available to them. And to be fair to us, we have shipped loads of work over to less developed countries and totally exploited so we are even more blameless. Stop polluting the earth China, but keep producing a never ending supply of cheap goods for us to buy, buy, buy. We need stuff for our lives to have meaning. But they just won't stop polluting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, Highgate said: Some huge storms and horrendous coastal flooding will probably concentrate minds in the next decade or two I don't know about that tbh, we're actually getting better at preventing deaths (early warning systems/evacuation etc) from natural disasters despite a massively increased population; https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters 12 minutes ago, Highgate said: We can manage at 8 - 10 billion I think, if we change a lot of our core technologies, get all our electricity from renewables Not sure about that either tbh, we are relying on future technological advances to cope with increasing population but the underlying problem imo is still the massive human population on the planet. If we want to live modern lives, go on holidays, eat meat etc reducing the population solves a lot of these issues. If you put another 2-3 billion people on the planet regardless of keeping everyone fed and watered you need to home them and allow space for recreation, that puts even more stress on land an eco-systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 39 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: It’s not fair, but they should listen because they have to. We grew developed by polluting the planet. We didn’t know any better at the time. Now the planet is a bit ducked. We’ve bought it to the tipping point. It’s our fault (and the fault of other developed nations) but we can’t fix it on our own. if we just let Brazil et al do as much bad poo just to catch up for the purposes of parity, then we’re all ducked. it’s not fair, but it is what it is. Developed countries need to help developing countries pay to upgrade their technologies to carbon neutral and to protect their environments from the climate change/raised sea levels that we've already guaranteed ourselves. As you say it's not fair that developed countries prospered by burning fossil fuels and the others did not. But we must hope and work towards developing nations not taking the same route to prosperity. They must be presented with a better and more lucrative option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, maxjam said: I don't know about that tbh, we're actually getting better at preventing deaths (early warning systems/evacuation etc) from natural disasters despite a massively increased population; https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters Bigger storms and higher sea levels......it won't end well, Not sure about that either tbh, we are relying on future technological advances to cope with increasing population but the underlying problem imo is still the massive human population on the planet. If we want to live modern lives, go on holidays, eat meat etc reducing the population solves a lot of these issues. If you put another 2-3 billion people on the planet regardless of keeping everyone fed and watered you need to home them and allow space for recreation, that puts even more stress on land an eco-systems. It all comes down to each individual's carbon footprint as well as the number of people on the planet. If we slash the average carbon footprint we will have more room to manoeuvre with global population, which can be addressed gradually and naturally. All going well ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 52 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: It’s not fair, but they should listen because they have to. We grew developed by polluting the planet. We didn’t know any better at the time. Now the planet is a bit ducked. We’ve bought it to the tipping point. It’s our fault (and the fault of other developed nations) but we can’t fix it on our own. In an ideal world I'd agree but the biggest polluter in the world is China and they have bought into the West so heavily that we can't afford to criticise them politically or economically as a couple of recent stories alluded to; https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/10/nba-players-coaches-china-reaction-hong-kong-daryl-morey https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/blizzards-dramatic-hearthstone-ban-is-the-latest-proof-that-china-is-too-lucrative-to-piss-off/ If we could bring them into line then perhaps it would motivate everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Highgate said: It all comes down to each individual's carbon footprint as well as the number of people on the planet. If we slash the average carbon footprint we will have more room to manoeuvre with global population, which can be addressed gradually and naturally. All going well ? Apparently there are 7.7bn people on the planet at the moment, predictions have it peaking around 11bn thats approx 50% more people - so we have to cut everyones carbon footprint by 25% just to stand still but as the Earth Overshoot Day is already end-July so thats not nearly enough; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day I'd like to believe that technology can pull us out of the hole we're digging ourselves into but I'd still be for some sort of population planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 30 minutes ago, Highgate said: What's the elephant in the room? I think kids can source their own information on Climate Change these days, it's not plausible to hide them from the reality or to 'protect' them from it. You'd have the change the science curriculum for starters. Before Macron went woke and retracted, he hit the nail on the head when he referred to the "civilisational" issue of Africa being "having 7 kids". The world needs a lot less humans that is for sure. When I am stewed in enough alcohol I often ponder whether climate change is actually the best thing for the planet in the long haul. If there is a correlation between no. of humans and ecological