The hard answer to the climate crisis

It’s not straws.

Simply put we’re overpopulated. Too many mouths to feed.

It's not nessecary the hard answer, but rather the unethical answer. Essentially it's not hard to feed and house the world poppulation even if it grows, as Ghandi put it "There is enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed".

The right wing economic elite have stimulated a culture of consumption and supressed ecological conciousness for their perceived benifit. There are easy solutions to climate change and hard ones. Dark side of the force and light so to speak. I mean, if you really want the easiest sollution just wipe out 99% of the world poppulation already. Humanity will survive with just 60 million people aswell, and the almost logical consideration to make in that inhumane proposition is afcourse to "keep the best". Or to put it differently, the facists have the easiest sollution to propose. There would be a lot less pollution with just 60 million people and they all would have more space and a better life besides being perceived as better in gene's oh joy.

The more humane aproach to solve a hard problem requires not taking preference for inhumane choices because they are easy, but find humane sollutions when possible even if its hard full stop. I hope i don't need to explain where child control stands in relation to western ideals of liberalism?I'd think it stupid to throw away the "proverbial" child with the bathwater if we can prioritise on other more liberal sollutions first thank you

It grate's me that when a problem is difficult, that a inhumane sollution would became so poppularly repeated, especially if among those who peddle that idea you'd find many that previously had denied all existance of climate change. The elite denied climate change for their greed as long as they could, i detest those among them that would now peddle that proposal upon being forced to acknowledge an issue to which they hold such responsabillety especialy trough denial, becuase it would just boil down to the elite pushing the costs into the throats of the coman people while they don't need to tackle the complicated issue's that requires an effort of them.

It's not because a problem is hard, that we are going to solve it by being simple. The eonomic elite and our "entrepeneurs, captains of industry" needs to start take responsabillety instead of trying to shove it off all the time.
 
It's not nessecary the hard answer, but rather the unethical answer. Essentially it's not hard to feed and house the world poppulation even if it grows, as Ghandi put it "There is enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed".

The right wing economic elite have stimulated a culture of consumption and supressed ecological conciousness for their perceived benifit. There are easy solutions to climate change and hard ones. Dark side of the force and light so to speak. I mean, if you really want the easiest sollution just wipe out 99% of the world poppulation already. Humanity will survive with just 60 million people aswell, and the almost logical consideration to make in that inhumane proposition is afcourse to "keep the best". Or to put it differently, the facists have the easiest sollution to propose. There would be a lot less pollution with just 60 million people and they all would have more space and a better life besides being perceived as better in gene's oh joy.

The more humane aproach to solve a hard problem requires not taking preference for inhumane choices because they are easy, but find humane sollutions when possible even if its hard full stop. I hope i don't need to explain where child control stands in relation to western ideals of liberalism?I'd think it stupid to throw away the "proverbial" child with the bathwater if we can prioritise on other more liberal sollutions first thank you

It grate's me that when a problem is difficult, that a inhumane sollution would became so poppularly repeated, especially if among those who peddle that idea you'd find many that previously had denied all existance of climate change. The elite denied climate change for their greed as long as they could, i detest those among them that would now peddle that proposal upon being forced to acknowledge an issue to which they hold such responsabillety especialy trough denial, becuase it would just boil down to the elite pushing the costs into the throats of the coman people while they don't need to tackle the complicated issue's that requires an effort of them.

It's not because a problem is hard, that we are going to solve it by being simple. The eonomic elite and our "entrepeneurs, captains of industry" needs to start take responsabillety instead of trying to shove it off all the time.


Top rant there Duck.
If the spell checking police see it though you will be the first against the wall! :)
 
Simply put we are not, 30-40% of all food produced is wasted.

What we don't do is manage our resources and distribution of properlyglobally.
We also don't educate enough on food waste and enviromentally better eating practices and have fostered a fast food, eat ready meals mindset.
We also live in societies where profit comes first.
We also live in societies where we work ourselves to death and don't take tme for the finer things like a nice balanced healthy meal.

We don't need vast food production like we see killing off the amazon, but we have it because i's profitable, feed a fast paced consumerist society, while other parts of the world starve.


Until we work as one species and one planet not squabling nations we will never solve our problems.
We are properly screwed then.
 
What’s this about too many people? Thought it was too many cars and too many emissions. Unfortunately I don’t see a solution. Of course there are solutions but they won’t be implemented in time or globally. As long as individual countries have ‘ownership’ of the earths assets instead of ‘custody’ and continue to be tribal in nature, there will be no meaningful reverse. It is the white walkers multiplied. It’s a question of how long do we have. 100 years? Maybe more.
 
Too many people is the correct answer.

7 billion now rising to 11 billion.

Thankfully, I'll be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan, living out my days in the warm, tropical climes of Manchester
 
Crisis what Crisis , Roger Hodgson said it 45 years ago.

The answer always lies in a song.

We have had many times in this planet's "evolution" when the average temperature was much warmer and much colder than it is now , we just haven't had 7.5 billion people to cloth , feed and shelter.

Increased levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere are not mutually exclusive to natural increases and decreases in temperature irrespective of the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

It would be interesting to see how plant life that without we wouldn't survive fared and adapted in times when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher in parts per million than it is now.

the more C02 in the air the richer the plant life

If we could change the inert gas of nitrogen as a glucose generator to perform the function oxygen does and similarly for plant and animal life and we don't freeze to death as a consequence we should be fine until our population ceases to be sustainable.

We need energy in the body to survive and energy for electricity and fuel to sustain modern living.

Burning fossil fuels for countries like Australia is essential for base load power it isn't for others given their terrain.

A sustainable mix to light and heat and cool the infrastructure of the planet is what is required and for countries like Australia and the USA for example renewable energy isn't the answer.

Australia needs to go all nuclear if energy production is to be CO2 free.

What the US is now discovering is Wind Farms and Solar Farms are bad for the environment , destroy species of plants and birds etc because of where they need to be installed, very ineffective in base load energy generation and too dependant on fluctuations in wind and sun. When the wind is too strong they are ineffective as they are when the wind doesn't blow enough and the moons orbit which changes only marginally in rotation to orbit speed to render them useless for electricity generation not to mention the noise pollution they generate.

The simplest example is a solar powered device like a calculator , useless when there is not enough light ( sun ).

Always a question of balance just ask Justin Hayward , more Co2 should mean quicker plant growth until is gets too much to start to inhibit nitrogen intake so more plants which is good but less in nutrients which is not so good for animals and plants.

What I don't like is the deep state which transfers money under the guise of climate change from the rich to make a new rich richer at the expense of the poor.

Climate change in terms of global warming and its impact is grossly overrated and those that champion it do it in name only , they continue to use products and services that are rich in CO2 production.
 
I’ve now become convinced we won’t make the changes needed for clean energy globally.

The best we can hope for is that whatever happens as a result isn’t too bad or that technology will be invented to take Co2/warmth out of the atmosphere.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.