Climate change, real or no deal.

[Farside]

It's the unfrozen herds of mammoths that concern me.... majestically sweeping down through Central Europe.

 

[premmington]

I think its relevant, 280m folk a year landing in the developed countries and expecting a similar lifestyle will surely have a huge impact on the environment. Next year another 290+M join the queue, its not sustainable and wipes out any gains the developing countries make. I am all for electric cars in towns and cities because there are folk living in them that are literally choking to death, I am pro insulation and energy conservation. I am not so sure the whole power generation thing is as environmentally squeaky clean as we are led to believe.

Bob

I too think it is relevant - the population explosion.

I do think it is difficult subject to embrace.



I have three kids and seven grandchildren - we are a high income family - and we consume lots. Food/water/goods/energy.

If I had less kids - we would consume less...

It is a numbers game - a simple head count!


My wife is "veggy earth mother" - she cannot or will not get the constant rebreeding is not helping either - because it does not suit - or it is too painful to except.

The China one child policy did not really work either - it caused a lot of social problems. Plus it was cruel...

I do not have the answer for this... But if you are telling me if I convert to an electric car in the West - and 280m people are born in the East and have petrol cars with no Cats. My electric car is a solution?

 

[Edward Teach]

I too think it is relevant - the population explosion.

I do think it is difficult subject to embrace.



I have three kids and seven grandchildren - we are a high income family - and we consume lots. Food/water/goods/energy.

If I had less kids - we would consume less...

It is a numbers game - a simple head count!


My wife is "veggy earth mother" - she cannot or will not get the constant rebreeding is not helping either - because it does not suit - or it is too painful to except.

The China one child policy did not really work either - it caused a lot of social problems. Plus it was cruel...

I do not have the answer for this... But if you are telling me if I convert to an electric car in the West - and 280m people are born in the East and have petrol cars with no Cats. My electric car is a solution?

.
.
Its a money game,
The Governments will slowly convince us all that electric vehicle etc are the way to go,
It s all a marketing ploy,
Eventually they will get there way,
But I will not be part of their Gravy Train,
This type of discussion always brings me to think of this :
Rush - The Red Barchetta

 

[Morrisman]

I do not have the answer for this... But if you are telling me if I convert to an electric car in the West - and 280m people are born in the East and have petrol cars with no Cats. My electric car is a solution?

The UK could be removed from the face of the earth entirely, along with our contributions to pollution and population, and the overall picture of the planet would not change one iota. We are minuscule, in relation to China, India, Indonesia, South America etc. And those countries have yet to get in their full stride of consumerism. Imagine when the massive peasant section of China hits the 20th century and they all want cars, air con, electronics etc.

Why our government is so desperate to radically try and change our tiny island is beyond me, its like peeing off the pier in Brighton to try and make the make the sea level higher in China.

 

[Gareth J]

I haven't read through all the long posts here as there are a lot. However a few things people seem a bit contradictory on.

Carbon;
It's an element. It's not created or destroyed on earth, it's just moved around. We're talking about CO2 here which is a product of carbony things burning or being digested/decomposed. The vast deposit of carbony things burried and locked up millions of years ago comprised plants and animals that originally got their carbony bits from the atmosphere. They didn't generate it from nothing.
CO2;
It hasn't nearly doubled in the atmosphere. It's approaching 1.5x pre industrial times.
It's important to say "average level of past 1M years" as things were very different before that. Back when all those plants and animals were being burried, things were atmospherically much different. The carbon that's all locked up in them now was somewhere else. Lots of it was in the atmosphere. 600M yes ago, it was ~7000ppm. Compare that to the above chart, more that 10x current levels!. (This doesn't make digging more carbon out and burning it ok, let alone desirable though!)

Population;

It is growing fast but rate of growth is slowing

We are actually at (or very near) "peak child" right now. What does that mean? It's the total number of children on the planet. So why does the population continue to grow yet number of children in existence has levelled off? Because people are dying prematurely less often and will continue to do so.The human replacement rate has levelled off, fewer people are dying prematurely. This is a good thing.

