BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 08:04 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ9TMWTHESk

A presentation of the Anthropocene.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 16 - 05:14 AM

Why are you so insistant on playing a blame game?
Global warming is caused by the impact of people and the most climate stressed area of the world is also the area with the highest projected population growth. Can you not get it through your head that if the population growth is not controlled by humans, then natural processes will control it,and that outcome will not be pretty. All your game of blame allocation is doing is to draw attention away from procedures that could possibly help and reduce the human suffering. The cart and the horse are all part of the same problem - we are the problem.
We all know America is a greedy consumer of energy, we do not need you to highlight it each time you post.
It is the volume of people degrading the planet. If you are so insistant on conserving energy why do you waste so much posting every opportunity on most threads? Are your views so inportant they justify the waste of so much energy?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 08:16 PM

Population growth has a mischievous habit of not living up to predictions, Bill. It is not a runaway law unto itself. We are still biological beings believe it or not, subject to environmental pressures we may not even be beginning to understand, many of which may work to limit population growth. Since you and I were born, Bill, population has quadrupled. But the rate of growth is slowing. Energy consumption must be the focus, not population, which, on the whole, is expanding fastest (though slowing down fast) in countries which exploit energy far less than we do, often double-figures times less. We've had the bar chart already in this thread. Blame burgeoning population in developing countries if you like, but what you're actually doing is shifting blame away from the far, far more dangerous west, which consumes energy like there's no tomorrow. And, when you shift the blame away, you're also shifting away the motivation to do something about it, because you're making the problem someone else's fault and shrugging your shoulders. Can't be right when five percent of the world consumes almost twenty percent of the energy, and far more than that of natural resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 05:40 PM

Jesus may be weeping, but he died for YOUR sins, not mine.

Fair enough, Bruce - but rationality, critical thinking, rules of evidence and factuality died for yours.

Guess I'll stick with Jeezis.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 01:47 PM

I'm late to this party, but I must agree with Iains above that....the population IS the major ongoing issue. It is not the immediate 'cause' in formal terms, as all the forms of pollution science is trying to combat are the specific 'causes'... but the underlying, seldom referenced issue IS population. Why?
   Because if we 'solve' the energy questions and get rid of fossil fuels and eliminate plastic bags & styrofoam cups...etc., we still have the effluent production and water use and over-fishing and soil degradation and limited arable land ... which cannot be controlled in any useful time sequence. Population growth has fallen a bit, but the totals are still rising, and we simply cannot support 75 trillion people....*

* "what's that you say, Bill? Don't be silly, we're not going to have 75 trillion people!"

Oh, right... 22 trillion..

"You are being ridiculous! 22 trillion is nonsense!"

Ummm... sure... then YOU tell ME how many people you think the Earth can support! And while you're at it, tell me what YOU think will end the growth patterns? And suppose the answer is..um.... 17 billion (which is forecast by 2100 in some models).... where do you think these people are going to live and what are they going to eat?

People need 'space'...personal space. Look up the "rats in the cage" experiments, where rats were provided with food & water, but no restrictions on breeding. Eventually, there were fights just due to stress and unhappiness. Look up how the people on Pitcairn Island coped after the mutiny on the Bounty. It ain't pretty in many parts.

Real solutions? Restrictions on fertility... how? Well might you ask! China tried it, but has largely just 'encouraged' smaller families. Put anti-fertility drugs in the drinking water? *shrug*.. good luck!
Perhaps giving every girl, randomly, at puberty, an implant, 2/3of which are anti-fertility? Maybe.... but you KNOW there would be accusations of NON-random selection.

Of course, population growth WILL be contained, and maybe even reversed long before any "trillion" enters the count. Nature will deal with us... but I don't like the images.

Call me a sensationalist fear-monger... I'd make a bet, but I won't be around to collect my winnings. Max says Mudcat will be here as long as he can keep it going. Maybe someone in 20 MORE years will read this and nod at my prediction as "things happen". Maybe *I* will live to 97 and either apologize or say "I told you so."

