|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 12:31:42 GMT
Okay, so as someone who is right wing. Tell me which part of this you disagree with. 1 - humans are causing a climate catastrophe, already at the level of a mass extinction event. 2 - companies have contributed the vast majority of CO 2 emissions since 1850. 3 - companies have spent the majority of the second half of the 20th century trying to cover up and dispute evidence that they are causing and contributing to this. 4 - If we get warming over 3 oC, there will be irreconcilable crises that we will not be able to stop or fix. 5 - companies and governments must reduce their CO 2 outputs among other emissions in order to slow warming to retrievable levels. 6 - companies and governments will not do this unless forced to, as the initial cost is large. 7 - The initial cost is bollocks compared to the cost if we do nothing, so govts and companies must be forced to change their ways. Tell me each bullet point that you disagree with and why. I cannot see how anyone on the right or left can disagree with any part of that. Socialist or not. Even if you think the science is settled (it's not, it's a Chicken Little scenario), any action that our tiny little spit of land takes is undone thousands of times over by China, the USA, India, and developing African countries. We are powerless in the scheme of things by the admission of people who spout this bollocks. It's bailing out the basement while there are holes in the roof. All that we are accomplishing is to pay a fucking fortune to lower the quality of our lives. Climate Change (TM) is exaggerated, hyperbolic claptrap. Conning people into falling for this nonsense is an extremely lucrative and profitable business. It started with the Greens saying "Vote for us and we'll save the world", and now all the bastards are at it. It's an excuse to tax people to fuck. It's an excuse for companies to persuade you to unnecessarily upgrade possessions and make perfectly good items obsolete. It's a way of conning people to pay more money for shitter stuff. Sadly, too many people have already fallen for it and they make pariahs of people who stand up against the lies. Even if it's true, there's fuck all the UK can do about it. I'm a physicist who has worked in renewables. Climate change is real and true. The science is 100% settled and most predictions don't include all issues, especially things like feedback loops and permafrost melt. It's worse than we think. What's the point then? just give up and die? No, there is not a chance on earth China or the USA will do anything unless other countries start the way. All nations have to change and all of us need to force our govt to change. If we were to genuinely go carbon neutral by 2030, imagine the pressure that would generate on other countries? If you have to pretend that economy is more important, imagine how much money we'd make selling our tech to other countries? We either do it, or we get ready for civilisation to get a whole hell of a lot shitter than it currently is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 12:32:32 GMT
This is scientifically wrong. The poorest 50% of the world, over 3.5billion people, contribute 7% of global emissions. There is no overpopulation. I'd argue that the remaining 50% is overpopulated in that case then. The least polluting 50% are those probably living in poverty. The other 50% are those in developed countries living lifestyles that are not sustainable. If there were less of them then there would be less pollution. Or they could just hold back from the unsustainable lifestyle and move away from exponential growth-based economies into sustainable ones!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 17, 2020 12:42:22 GMT
I'd argue that the remaining 50% is overpopulated in that case then. The least polluting 50% are those probably living in poverty. The other 50% are those in developed countries living lifestyles that are not sustainable. If there were less of them then there would be less pollution. Or they could just hold back from the unsustainable lifestyle and move away from exponential growth-based economies into sustainable ones! The problem there is that people won't change unless they're forced to, and no one has the balls to make the tough calls and put themselves in the firing line. Sustainability is certainly big on the global agenda. Particularly sustainable cities and renewables. Whether or not they'll be developed in time to not only stop a global catastrophe but to improve the environment is another thing.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 17, 2020 12:55:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 17, 2020 13:02:18 GMT
Or they could just hold back from the unsustainable lifestyle and move away from exponential growth-based economies into sustainable ones! The problem there is that people won't change unless they're forced to, and no one has the balls to make the tough calls and put themselves in the firing line. Sustainability is certainly big on the global agenda. Particularly sustainable cities and renewables. Whether or not they'll be developed in time to not only stop a global catastrophe but to improve the environment is another thing. Radical change Will result in short term pain for a lot of people Those people who are suffering pain will go to the ballot box and cast there vote Mostly according to there pain No government who wishes to get elected again is ever going to introduce radical Change Anyone who wants, radical and fundamental climate change strategies had best figure out how to achieve a dictatorship
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:03:41 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 17, 2020 13:05:01 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. You’re disagreeing with David Attenborough!!! Wow. Go and sit on the naughty step.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:05:42 GMT
