Climate Change is here and man made

[Deleted member 77198]

I think you have limited imagination.

View attachment 23410

View attachment 23411

Like you ;-) ... I cannot imagine what technology we could develop over the next 100 or 200 years as needed to prevent the most catastrophic effects alarmists like to bandy around.

Which is all well and good if that technological development is invested in and worked on towards improving Green issues. But it’s currently not the case in nearly enough volume.

The attitude of “it’ll be alright, someone will come up with something at some point… we hope” that the world is currently peddling is wishy-washy lack-of-responsibility book-passing nonsense. Governments have signed treaties in decades gone by to say they will hit emissions goals by certain dates and not stuck to them because they did not invest in or invite investors to invest in initiatives to tackle the need.

Who will come up with the Green technological advances? When? Where’s the investment coming from? Where are the laws to ensure they’re followed worldwide? How will they catch up to the acceleration of climate change? Where’s the proof they will?

This is where there needs to be far more coverage of this. Not more moaning about the current coverage of it, more coverage, more awareness, more action.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

When humans spread around and out of Africa 125,000 years ago or so, there isn’t an area that they populated where they didn’t make all megafauna of the time extinct.

Redirect Notice

They also caused a lot of deforestation

Ancient deforestation in the green heart of Africa

The forested expanses of Central Africa host the second largest block of tropical rainforest on Earth (after Amazonia), stretching over around 2 × 106 km2. They are the great green heart of Africa, and changes in vegetation cover are likely to have important but poorly understood influences on...

www.pnas.org

The Amazon Rainforest Was Profoundly Changed by Ancient Humans

The region’s ecology is a product of 8,000 years of indigenous agriculture.

www.theatlantic.com

Look at Great Britain; once covered in forest, is now just 13% forest. This isn’t a modern change (although there was a big first full by the Normans), it started thousands of years ago.

The Industrial Age saw the population explosion which saw the industrial emissions explosion; you could also say that it was when we started agriculture and raising livestock 12,000 years ago that is seeing our biggest problems now.

“agriculture and land-use generates more greenhouse gas emissions than power generation”

Redirect Notice

Humans have always been devastating to the planet, it’s a revolution we need as a species to change that. It’s the next big revolution for our species. We had the cognitive revolution 35,000 years ago; the Neolithic revolution 12,00 years ago; and the scientific revolution 600 years ago (which includes the industrial and digital revolutions).

I was more generalising about global impacts. A lot of the points you raise about deforestation and the extinction of megafauna are relatively local events in the grand scheme of things. The planet could easily cope with those kind of events it that what is bad for one species is good for another. The natural ebb and flow of the various cycles still kept the earth in relative equilibrium (barring the odd seismic/volcanic event).

I agree with you on agriculture and livestock. Once we learned that keeping and breeding wild animals was a viable survival mechanism things took a turn for the worse. Even at that point it would have been redeemable eventually, but it's the industrial age that has really put us on the brink.

 

[mancity1]

Should be both and more.

Billions needs to be invested in contraception in the developing world. But at the moment it’s not necessarily the developing world who are creating the most emissions.

It’s the usage and wastage from the developed world that is the worst problem. Both in terms of emissions and global farming that is consumed by the developed world.

Although, as the developing world develops and starts to catch up with the developed world in terms of usage and emissions, we will have an even bigger problem than we have now.

Think you will find China and India considered as developing countries are by some way the biggest polluters already and have a long way to go to pull the vast majority of their populations out of poverty which is a good thing and they are entitled to and as such they get a leave pass and for example will continue increasing their emissions at a much higher rate than the rest of the world reduce theirs and the atmosphere cares nought where the greenhouse gases come.

The Paris agreement means nought to countries like Australia because we could become carbon neutral tomorrow ( if we did we would lose around 650k jobs in the transport , agriculture and manufacturing industries as well as making electricity costs for the majority of householders largely unaffordable ) but nevertheless it would not make one jot of difference to the temperature increase as we currently only emit 1.1 per cent.

 

[TonyM]

Abit authoritarian that. In Britain we need our younger population to rise alot to help fund the pensions of the elderly we have.


Is a depressing thread I agree but probably contains alot of uncomfortable truths.

Maybe less young people just creates the supply to go with the demand for migration from the poor people most impacted by global warming?

For example in Ireland we could could cut our births, increase immigration and properly ensure that integration is a success in terms of maintaining the Irish culture but simply with different DNA. (Less sunburned gingers)

 

[Scottyboi]

Maybe less young people just creates the supply to go with the demand for migration from the poor people most impacted by global warming?

For example in Ireland we could could cut our births, increase immigration and properly ensure that integration is a success in terms of maintaining the Irish culture but simply with different DNA. (Less sunburned gingers)

Birth rates in Europe are lower than most of the world already. Even in my personal family my dad's one of 10 who then had 5 kids and I've got 2 kids. But there is a whole generation my dad's age that will need their state pensions covering.