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 01:09 PM

GregtrF,

Find me ONE climatologist who thinks that the Paris accord will REVERSE climate change.

Few enough will even say that it might stop it- MOST have stated it will slow it down to some degree, BUT NOT STOP IT.


Jesus may be weeping, but he died for YOUR sins, not mine. Your "friends" (if any) must be so proud of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 12:58 PM

Atta boy, Bruce - align yourself with 1% of the world's climate change scientists, ignore the other 99%, and just for good measure, double down on it.

And then complain that people think you're a crank.

Jesus wept.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 12:53 PM

I agree, which is why the effort to STOP climate change is pointless.

There needs to be an effort to ADJUST to climate change, rather than wasting efforts on trying to stop it.

Instead of reducing energy usage, we should be increasing it NOW, to move those populations whose present habitats will become unlivable, and start to convert those areas that presently are uninhabitable, but with climate change WILL be, into living and food production regions.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 12:47 PM

Cannot dispute the fact that those changes you itemised would work, but I cannot see too much support being generated to carry them through.
It rather cuts against the grain of everything that humanity is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 12:32 PM

The amount of carbon reduction that is being agreed to presently is not enough to make a difference- the amount that would be required to have a significant effect would destroy the present economics of many countries.

The ONLY way to get the level of change to man-made emissions would be a nuclear war, or major plague to reduce the population.

And even that would not REVERSE the climate change, just slow it down. Though the nuclear winter of a major TNW might help.

Of course, if we bothered to try to adapt to the climate change, shifting populations and such, we could continue our technological civilization. But to reverse it requires significant ( say 4-7 billion) population reduction or a return to the hunter-gatherer culture that has a lower environmental impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 12:20 PM

so what point/s are you trying to make?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 12:01 PM

Researcher Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that man's carbon dioxide emissions are having some impact on the planet, says that if every nation fulfilled its promise to cut emissions by 2030, "the total temperature reduction will be 0.048" degrees Celsius by 2100.


http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 11:24 AM

Iains,

The statement was that IF the required by treaty results are implemented by 2030, the result by 2100 will be .048 degrees.

I think this might qualify as "decades"


As for GregtrF, why should I offer you what you refuse to provide to me?

Is this another example of the "Liberal" ideal? To request of others what you will not provide when asked?

Your "friends" here must be very proud of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 10:54 AM

BB

"In other words, Paris won't change a thing."


That is a bit of a sweeping statement without a shred of evidence to back it up!

Paris may make little change but at least it is recognition of the problem and a starting point.
It would be a fool that believed that reversion would be instantaneous as soon as C02 levels plateaued or even diminished. According to some studies reversion could take many decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 10:25 AM

First Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories and now science denial. Is there no end to Our Bruce's gullibility?

By the way, Bruce, (to paraphrase someone we all know and love:

HOW MANY YEARS have you studied climate change in a professional, scientific capacity??

What positions of responsibility dealing with analyzing climate data have you ever been in?

What training or education or advanced degrees in climate science have you ever had?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 09:31 AM

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-growth-of-global-warming-nonsense-surely-weve-reached-peak-madness/?hl=1&noRedi


"But it's more than that, isn't it? It seems we are watching the psychological breakdown of a segment of the Western population that is desperately trying control other people and greedily snatch the world's economic levers, and employing harsh scare tactics in its effort to achieve these goals.

Let's not even pretend that this group cares about the environment. The international Paris agreement that President Obama unilaterally signed on to without input from Congress, the agreement that the alarmist community has declared to be absolutely vital to putting off climate change, would do little to stop projected warming into the next century.

Researcher Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that man's carbon dioxide emissions are having some impact on the planet, says that if every nation fulfilled its promise to cut emissions by 2030, "the total temperature reduction will be 0.048" degrees Celsius by 2100.