Capitalism is aweful;
It's has also brought more people out of poverty, reduced birth rates, educated more children and girls, raised living conditions, maintained more democracies, reduced gnarly diseases and deaths in childbirth and so many other fantastic things more than any other system that's gone before. It has it's flaws which must be better curtailed than currently are but to ditch it and start again - with what? And will it be better? Can you point to any examples?


"Us westerner's are the problem" or "we're insignificant"
We've put more CO2 out than anyone before but we're also a smaller number on the global scale. We've also reduced our per capita CO2 emissions since the ~70s without reducing our living standards. Why not try to continue to push our CO2 emissions down while maintaining or increasing our living standards and encourage less developed nations to develop quickly, educate their girls, reduce their birthrates and meet our lower output, higher living standards, situation in the middle?

 

[DAPPH]

It's the unfrozen herds of mammoths that concern me.... majestically sweeping down through Central Europe.

Come to South Wales we've got two legged ones in massive numbers. but they waddle rather than arrive in majestic herds .

 

[DAPPH]

I haven't read through all the long posts here as there are a lot. However a few things people seem a bit contradictory on.

Carbon;
It's an element. It's not created or destroyed on earth, it's just moved around. We're talking about CO2 here which is a product of carbony things burning or being digested/decomposed. The vast deposit of carbony things burried and locked up millions of years ago comprised plants and animals that originally got their carbony bits from the atmosphere. They didn't generate it from nothing.
CO2;
It hasn't nearly doubled in the atmosphere. It's approaching 1.5x pre industrial times.View attachment 290697
It's important to say "average level of past 1M years" as things were very different before that. Back when all those plants and animals were being burried, things were atmospherically much different. The carbon that's all locked up in them now was somewhere else. Lots of it was in the atmosphere. 600M yes ago, it was ~7000ppm. Compare that to the above chart, more that 10x current levels!. (This doesn't make digging more carbon out and burning it ok, let alone desirable though!)

Population;

It is growing fast but rate of growth is slowing
View attachment 290699
We are actually at (or very near) "peak child" right now. What does that mean? It's the total number of children on the planet. So why does the population continue to grow yet number of children in existence has levelled off? Because people are dying prematurely less often and will continue to do so.View attachment 290700The human replacement rate has levelled off, fewer people are dying prematurely. This is a good thing.

Capitalism is aweful;
It's has also brought more people out of poverty, reduced birth rates, educated more children and girls, raised living conditions, maintained more democracies, reduced gnarly diseases and deaths in childbirth and so many other fantastic things more than any other system that's gone before. It has it's flaws which must be better curtailed than currently are but to ditch it and start again - with what? And will it be better? Can you point to any examples?
View attachment 290708

"Us westerner's are the problem" or "we're insignificant"
We've put more CO2 out than anyone before but we're also a smaller number on the global scale. We've also reduced our per capita CO2 emissions since the ~70s without reducing our living standards. Why not try to continue to push our CO2 emissions down while maintaining or increasing our living standards and encourage less developed nations to develop quickly, educate their girls, reduce their birthrates and meet our lower output, higher living standards, situation in the middle?

Good post .

Unfortunately young girls in certain parts of the world have little chance of escaping religious rape & child birth at an early age . It's not much better either for those that manage to get a basic education. I wonder if we were able to educate the boys & men better in such matters if things would improve in that area ?

 

[Gareth J]

Good post .

Unfortunately young girls in certain parts of the world have little chance of escaping religious rape & child birth at an early age . It's not much better either for those that manage to get a basic education. I wonder if we were able to educate the boys & men better in such matters if things would improve in that area ?

Yes, there are ends of a spectrum on all measures. But girl's education is, on the whole, improving. Will post a similar chart later, if you're interested (and if I can find one!)

 

[Screwdriver]

Ok let's talk about contradictions.

1. Poster above is worried that 280m immigrants coming into the first world will increase waste, energy consumption, food consumption etc. and because of their vast numbers, therefore things get worse. My response to that is, what are these 280m people doing right now? Presumably the idea is to leave them where they are, don't "let them in" and that will help solve the problem of excessive consumption.