The problem there is that people won't change unless they're forced to, and no one has the balls to make the tough calls and put themselves in the firing line. Sustainability is certainly big on the global agenda. Particularly sustainable cities and renewables. Whether or not they'll be developed in time to not only stop a global catastrophe but to improve the environment is another thing. Radical change Will result in short term pain for a lot of people Those people who are suffering pain will go to the ballot box and cast there vote Mostly according to there pain No government who wishes to get elected again is ever going to introduce radical Change Anyone who wants, radical and fundamental climate change strategies had best figure out how to achieve a dictatorship You are very much correct. If a govt banned petrol/diesel cars and properly funded rail and bus services, they would be voted out immediately by another party who claimed that petrol and diesel cars don't affect the environment, because that's what we'd rather believe. That said, I think there will be a large scale revolution, one way or another, in the next 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 17, 2020 13:06:11 GMT
The problem there is that people won't change unless they're forced to, and no one has the balls to make the tough calls and put themselves in the firing line. Sustainability is certainly big on the global agenda. Particularly sustainable cities and renewables. Whether or not they'll be developed in time to not only stop a global catastrophe but to improve the environment is another thing. Radical change Will result in short term pain for a lot of people Those people who are suffering pain will go to the ballot box and cast there vote Mostly according to there pain No government who wishes to get elected again is ever going to introduce radical Change Anyone who wants, radical and fundamental climate change strategies had best figure out how to achieve a dictatorship As awareness increases I would expect (and hope) that more and more people will be in favour of radical changes. I would be.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 17, 2020 13:07:20 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. You mean the 50% that you highlighted earlier? Isn't that more than 3.5 billion people?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 17, 2020 13:07:23 GMT
The biggest factor impacting population growth is people not dying. C’mon David Attenborough. Do the decent thing. Think of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:08:45 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. You’re disagreeing with David Attenborough!!! Wow. Go and sit on the naughty step. Yep! unfortunately so as I love the man. But I think he is saying that the more people we have, the harder it is to come to a revolutionary solution, like sustainable economies and (in my view, although I accept it is not the only solution or even a real solution to some) socialism. I absolutely get his point and he's right that humanity will have to slow down, but I think we can let it slow naturally and still force radical change.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:11:40 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. You mean the 50% that you highlighted earlier? Isn't that more than 3.5 billion people? Well no, the 50% poorest were just the lowest end. 100 companies contribute 70% of all emissions.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 17, 2020 13:14:17 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. Sustainability is NOT just about US....it's about OUR impact on the WHOLE PLANET/"GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM"....WE are by far the animal that has caused the most pollution in the Oceans, the air, the land...destroyed systems with no consideration whatsoever of animals, plantlife, insects, microorganisms, carbon usage etc. If there were only 2m humans there would be little impact. 7b is disastrous. I'm not offering a solution but our " success" is part of the problem. And the developing world, as Prince Charles once said, " want to join the party" that we are having in the developed world.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 17, 2020 13:15:00 GMT
Instead of keep coming out with unless platitudes and obvious statements why doesn't packham and Attenborough and there ilk Start suggesting the solutions Compulsory sterilisation ( who gets to chose who) Withdraw antibiotics ( survival of the fittest) No help with natural disasters Maybe we could start on the disabled or criminals None of the above sound palatable to me but hey they would solve the over population problem
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:17:58 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. Sustainability is NOT just about US....it's about OUR impact on the WHOLE PLANET/"GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM"....WE are by far the animal that has caused the most pollution in the Oceans, the air, the land...destroyed systems with no consideration whatsoever of animals, plantlife, insects, microorganisms, carbon usage etc. If there were only 2m humans there would be little impact. 7b is disastrous. I'm not offering a solution but our " success" is part of the problem. And the 7% as Prince Charles once said " want to join the party" that we are having in the developed world. Absolutely it is, but we can have the 7 billion and still live sustainably. It is our attitude to resources and ecosystems rather than our sheer numbers that causes issues.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 17, 2020 13:20:34 GMT