 

[Scottyboi]

Think you will find China and India considered as developing countries are by some way the biggest polluters already and have a long way to go to pull the vast majority of their populations out of poverty which is a good thing and they are entitled to and as such they get a leave pass and for example will continue increasing their emissions at a much higher rate than the rest of the world reduce theirs and the atmosphere cares nought where the greenhouse gases come.

The Paris agreement means nought to countries like Australia because we could become carbon neutral tomorrow ( if we did we would lose around 650k jobs in the transport , agriculture and manufacturing industries as well as making electricity costs for the majority of householders largely unaffordable ) but nevertheless it would not make one jot of difference to the temperature increase as we currently only emit 1.1 per cent.

It's ok for us to blame China for pollution but we all buy their cheap shite products and clothes and export them to the other side of the world. The way we throw away clothes and electronics is careless me included.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It's ok for us to blame China for pollution but we all buy their cheap shite products and clothes and export them to the other side of the world. The way we throw away clothes and electronics is careless me included.

China ship their cheap sh*t all over the world which in itself is polluting. And that's on top of the CO2 and other chemical byproducts of the manufacturing process. I'd love to know what percentage of that sh*t ends up in landfill within 5 years of being made.

 

[GortonBlue62]

Human ingenuity and innovation are providing solutions but they aren’t moving fast enough to keep up with the acceleration of climate change, they will take too long before they do catch up at the current rate and size they are going.

For example, there are CO2 capturing plants around the world that capture emissions from the air and lock them deep underground in rocks. There are currently 19 plants, there are plans in the future to have more of them, but in the next 25 years there aren’t plans in place to have enough for what we needed 25 years ago.

When you read around, all of the initiatives we have come up with are facing the same problems - there aren’t enough of them, they aren’t moving fast enough to catch up, there isn’t enough widespread coverage, it isn’t being taken seriously enough, and there isn’t enough investment.

We are moving forward with the innovations and initiatives, but while still doing so, we are moving ever further away from the goal because it’s just moving far to quickly to catch up to. A lot of them are saying they will be where they need to be now, in 50 years, but the climate isn’t going to pause to allow us to catch up… my analogy the other day was that it’s like we are deciding to start ‘Couch to 5K’ on Monday and thinking we’re going to win an Ironman race on the weekend.

This is where more everyone needs to act, individuals, groups, governments. Because we will not be fine!

The level of indifference towards this is frightening.

The level of uninformed group think on this is disappointing but not surprising.

 

[GortonBlue62]

It may not be an existential problem for humanity as a whole in that we're not going extinct any time soon but it's going to be very much an existential problem if you are a poor farmer in a third world country whose family is about to die of hunger due to extreme weather events. Or if you live in a low lying coastal area which gets inundated in the next few years. Just because we'll be largely OK in the UK doesn't mean we should have an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

It will also very much become our problem when said poor farmers see that we're doing OK here, decide they're not going to sit about waiting to die, and start turning up in numbers that make the current migrant levels seem like a minor annoyance.

IPCC reports do talk about the advantages of warming too but the MSM never highlight them. Parts of the world that are now uninhabitable will become habitable. We are an incredibly adaptive species and will not only cope we'll thrive.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Think you will find China and India considered as developing countries are by some way the biggest polluters already and have a long way to go to pull the vast majority of their populations out of poverty which is a good thing and they are entitled to and as such they get a leave pass and for example will continue increasing their emissions at a much higher rate than the rest of the world reduce theirs and the atmosphere cares nought where the greenhouse gases come.

The Paris agreement means nought to countries like Australia because we could become carbon neutral tomorrow ( if we did we would lose around 650k jobs in the transport , agriculture and manufacturing industries as well as making electricity costs for the majority of householders largely unaffordable ) but nevertheless it would not make one jot of difference to the temperature increase as we currently only emit 1.1 per cent.

If you look at individual counties, that’s the case, indeed.

But it’s easy to say that developing countries like China, India, Brazil and Indonesia already pump out some of the largest emission volumes on the planet. However, despite their huge populations, they aren’t just pumping them out for their own consumption; it’s the developed world that consumes and contributes to their emission volumes as well, not necessarily them doing it to pull their own populations out of poverty.

It’s the developing world who produce the agricultural and electrical goods for the world, and it’s mainly the developed world that consumes them. Beef raising in Argentina, palm oil production in Indonesia, mobile phone production in China, oil production in Arabia will all contribute to their own emission volumes but are mainly consumed outside their countries.

Overall it’s the developed world that consumes and emits the most even when we don’t necessarily emit them from our own power plant chimney stacks.

 

[west didsblue]

It's ok for us to blame China for pollution but we all buy their cheap shite products and clothes and export them to the other side of the world. The way we throw away clothes and electronics is careless me included.