In other words, Paris won't change a thing.

Despite the fact that the Paris accord will produce no climate benefit, the political left, which includes the agenda-driven media, continues its deranged behavior over the election of Trump because he has indicated that he will pull the U.S. from Obama's unethical deal.

This lunacy, consciously chosen, is possibly best illustrated by the Democratic National Committee staffer who whined that Clinton's loss means that he's "going to die from climate change," and marched out of a meeting in which the Democrats were trying to rally from their election defeat."

""The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left," Tierney, a New York Times reporter, wrote in the Autumn 2016 City Journal.

He acknowledges that "there's plenty of ignorance all around," but also reports that "some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats.""

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:07 PM

Well Susan, I've spent a fair bit of time responding to this thread. When I'm being non-serious around here, I tend to do flippant one-liners. I did say that I wasn't out to make friends when I embraced nuclear power. But I did try to be serious about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 02:57 PM

Does "being serious" mean "agreeing with Susan"?

Usually.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 02:40 PM

Does "being serious" mean "agreeing with Susan?" Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 02:29 PM

Atta girl, Susan, pound Farcebook into submission. That'll make a real difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:58 PM

Hmmmm...... 49 answers to the question posed by the thread title, amounting to "No."

No problem; now that my fast notebook puder is back from the tech, I can do this via a 'related' music thread. Thank you, all, for the ONE song.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:55 AM

Well I must admit it seemed that way but it was intended to be a generalised spittle-flecked rant.... Jaysus, I've come to love that expression...

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Stu
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:36 AM

Who sez yer diddent?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 09:20 AM

Who sez I meant you, Stu?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Stu
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 08:23 AM

"You buggers in the big towns are the ones who simply must have aircon"

Pardon my effrontery O wise and all-knowing one, but I live in a village, work from home and don't have aircon.


"well stick 'em all up round your house, not all over Cornwall or Scotland"

Go and live in less windy spot.



"As technology advances, nuclear waste storage and recycling will become more efficient and secure."

I think we'll be abandoning nuclear for newer and safer energy generation methods in the future. Very little point in investing in it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM

Obviously you can use the statistics to make many points and your points I do not dispute. However the underlying reality is that if population growth continues then so does demand for energy. They are locked in step and show no sign of separating. The differences in climate make it very difficult to compare the energy requirements in somewhere like southern Nigeria with Alaska. A low input lifestyle may be very possible in the Tropics but would pose far more of a struggle in Arctic areas. You cannot wave magic wand and change the gas guzzling suburbs of America into self sufficiency plots no matter how many copies of John Seymour's book you distribute.
The problem of global warming has been recognised widely for decades yet nothing significant has been accomplished to remediate the situation. There are schools of thought that warming is already having an impact in terms of storm severity, droughts, melting permafrost, clathrates releasing methane etc etc. How many tipping points are on the horizon or have been passed already? What sort of shock is required to get some action? I do not have any of the answers and neither do any politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:33 PM

I do think that over-population in under-developed countries is responsible for appalling poverty. And in Senegal, desertification is a big problem due to over grazing by goats etc of what was once savanna, in conjunction with a huge diminution of the annual rainfall (one could say complete failure!) This has caused the Sahara to spread southwards at an alarming rate, and for village wells to become almost dry as the water level falls beyond what a very long rope-and-bucket will reach.
There are large signs put up by the government all over Casamance for example (southern Senegal), warning about not letting goats eat all vegetation in an area. I saw many 'ghost villages'- no well, no people.
The result (in many W African countries I've visited) is a mass migration to the big cities. Once there, the population burgeons, putting a strain on resources (sewage for example, and general pollution with food preparation, encouraging vermin) As health declines, epidemics take hold.
While my husband's family aren't exactly contributing much to global warming, by producing so many children in rather poor health they're making their own lives much more difficult. I have never seen so many rats & cockroaches, and we were all afraid of Ebola, cholera, typhoid, polio, hepatitis and other infectious diseases.
To sum up then, controlling population would improve their lives enormously, slow desertification somewhat but not address climate change in any meaningful way (in my humble opinion).

