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.

In a Few Centuries, Cows Could Be the Largest Land Animals Left

Throughout our entire history, humans and other hominins have selectively killed off the largest mammals.

www.google.co.uk

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”

Meat And Agriculture Are Worse For The Climate Than Power Generation, Steven Chu Says

The world has focused first on energy in its effort to stop greenhouse gas emissions, but former Energy Secretary Steven Chu puts agriculture at the top of his list of climate challenges—particularly animal agriculture.

www.google.co.uk

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.