The obvious contradiction here is that the premise above does not support the idea that population number per se is the issue, it reinforces the argument that western civilisation, our culture (capitalism) is the root cause and it's only when those numbers "come over here" they become an issue by doing what we already do. Rampant consumerism and squandering energy to support capitalism which is a pyramid scheme on a grand scale.

2. Regards the "carbon cycle" which a poster above alludes to. It is called the carbon cycle but actually specifically refers to carbon compounds (typically CO2), the byproduct of living organisms and released into the atmosphere by combustion or the life process itself. The element carbon in and of itself is not a problem but when it becomes a greenhouse gas it is a very big problem! The precise figure "nearly double" or lit. 1.5x is largely irrelevant, what is important is that it is a LOT higher than it has been for many hundreds of thousands of years and you cannot (or should not) cherry pick data points to suggest it is a non issue because it was more/less/the same a million years ago!

There are a tremendous number of competing factors from astronomical/orbital positioning to the suns output and sea/forest cover. It is not helpful or even meaningful to try and compare geological timescales with this relatively brief post industrial instant, 200 years is a blink of an eye. Global warming is the result and there is a positive feedback (more warming leads to accelerated warming) as the planets eco system is knocked off its equilibrium and our climate shifts around to find a new "balance point" to dispose of the suns vast energy falling on our tiny planet.

 

[Gareth J]

Ok let's talk about contradictions.

1. Poster above is worried that 280m immigrants coming into the first world will increase waste, energy consumption, food consumption etc. and because of their vast numbers, therefore things get worse. My response to that is, what are these 280m people doing right now? Presumably the idea is to leave them where they are, don't "let them in" and that will help solve the problem of excessive consumption.

The obvious contradiction here is that the premise above does not support the idea that population number per se is the issue, it reinforces the argument that western civilisation, our culture (capitalism) is the root cause and it's only when those numbers "come over here" they become an issue by doing what we already do. Rampant consumerism and squandering energy to support capitalism which is a pyramid scheme on a grand scale.

2. Regards the "carbon cycle" which a poster above alludes to. It is called the carbon cycle but actually specifically refers to carbon compounds (typically CO2), the byproduct of living organisms and released into the atmosphere by combustion or the life process itself. The element carbon in and of itself is not a problem but when it becomes a greenhouse gas it is a very big problem! The precise figure "nearly double" or lit. 1.5x is largely irrelevant, what is important is that it is a LOT higher than it has been for many hundreds of thousands of years and you cannot (or should not) cherry pick data points to suggest it is a non issue because it was more/less/the same a million years ago!

There are a tremendous number of competing factors from astronomical/orbital positioning to the suns output and sea/forest cover. It is not helpful or even meaningful to try and compare geological timescales with this relatively brief post industrial instant, 200 years is a blink of an eye. Global warming is the result and there is a positive feedback (more warming leads to accelerated warming) as the planets eco system is knocked off its equilibrium and our climate shifts around to find a new "balance point" to dispose of the suns vast energy falling on our tiny planet.

Are you referring to me or someone else?

I've not said anything about immigration. I don't personally think it has a lot of relevance...and I'm not trying to downplay the dramatic rise in CO2! (Let alone the rate of the rise...!!!). I didn't recall who initially wrote the "2x CO2 level" inaccuracy, was it you? But thought clarity was important. It's big but it's closer to unchanged than 2x the amount. If you're referring to me, can I help with references for any of the data you feel I've "cherry picked" or ideally explain what/how I've cherry picked so I'm not confusing myself and others? As an aside; is the ppm rate expected to rise to 2x? If so, by when? I genuinely don't know.

In a wider context, the harness and use of energy has enabled more people across the world to escape drudgery than ever before. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it's come at the price of climate altering CO2 levels. That needs to be addressed but, like capitalism, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Using energy more efficiently and wisely, continuing to develop non carbon alternatives while enjoying lives that aren't wreaked by the drudgery of poverty has to be the goal, no?