Sustainability is NOT just about US....it's about OUR impact on the WHOLE PLANET/"GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM"....WE are by far the animal that has caused the most pollution in the Oceans, the air, the land...destroyed systems with no consideration whatsoever of animals, plantlife, insects, microorganisms, carbon usage etc. If there were only 2m humans there would be little impact. 7b is disastrous. I'm not offering a solution but our " success" is part of the problem. And the 7% as Prince Charles once said " want to join the party" that we are having in the developed world. Absolutely it is, but we can have the 7 billion and still live sustainably. In theory..may be ...probably not possible in reality....and I am talking about the damage that we are already doing....Aprojected 9b people by 2050 is absolutely bound to have a negative impact upon sustainability
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 17, 2020 13:21:51 GMT
Radical change Will result in short term pain for a lot of people Those people who are suffering pain will go to the ballot box and cast there vote Mostly according to there pain No government who wishes to get elected again is ever going to introduce radical Change Anyone who wants, radical and fundamental climate change strategies had best figure out how to achieve a dictatorship As awareness increases I would expect (and hope) that more and more people will be in favour of radical changes. I would be. People's acceptance of radical change tends to equate to there ability to afford such change For that to become the majority change has to be affordable to the, majority
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Feb 17, 2020 13:24:28 GMT
Instead of keep coming out with unless platitudes and obvious statements why doesn't packham and Attenborough and there ilk Start suggesting the solutions Compulsory sterilisation ( who gets to chose who) Withdraw antibiotics ( survival of the fittest) No help with natural disasters Maybe we could start on the disabled or criminals None of the above sound palatable to me but hey they would solve the over population problem It is only a matter of time before these people suggest these measures in earnest, which makes them very dangerous because it certainly won't be them topping themselves for our benefit.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 17, 2020 13:31:09 GMT
Instead of keep coming out with unless platitudes and obvious statements why doesn't packham and Attenborough and there ilk Start suggesting the solutions Compulsory sterilisation ( who gets to chose who) Withdraw antibiotics ( survival of the fittest) No help with natural disasters Maybe we could start on the disabled or criminals None of the above sound palatable to me but hey they would solve the over population problem Population Matters does offer some "solutions" I am an eternal optimist....but sometimes, like death itself, perhaps some things are inevitable. It does not mean that we should not stop trying to do everything that we can....but " eventually", " sooner or later" perhaps we are heading for our own destruction.....the untrue " lemmings" analogy comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 17, 2020 13:39:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:39:54 GMT
Absolutely it is, but we can have the 7 billion and still live sustainably. In theory..may be ...probably not possible in reality....and I am talking about the damage that we are already doing....Aprojected 9b people by 2050 is absolutely bound to have a negative impact upon sustainability Killing off half the population isn't possible either really.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 17, 2020 13:43:35 GMT
I wonder what would happen if I went and dug up the lawn outside Norfolk County Hall protesting about council tax Arrest the pissing lot and charge them with criminal damage
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 17, 2020 13:51:31 GMT
In theory..may be ...probably not possible in reality....and I am talking about the damage that we are already doing....Aprojected 9b people by 2050 is absolutely bound to have a negative impact upon sustainability Killing off half the population isn't possible either really. Sustainability for 7 billion people is more easily achieved than for 9+ billion people. The growing population and increased demand for resources is clearly an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 13:53:41 GMT
Killing off half the population isn't possible either really. Sustainability for 7 billion people is more easily achieved than for 9+ billion people. The growing population and increased demand for resources is clearly an issue. It is but that just seems like an excuse for us to not commit to the long term change we will need to commit to anyway eventually.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Feb 17, 2020 13:55:51 GMT
I disagree really, I think the problem is not in the number of people but the unsustainable lives lived by a certain small percentage of people. There is plenty of food and water to go round, and plenty of scientific breakthroughs in efficiency and sustainable growth just waiting to be given funding, but doing that doesn't make money. We're obsessed with growth instead of being happy where we are and trying to push on sustainably. Sustainability is NOT just about US....it's about OUR impact on the WHOLE PLANET/"GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM"....WE are by far the animal that has caused the most pollution in the Oceans, the air, the land...destroyed systems with no consideration whatsoever of animals, plantlife, insects, microorganisms, carbon usage etc. If there were only 2m humans there would be little impact. 7b is disastrous. I'm not offering a solution but our " success" is part of the problem. And the developing world, as Prince Charles once said, " want to join the party" that we are having in the developed world. What about Indian elephants?
