Climate Change is here and man made

There's a clock graphic which shows that humans have been on earth for about 30 seconds in the grand scheme of things.

During that time we've wrecked the planet.

You could argue that a lot of it was down to ignorance but there's no excuse now.
 
I wonder whether humanity will eventually be able to devise technology to remove huge quantities of CO2 from the air. It’s an eye-watering undertaking, but never say never.

What we are doing to the oceans in particular is disgusting. There’s too many people on the planet. The current levels aren’t sustainable, from the planet’s perspective.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I wonder whether humanity will eventually be able to devise technology to remove huge quantities of CO2 from the air.
Click to expand...

Of course we will. It's impossible to imagine the sorts of technologies we'll have available in 50 or 100 years time. For a start, we'll probably have nuclear fusion cracked by then, so (a) we won't need to produce any CO2 in order to generate energy, and (b) we'll have essentially limitless "free" energy to power all sorts of carbon sequestration technology which isn't conceivable right now.

Jumping through ever more ludicrous hoops now, in order to fix a problem which is 100 years away, would not be such a silly idea if there were no adverse consequences. But there are enormous adverse consequences. The numbers of people who die in the developing world each year is astronomically high and to seek to constrain economic development in those countries (which is the effect of imposing strict carbon emissions targets) condemns literally millions of people to a premature death. And then there's the rather silly idea of trying to fix a future problem with old technology. A bit like deciding to fight world war 3 with bi-planes.

There's nothing wrong with prudence, but the climate change challenge is WAY over hyped and politicised.
 
Ban-jani said:
Absolutely correct.

Could not agree more in fact.
Click to expand...
Only it isn't exponential.

World population is predicted to flatline at around 11 billion. Challenging enough to sustain that number of course, but to imagine it's just going to inexorably rise, let alone inexorably rise at an exponential rate, is not correct.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Only it isn't exponential.

World population is predicted to flatline at around 11 billion. Challenging enough to sustain that number of course, but to imagine it's just going to inexorably rise, let alone inexorably rise at an exponential rate, is not correct.
Click to expand...

Odd to reply two years later, I can’t even remember posting the above.

Do you have any content to back that up?
 
Chippy_boy said:
Of course we will. It's impossible to imagine the sorts of technologies we'll have available in 50 or 100 years time. For a start, we'll probably have nuclear fusion cracked by then, so (a) we won't need to produce any CO2 in order to generate energy, and (b) we'll have essentially limitless "free" energy to power all sorts of carbon sequestration technology which isn't conceivable right now.

Jumping through ever more ludicrous hoops now, in order to fix a problem which is 100 years away, would not be such a silly idea if there were no adverse consequences. But there are enormous adverse consequences. The numbers of people who die in the developing world each year is astronomically high and to seek to constrain economic development in those countries (which is the effect of imposing strict carbon emissions targets) condemns literally millions of people to a premature death. And then there's the rather silly idea of trying to fix a future problem with old technology. A bit like deciding to fight world war 3 with bi-planes.

There's nothing wrong with prudence, but the climate change challenge is WAY over hyped and politicised.
Click to expand...

i would suggest it's foolish to expect that technology that's not yet been invented could be used to solve a problem that is likely to have significant adverse consequences to the whole planet, especially when we can do something about it at the moment.

i work in an environment and sustainability management role in an engineering company and use this image a lot when delivering presentations.
4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg


We (as a developed nation) should be doing everything we can to reduce our impacts. You mention people dying but they're dying now thanks to air pollution, especially in our cites (not on the same scale granted).

We could do something about it if we wanted, but we wont as it'll cost money
 
es1 said:
i would suggest it's foolish to expect that technology that's not yet been invented could be used to solve a problem that is likely to have significant adverse consequences to the whole planet, especially when we can do something about it at the moment.

i work in an environment and sustainability management role in an engineering company and use this image a lot when delivering presentations.
4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg


We (as a developed nation) should be doing everything we can to reduce our impacts. You mention people dying but they're dying now thanks to air pollution, especially in our cites (not on the same scale granted).

We could do something about it if we wanted, but we wont as it'll cost money
Click to expand...