impacts I'll be damned... While a man of science I am I have frequent debates about this among my ex-uni cohorts whom a number are Greta fanboys; I have my doubts over the apocalyptic version of events led by the likes of Extinction Rebellion. Unfortunately, I don't believe kids can peer review as adeptly as you suggest they can. That prior mentioned group and its founders go beyond even the most pessimistic sceanarios outlined within the IPCC report. Not that I pay much attention but I did have to resort to watching a recent interview on TV with an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson through my fingers. If she had any idea where they were pulling some of their numbers from she did a very good job of not showing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, maxjam said: Apparently there are 7.7bn people on the planet at the moment, predictions have it peaking around 11bn thats approx 50% more people - so we have to cut everyones carbon footprint by 25% just to stand still but as the Earth Overshoot Day is already end-July so thats not nearly enough; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day I'd like to believe that technology can pull us out of the hole we're digging ourselves into but I'd still be for some sort of population planning. 33,3% reduction just to standstill I believe, based on your own population figures. But I actually think that reduction would be entirely manageable if there were the political will, utilizing only the technologies we have today and not depending on future developments, which should help further. Even if I'm right however, I'd still agree with you that a simultaneous halt in population growth and subsequent decline would be a very healthy and desirable thing for the environment. It will be difficult for the younger generations to bear the financial cost, but it would be better in the long run. As long as it's voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Highgate said: 33,3% reduction just to standstill I believe, based on your own population figures. But I actually think that reduction would be entirely manageable if there were the political will, utilizing only the technologies we have today and not depending on future developments, which should help further. Even if I'm right however, I'd still agree with you that a simultaneous halt in population growth and subsequent decline would be a very healthy and desirable thing for the environment. It will be difficult for the younger generations to bear the financial cost, but it would be better in the long run. As long as it's voluntary. Yeah the maths is probably off, its late lol. China tried the 1 child per family thing and it was kinda working until they realised they couldn't support the older generation so relaxed it, some future generation is almost certainly going to have to go through it at some point though imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 53 minutes ago, SillyBilly said: Before Macron went woke and retracted, he hit the nail on the head when he referred to the "civilisational" issue of Africa being "having 7 kids". The world needs a lot less humans that is for sure. When I am stewed in enough alcohol I often ponder whether climate change is actually the best thing for the planet in the long haul. If there is a correlation between no. of humans and ecological impacts I'll be damned... While a man of science I am I have frequent debates about this among my ex-uni cohorts whom a number are Greta fanboys; I have my doubts over the apocalyptic version of events led by the likes of Extinction Rebellion. Unfortunately, I don't believe kids can peer review as adeptly as you suggest they can. That prior mentioned group and its founders go beyond even the most pessimistic sceanarios outlined within the IPCC report. Not that I pay much attention but I did have to resort to watching a recent interview on TV with an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson through my fingers. If she had any idea where they were pulling some of their numbers from she did a very good job of not showing it. Yeah population growth is a huge issue for all environmental problems. But when it comes to greenhouse gases there are two figures to consider. Mean carbon footprint per capita and total population. Both can and need be addressed. There is no point giving up on the former because you don't know what to do with the latter. There are obvious ways to tackle population growth that have already been mentioned and there is much that developed nations can do to assist developing nations in that regard. No arguing the point that the rest of the environment, apart from pets and a few other animals, would benefit from a huge reduction in the human population or our disappearance altogether. That's not even debatable, but we are entitled to be concerned about our own welfare. I don't remember suggesting children need to do exhaustive reading to become aware of global warming and the threat to humanity. A simple appeal to authority should suffice. Opening their ears in science class or listening to a speech by someone like David Attenborough would make it all too clear that something is dreadfully wrong with our climate. The idea of keeping this information from them is spectacularly unrealistic in my opinion. One thing you have to remember with the IPCC reports. When they something like ' 98% of climate scientists agree that there will be a 2 C rise in temperature by 2050 if we don't keep our GHG levels to whatever level......etc etc.' That is a consensus. That's what they all (or 98% of them) can agree on. It's not their best guess, it's not their average of their opinions. The actual mean of their opinions would be far more bleak, brutal and worrying than the predictions that the IPCC have been steadily releasing over the past number of years. But if they were to release their average predictions, then they could only say '50% of climate scientists agree that....'