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:13 PM

I think we've all heard more than enough of ignorant American politicians' hubris to last us a lifetime, thank you, and there's plenty more to come. The problem threatening the planet is carbon emissions from energy consumption. By your own statistics, that problem is overwhelmingly down to the activities of China (one-child policy), the US (only 5% of the world population, low birth rate) and Europe (under 10% of the world population, low birth rate). Other countries with big populations are not in the same emissions league. The implication of putting the blame on population increase is that you're fingering countries with high birth rates. That may well lead to other issues, but they're not the ones producing the carbon emissions, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:36 AM

Steve Shaw
I do not know where you get the idea of a blame game from. I said nothing about the uneven distribution of energy usage being fair or unfair. I was only dealing with the total. I think it would be a difficult argument to carry to suggest that the 3rd world lives in fuel poverty while the advanced nations are profligate. I believe it was George Bush said the American way of life was not up for negotiation.
Maybe you should take your argument up with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 12:49 PM

Heh heh Steve!!! Sadly, the sleeping huts are segregated. Otherwise, I might have opted for joining my husband among a huge heap of rather nice African gentlemen!! :)

(I once travelled alone on an aeroplane from Accra heading to Tripoli with 200 African men, the only woman on board apart from the cabin staff. The stuff fantasies are made of...)

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 12:36 PM

That's great if you can actually open the windows at all!

Where exactly is this place where you can sleep among a huge heap of African ladies? A PM will do... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 10:18 AM

I have to smile at people who say they 'need' aircon. I've stayed in hotels and 'campements' in Senegal and Ghana, where the temperature was in the high thirties, and in the case of Ghana with almost full-saturation humidity. I've slept on the floor of a hut in Ivory Coast (on a mat) among a huge heap of African ladies, where the temperature caused one to drip sweat like a tap. In the hotels, I've always, always turned off the aircon, because that way, you're giving your body a chance to adapt (which it does, quite rapidly) I'm far from being Superwoman :) and if I can cope, so can everyone else. Aircon indeed! Just open a blooming window and shut up!

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:54 AM

Well who'd have bet 200 years ago that the carbon dioxide would be up by a third, that it would be causing terrible damage and that we still wouldn't have much of a clue as to what to do with it or get it under control. Such benign, non-poisonous stuff! Apocalyptic scare-stories about nuclear waste and accidents are just about all the so-called green lobby have in their armoury. Yet, considering that we've been far too blasé about it in the past, nuclear's track record is pretty good. As technology advances, nuclear waste storage and recycling will become more efficient and secure. We didn't abandon air travel because there were so many disasters in the 50s and 60s. Instead, we made the technology better. As for Fukushima, well it wasn't exactly on purpose. It was our fault for putting the bloody thing where we did, but call it an accident, call it stupidity, call it an act of God, but all we can do is incorporate what happened into our nuclear learning curve.

As for turbines and solar farms being so bloody lovely to look at, well stick 'em all up round your house, not all over Cornwall or Scotland. You buggers in the big towns are the ones who simply must have aircon in your hermetically-sealed office blocks. Round here, they are no more than the means for already-rich landowners to get even richer by doing nothing on their fat arses, taking their thirty of forty thousand per turbine "subsidy" and downing double whiskies in the lounge bar whilst moaning about foreigners and benefits cheats. Come and see!

Cheers, Senoufou. Nice corrective to Iain's blame game.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Stu
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:27 AM

Fukushima wasn't an accident.

The aesthetics of windmills and solar farms are subjective. Personally, far more visual horrors have been visited on our landscape by the appalling building thrown up every where (please refer to every B&Q in existence). I like wind farms.