And regarding your reference to the carbon cycle, that definitely was you I was attempting to clear up a point on. You said;
"It is a byproduct from living organisms so not as you may wish to believe, just floating about in the air." In response to morrisman asking where all the carbon that's locked up in fossil fuels came from. The vast majority of it was just floating around. Where did you imagine all the burried carbony animal got their carbon from?

 

[ronan]

Dunno why they want to come here anyway, China, Injia and the rest of Asia is where the opportunity is now (imho). Moving to China is like we used to head to the states, work and money.

 

[fizzy]

Dunno why they want to come here anyway, China, Injia and the rest of Asia is where the opportunity is now (imho). Moving to China is like we used to head to the states, work and money.

Except for the fact that if you disagree with their government or do something to upset them you vanish overnight!

 

[DAPPH]

Except for the fact that if you disagree with their government or do something to upset them you vanish overnight!

Population control by other means perhaps?

 

[Screwdriver]

Are you referring to me or someone else?

I've not said anything about immigration. I don't personally think it has a lot of relevance...and I'm not trying to downplay the dramatic rise in CO2! (Let alone the rate of the rise...!!!). I didn't recall who initially wrote the "2x CO2 level" inaccuracy, was it you? But thought clarity was important. It's big but it's closer to unchanged than 2x the amount. If you're referring to me, can I help with references for any of the data you feel I've "cherry picked" or ideally explain what/how I've cherry picked so I'm not confusing myself and others? As an aside; is the ppm rate expected to rise to 2x? If so, by when? I genuinely don't know.

In a wider context, the harness and use of energy has enabled more people across the world to escape drudgery than ever before. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it's come at the price of climate altering CO2 levels. That needs to be addressed but, like capitalism, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Using energy more efficiently and wisely, continuing to develop non carbon alternatives while enjoying lives that aren't wreaked by the drudgery of poverty has to be the goal, no?

And regarding your reference to the carbon cycle, that definitely was you I was attempting to clear up a point on. You said;
"It is a byproduct from living organisms so not as you may wish to believe, just floating about in the air." In response to morrisman asking where all the carbon that's locked up in fossil fuels came from. The vast majority of it was just floating around. Where did you imagine all the burried carbony animal got their carbon from?

I am pontificating generally in between tidying the shed. If I was talking to you directly, I would quote you as I am now.

Earlier in this thread someone posted a graph (which should be avoided at all costs!) which shows a linear rise in CO2 ppm then someone has extrapolated from that linear rise to show it inexplicably falling off. As if it was a ballistic trajectory which "naturally" falls. Without the science to describe it let alone explain it, those sorts of graphs can be safely ignored. Like the rest of humanity, I have no idea what's going to happen in the next 10/20 years except to note that China (to pick just one) are intending to accelerate their "carbon" output until 2040. That is the "Paris Climate Agreement" in a nutshell: "we're just going to carry on doing what we are already doing only more of it with an ambition to stop being so naughty once global warming hits 2 degrees above the expected norm".

As I recall the predicted 2 degree rise if we do nothing now was a disaster level, not a target...

Using energy more efficiently and wisely is a good ambition. You need to convince global corp inc. because they will always just do whatever makes them the most profit.

I have explained the typical confusion between "carbon" in the vernacular referring to CO2 in particular. It also loosely refers to other complex carbon compounds. All elemental matter is created in supernovae and coalesces to form dirty little specks we call planets** as a byproduct of star formation. Complex interaction of matter and energy (same thing really) causes elements to form compounds and/or arrange themselves into interesting structures like CO2 or Diamond etc. It's really only the CO2 that is concerning because we are generating more of it in a shorter timescale than our delicate eco system has evolved to tolerate to maintain the current state of equilibrium with our climate.

So yes I am aware that the "carbon footprint" is not referring to elemental carbon, nor is it anything to do with having big feet.


**<edit> interesting pop science fact: all of the other planets in our solar system would, if arranged in a line, fit between the earth and the moon.