. So when you hear anything that starts with '98% climate scientist agree', the opinion you are going to hear is very much the best case scenario. Is it any wonder that in the last few years all the latest data is showing that the IPCC's reports were underestimating the speed of global warming and the severity of it's effects? I think your ex-uni cohorts might be closer to the mark than you are on this issue. Although let's hope you are right and they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 First of all I don't think Greta Thurnburg has been treated well either by her parents who have allowed this media storm or by people using her as a prop to advance what is a very worthwhile agenda. She's very young and she should be worrying about school having the odd existential teenage crisis what she's going to do at the weekend and all the usual things people at that age are concerned with. Being an international star and getting in way over her head (realistically this is the case) is not healthy for her or the conversation we need to have about climate change. Second, the XR are completely derailing and undermining the very thing they're claiming they're trying to stop. The actions they're taking risk undermining support to slow down and halt climate change as the optics make it seem like a niche hippy movement bent on taking us back to the dark ages. It doesn't help they're focusing in all the wrong places and I imagine a lot of them are opposed to the advances which can be made (such as GM food) to limit or stop a lot of the damage. They also don't seem to realise that climate change is an international issue not a local one.. getting the UK to change alone won't do anything without the big players of China (the biggest polluters) russia and india then anything we do is a mute point. Third, the apocalyptic claims advanced by XR are pretty sensationalist. The world isn't going to starve we're not going to die in 20 years and no serious minded person could possibly think this in my eyes. There is a case for human security being increasingly difficult at least amongst the frontier countries of Europe so Italy, Spain and Greece being the big three. This would be due to a potential refugee issue with the Middle East and Africa potentially being seriously affected. I'm not massively convinced by this though either especially with some countries noticeably the gulf countries working pretty hard on geo-engineering to counteract these issues. Trying to make it a fight for humanities survival is a stupid strategy which will just backfire. It ignores any possible advances which will be made in this time period (if someone in 1990 was to predict tech in 2010 they'd have been sorely mistaken and it'll be the same from now to 2040) and the actual science from the IPCC as far as i understand it. On the question of their scientists well i've been at university long enough to know there are always rogues who predict the outlandish and the stupid who are given credibility because they have Dr next to their name even at remarkably reputable institutions. Personally, I'd rather trust the IPCC report even if you want to go towards the negative end of those predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Not the sharpest tools in the box,if you're going to disrupt commuters don't pick an East London station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuwtfly Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just me that finds the act of pulling a man down to the ground and beating him senseless as a mob more abhorrent than disrupting a train service to raise awareness of climate change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The Greta Thunberg thread has morphed into an extinction rebellion thread over the last few days. All I'll say is, I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said: Just me that finds the act of pulling a man down to the ground and beating him senseless as a mob more abhorrent than disrupting a train service to raise awareness of climate change? No, but if you follow social media comments you're certainly in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 10 hours ago, maxjam said: Apparently there are 7.7bn people on the planet at the moment, predictions have it peaking around 11bn thats approx 50% more people - so we have to cut everyones carbon footprint by 25% just to stand still but as the Earth Overshoot Day is already end-July so thats not nearly enough; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day I'd like to believe that technology can pull us out of the hole we're digging ourselves into but I'd still be for some sort of population planning. I think I quoted similar figures yesterday - current population growth models show 11bn people by 2099. The predicted "earth overshoot" by then is 400% - based on the methods we currently use to sustain/feed/house the population 80 years is a decent amount of time to work out how we change things, but the point is that it has to start NOW. And that's why XR is critical as a protest. Because our current governments are hellbent on infinite economic growth, increasing wealth inequality and letting nothing stand in the way of that. As the proletariat we are also guilty - hellbent on consumerism and doing whatever we like to make ourselves feel good It's a deadly embrace, and doing nothing about it is not an option if the human race is to survive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, maxjam said: The Greta Thunberg thread has morphed into an extinction rebellion thread over the last few days. All I'll say is, I rest my case. Probably needs to be merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said: Just me that finds the act of pulling a man down to the ground and beating him senseless as a mob more abhorrent than disrupting a train service to raise awareness of climate change? yep bloody awful. You can see why people get frustrated though. The basics are that many are unwilling to change their lifestyles to meet a challenge which is still theoretical. By the time it is not theoretical it may be too late. I don't think disrupting peoples lives will succeed in turning them into active supporters of 'extinction rebellion'. As we can see there are some brutal people around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.