If acting now has no downsides, then I'm all for it - who wouldn't be. But it's very simplistic (and wrong) to suggest that it has no downsides. Have you any idea how much money has been spent on climate change initiatives? I don't but when you consider the wind farms and the solar farms and electric cars and what have you, I would imagine it's hundreds of billions globally. What if all that money had been spent on developing sustainable agriculture for famine-stricken African countries? Or on cancer research? The climate change bandwaggon is consuming vast amounts of resources, and possibly all for nothing when we decide in 25 years that the next ice age is coming.

The whole movement if riddled with those with political agendas, seeked to sensationalise, to scaremonger and exaggerate. Is a 50cm rise in sea levels over the next 100 years so absolutely terrible that we'd rather condemn millions to death instead? Is a warmer and wetter climate really so terrible, over the next 100 years? Have the public been invited to consider these possibilities, or have they simply been fed propaganda about how calamitous it will all be and that we MUST act NOW?
 
denislawsbackheel said:
We are centuries away from nuclear fusion as a viable power source.


If ever.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, what on earth gives you that idea?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists

"Bob Mumgaard, CEO of the private company Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has attracted $50 million in support of this effort from the Italian energy company Eni, said: “The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate change. We think we have the science, speed and scale to put carbon-free fusion power on the grid in 15 years.”

That may be optimistic, but to suggest we won't have it "for centuries", is frankly ludicrous.

https://www.livescience.com/61132-first-fusion-plant-plasma-core-half-completed.html

"If the project proves successful, ITER scientists predict that fusion plants may start coming online as soon as 2040"
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
Of course we will. It's impossible to imagine the sorts of technologies we'll have available in 50 or 100 years time. For a start, we'll probably have nuclear fusion cracked by then, so (a) we won't need to produce any CO2 in order to generate energy, and (b) we'll have essentially limitless "free" energy to power all sorts of carbon sequestration technology which isn't conceivable right now.

Jumping through ever more ludicrous hoops now, in order to fix a problem which is 100 years away, would not be such a silly idea if there were no adverse consequences. But there are enormous adverse consequences. The numbers of people who die in the developing world each year is astronomically high and to seek to constrain economic development in those countries (which is the effect of imposing strict carbon emissions targets) condemns literally millions of people to a premature death. And then there's the rather silly idea of trying to fix a future problem with old technology. A bit like deciding to fight world war 3 with bi-planes.

There's nothing wrong with prudence, but the climate change challenge is WAY over hyped and politicised.
Click to expand...
"We'll probably have nuclear fusion cracked"? That's quite the mixed metaphor, especially when you prefaced it with "It's impossible to imagine..." and then you start, well, imagining. I'm not saying I don't hope and believe we won't get Fusion "cracked" but we just can't rely on what might happen with technology, when we know that we are having a detrimental impact on our own environment.

As for politicising it. It is political, as your post proves.

There is no other solution, other than a political one.

I hope the science is wrong, but it isn't.

IMO, we're as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

But, I am an optimist and I do believe in the scientific method, and human nature and ability, so I do think we might/can mitigate the worst effects. But I also don't think we can, or will, stop major climate change happening. The die is cast.

What we can do is invest in, and share, resources and technology.

The developing world needn't use dirty energy to grow.

There aren't too many people, there are too many uneducated people.

We need to invest in the science, because we could seriously fuck it up for future generations, of all species on this Pale Blue Dot, if not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I wonder whether humanity will eventually be able to devise technology to remove huge quantities of CO2 from the air. It’s an eye-watering undertaking, but never say never.
Click to expand...
I don't think we'll ever invent tree's gdm ;-)

Did anyone watch that Stacey Dooley documentary tonight on how fashion is polluting the earth, its as big an issue as fossil fuel for me, I had no idea how bad it was, and it contributes to the use of fossil fuel/climate change and plastic problem.
 
cleavers said:
I don't think we'll ever invent tree's gdm ;-)

Did anyone watch that Stacey Dooley documentary tonight on how fashion is polluting the earth, its as big an issue as fossil fuel for me, I had no idea how bad it was, and it contributes to the use of fossil fuel/climate change and plastic problem.
Click to expand...
I watched it, but my biggest takeaway wasn't climate change, it was just good, old-fashioned water pollution.

Feeling increasingly smug about all of the bamboo socks I just bought now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top