As someone said earlier, we outsourced much of our polluting activities (manufacturing) to the developing world and as someone else said, shipping the finished products back here compounds the problem due the polluting nature of the shipping industry. Now we are looking at opening up our market to Australian livestock which will make matters even worse. Much of the world seems to be doing the opposite of what is needed for a sustainable long term future. There needs to be a wholesale change in mindset rather than just thinking about local CO2 emissions which will only scratch the surface of the problem.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

IPCC reports do talk about the advantages of warming too but the MSM never highlight them. Parts of the world that are now uninhabitable will become habitable. We are an incredibly adaptive species and will not only cope we'll thrive.

A different angle to the climate change issue is the economic benefits of the shift to a 'green' economy. A lot of startup companies have jumped on the green gravy train peddling new tech such as heat pumps, PV cells and the like. You think any of them give a single f*ck about the environment really (apart from their beautiful green mission statement)?

Money makes the World go round. Just depends what state you want it in.

 

[grunge]

China ship their cheap sh*t all over the world which in itself is polluting. And that's on top of the CO2 and other chemical byproducts of the manufacturing process. I'd love to know what percentage of that sh*t ends up in landfill within 5 years of being made.

I noted this earlier in the thread. the 16 largest shipping ships produce more pollution that all the cars on the planet combined. regulating these would be a quick win

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I noted this earlier in the thread. the 16 largest shipping ships produce more pollution that all the cars on the planet combined. regulating these would be a quick win

It is 'regulated' through MARPOL, but I don't think it goes far enough.

 

[Scottyboi]

As someone said earlier, we outsourced much of our polluting activities (manufacturing) to the developing world and as someone else said, shipping the finished products back here compounds the problem due the polluting nature of the shipping industry. Now we are looking at opening up our market to Australian livestock which will make matters even worse. Much of the world seems to be doing the opposite of what is needed for a sustainable long term future. There needs to be a wholesale change in mindset rather than just thinking about local CO2 emissions which will only scratch the surface of the problem.

Bought a bed from Argos for my son, it was made in Malaysia ridiculous considering I've worked in a mill making furniture.

 

[GortonBlue62]

A different angle to the climate change issue is the economic benefits of the shift to a 'green' economy. A lot of startup companies have jumped on the green gravy train peddling new tech such as heat pumps, PV cells and the like. You think any of them give a single f*ck about the environment really (apart from their beautiful green mission statement)?

Money makes the World go round. Just depends what state you want it in.

I agree companies do and say whatever is required to keep themselves relevant and profitable. But do their motives matter if they behave as the eco-mentalists wanted? A win win situation surely?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

IPCC reports do talk about the advantages of warming too but the MSM never highlight them. Parts of the world that are now uninhabitable will become habitable. We are an incredibly adaptive species and will not only cope we'll thrive.

It’s alright saying general hands-off terms like “we are an incredibly adaptive species”, but that doesn’t take into account that there are already migrations of people who aren’t sticking around in areas where the climate has had an effect on their homes to adapt to the changes.

There were 55m climate migrants in 2020. I can’t remember if it was you who said that there are more important issues going on in the world than climate change, but 55m climate migrants is 50.7m more people than have died from Covid.

They aren’t sticking around where they did live to adapt, they won’t take the amount of years it takes us to evolve as a species to get used to the changes in climate… they are migrating to other more habitable areas, mainly where people already live (not necessarily to newly habitable empty lands that are ready to take on the migrants). So those 55m migrants (that’s just in one year, don’t forget!) will have an effect on many more millions of people and conurbations that need to home them. It’s not as far down the list of importance as you’d think.

 

[west didsblue]

Bought a bed from Argos for my son, it was made in Malaysia ridiculous considering I've worked in a mill making furniture.

Yep, that's a perfect example of what I mean. I'm sure that a bed could be made in the UK or Europe using locally sourced wood that wouldn't need shipping half way round the world. That would save quite a lot of unnecessary energy use.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I agree companies do and say whatever is required to keep themselves relevant and profitable. But do their motives matter if they behave as the eco-mentalists wanted? A win win situation surely?

I know a guy (defence industry scientist) who had PV's fitted to his roof. It was one of those deals when the panels were on a cheap rental/final payment in 10 years and he could sell excess energy back to the grid at a fixed rate.

He did a bit of fiddling around and worked out a method of making his panels more efficient, effectively increasing his yield by around 22%. Great for his pocket and great for the environment... or so he thought. After about 4 months, the energy company sent a representative round to his house to tell him in no uncertain terms to 'pack it in' otherwise they'd be back to remove the panels.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

The level of uninformed group think on this is disappointing but not surprising.

Uninformed group think? Scientists worldwide who believe there needs to be huge change to tackle climate change and other green issues are in the vast majority compared to those who don’t. My comment about indifference was talking about the world as a whole, including governments, not about this thread.