|
|
|
Post by NassauDave on Feb 17, 2020 13:57:05 GMT
They are the dregs of society, especially the luuvie celebrity wankers like Emma fucking Thompson who'll fly 6,000 miles to come and tell me to put plastic bottles in the green bin. Tosser. The slagbag also flies all around the world to shout at people about poverty and injustice. What a twat! Still, I'll do my bit for the planet by never travelling to the cinema to see one of her shitty films. If you are tempted though, make sure you use a paper straw for your 32 ounce shitty watery drink.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 17, 2020 14:15:46 GMT
In theory..may be ...probably not possible in reality....and I am talking about the damage that we are already doing....Aprojected 9b people by 2050 is absolutely bound to have a negative impact upon sustainability Killing off half the population isn't possible either really. Who is suggesting that? You are jumping to solutions. No easy answers and I certainly have not got a solution. But the amount of humans on the planet and their impact is clearly a large part of the problem Particularly the exponential growth in the last 2 centuries. The impact is global in terms of the " climate emergency" but it is also local. Every single house that is built impacts on the local wildlife ecology....the micro stuff counts. We have now realised that the use of nitrogen, pesticides etc to sustain growth has impacted upon the rivers, ecology and human health.. the bee population. Inner cities are polluted and overcrowded impacting upon the QUALITY of life...its is not just sustainability....and much if the impact is felt in the developing world....I'm beginning to feel.like Rodney off OFAH. Most of that IS to do with the amount of people on the planet....not the solution but it is a major part of the problem Less people/ less impact. Population matters does outline strategies.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 17, 2020 14:16:21 GMT
Sustainability is NOT just about US....it's about OUR impact on the WHOLE PLANET/"GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM"....WE are by far the animal that has caused the most pollution in the Oceans, the air, the land...destroyed systems with no consideration whatsoever of animals, plantlife, insects, microorganisms, carbon usage etc. If there were only 2m humans there would be little impact. 7b is disastrous. I'm not offering a solution but our " success" is part of the problem. And the developing world, as Prince Charles once said, " want to join the party" that we are having in the developed world. What about Indian elephants? Precisely
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 14:22:20 GMT
Killing off half the population isn't possible either really. Who is suggesting that? You are jumping to solutions. No easy answers and I certainly have not got a solution. But the amount of humans on the planet and their impact is clearly a large part of the problem Particularly the exponential growth in the last 2 centuries. The impact is global in terms of the " climate emergency" but it is also local. Every single house that is built impacts on the local wildlife ecology....the micro stuff counts. We have now realised that the use of nitrogen, pesticides etc to sustain growth has impacted upon the rivers, ecology and human health.. the bee population. Inner cities are polluted and overcrowded impacting upon the QUALITY of life...its is not just sustainability....and much if the impact is felt in the developing world....I'm beginning to feel.like Rodney off OFAH. Most of that IS to do with the amount of people on the planet....not the solution but it is a major part of the problem Less people/ less impact. Population matters does outline strategies. I agree, but we will expand, no matter what. Using strategies to live more sustainably is a more realistic and helpful goal in my opinion.
|
|