 

[Wedg1e]

View attachment 290697

Classic example of journalism meets statistics (not the poster, whoever drew the table): "the rate of increase is alarming". Opinion not required if you are illustrating facts.
Similar to how almost every article on the BBC 'news' website now has an 'Analysis' appended, in case you're too thick to see the overall view.

 

[Gareth J]

I am pontificating generally in between tidying the shed. If I was talking to you directly, I would quote you as I am now.

Earlier in this thread someone posted a graph (which should be avoided at all costs!) which shows a linear rise in CO2 ppm then someone has extrapolated from that linear rise to show it inexplicably falling off. As if it was a ballistic trajectory which "naturally" falls. Without the science to describe it let alone explain it, those sorts of graphs can be safely ignored. Like the rest of humanity, I have no idea what's going to happen in the next 10/20 years except to note that China (to pick just one) are intending to accelerate their "carbon" output until 2040. That is the "Paris Climate Agreement" in a nutshell: "we're just going to carry on doing what we are already doing only more of it with an ambition to stop being so naughty once global warming hits 2 degrees above the expected norm".

As I recall the predicted 2 degree rise if we do nothing now was a disaster level, not a target...

Using energy more efficiently and wisely is a good ambition. You need to convince global corp inc. because they will always just do whatever makes them the most profit.

I have explained the typical confusion between "carbon" in the vernacular referring to CO2 in particular. It also loosely refers to other complex carbon compounds. All elemental matter is created in supernovae and coalesces to form dirty little specks we call planets as a byproduct of star formation. Complex interaction of matter and energy (same thing really) causes elements to form compounds and/or arrange themselves into interesting structures like CO2 or Diamond etc. It's really only the CO2 that is concerning because we are generating more of it in a shorter timescale than our delicate eco system has evolved to tolerate to maintain the current state of equilibrium with our climate.

So yes I am aware that the "carbon footprint" is not referring to elemental carbon, nor is it anything to do with having big feet.

All good, just watch those details when pontificating! We don't need to exaggerate the situation as it's bad enough anyway! It's a subject that's got so many looking for reasons to dismiss legitimate climate concerns, exaggerations are ammunition for deniers. Similarly, dismissing people like morrisman when they rightly point out that the Carbon now burried was once atmospheric is counterproductive. We know the atmosphere used to have bonkers CO2 levels. Better to acknowledge this but explain that this is very much not a desirable situation.

Yes, curtailing rampant short termist capitalism and in particular consumerism is hard but, considering the alternative options, I reckon that's our best chance. A long way to go but feels like there are reasons to be optimistic.

Good luck with the tidying

 

[Gareth J]

Classic example of journalism meets statistics (not the poster, whoever drew the table): "the rate of increase is alarming". Opinion not required if you are illustrating facts.

I agree. I've taken it out of context though. It was more appropriate in its initial setting and the stats are sensible. Afraid I just snapped a picture in a magazine that was on the table. And to be fair, the rate of change is unprecedented, which ought to make you uncomfortable even if it doesn't alarm you!

 

[Wedg1e]

I agree. I've taken it out of context though. It was more appropriate in its initial setting and the stats are sensible. Afraid I just snapped a picture in a magazine that was on the table. And to be fair, the rate of change is unprecedented, which ought to make you uncomfortable even if it doesn't alarm you!

97.4% of statistics are made up on the spot anyway.

Or should that be 88.6%...?

 

[redlig]

Come to South Wales we've got two legged ones in massive numbers. but they waddle rather than arrive in majestic herds .

Don't complain just take their money. Not the PC answer but would make me feel better if I had to put up with them.

 

[Screwdriver]

...dismissing people like morrisman when they rightly point out that the Carbon now burried was once atmospheric is counterproductive. We know the atmosphere used to have bonkers CO2 levels. Better to acknowledge this but explain that this is very much not a desirable situation.

This is what I was replying to:

Where was all that CO2 before it got turned into fossil fuel?

Obviously suggesting that CO2 is all around us anyway and there's no more/no less than ever. I explain the process by which CO2 is generated and how such huge volumes of this "natural" material, having been safely buried for millennia is being dumped into the atmosphere in a tiny fraction of the time it took for it to build up in such quantities.