Renewables are not unreliable or inefficient. The technology will become part of the everyday infrastructure soon, at least in countries where the governments and people understand the potential for clean, cheap energy.

We don't know if we can safely store spent nuclear fuel long-term because the first commercial plant was only opened in the mid 1950's, which is a ludicrously insignificant about of time when it comes to the half-life of the fuel. We have zero idea how the facilities will look in two thousand years. My bet? Leaking like fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:53 AM

I do know a little about developing countries in W Africa. My husband has 15 brothers and sisters (father had three wives). There are 60 of the extended family living in a shanty compound. Nobody has a car (the very idea!) They eat stuff cultivated in their country (maize, manioc, kasava), with a few imports such as rice. They 'consume' hardly anything. All their clothes are merely bits of cloth handed down from one to another. They have hardly any possessions. They walk everywhere, carrying water, market produce and charcoal on their heads. They sleep on a rush mat on the floor. This huge family could be said to have produced far too many children, but sadly many of them die young. The remaining ones look after their old people tenderly. I consider them as very low-consuming compared to the affluent west. They have no plastic, petrol, cars, vehicles, chemicals, cleaning products, detergents, toiletries, furniture and so on. I would say their impact on the planet is quite modest.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:40 AM

Right, Iains. Take a look at your chart. Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria. All big beasts population-wise, all consuming a tenth or less per capita than the US. Brazil, less than a fifth. China, less than a third. We've covered way over half the world's population there. You want to blame people for making more people. Well I want to point out the real culprits. The US has less than five percent of the world population yet consumes 25% of the world's natural resources, and pollutes the air accordingly. Shifting the blame on to people in developing countries, which is where that big population resides that you want to blame, is, well...there's a word for it. And, worse, your approach to the problem doesn't provide even a hint of a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 07:11 AM

Well spent nuclear fuel takes up some room but not that much, and it can BE stored. Spent fossil fuel, aka carbon dioxide, has been "stored" in the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts for two hundred years and we still haven't worked out what else to do with it. Tidal barrages are environmental disasters. Biofuels are grown on land that should be producing food, meaning we have to guzzle even more energy to import the food we need. Solar farms and windmills are ugly, unreliable and inefficient and, like other renewables, they simply make us feel good about carrying on wasting energy. Conscience-easers. There's no real political will to make serious efforts to conserve energy and increase efficiency of energy use in the places where it really matters, namely India, China, the US and, to a lesser extent, in the EU. Yes there have been nuclear accidents (every single one avoidable). But the deaths, injuries and the demonstrable environmental damage caused by nuclear power are as nothing compared to the deaths, injuries, diseases and environmental destruction caused by the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and we ain't seen nothing yet. I can raise ten fossil fuel apocalypses to every one of your nuclear apocalypses. We've got to be rational about the fact that there is no perfect solution. But you can cover the planet with a whole rash of windmills and we still can't go on like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Stu
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 06:34 AM

Nuclear power as it stands isn't a long term answer as we still haven't found a way of storing the spent fuel for millennia. If you don't believe that's true, go and lick a spent fuel rod and we'll see.

For us as a species, renewables are the only practical way forward at present. There's so much free energy wafting around it's almost ludicrous we don't capture and use it but the tide is turning here (barrage!) and the developing world is leading the way in this regard.

However, Steve's point about energy usage is a good one, it's just I guess most people don;t understand the scale of the problem. However, they soon will.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:51 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

I hate to disagree but population is the issue. Actually the US is not the most profligate consumer of energy. The argument is not about who eats most but the gross total.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:44 AM

Delete the unwanted the.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:42 AM

Nope. Global population is not the energy crisis issue. The United States has a much smaller population than China and India yet is the second largest consumer of energy on earth, behind China, though only behind China in very large part because a huge proportion of the goods consumed in the US is made in China using Chinese energy. Over two-thirds of the energy consumed in the energy-guzzling US comes from fossil fuels. Any politician who suggests that US citizens should pay anything like the same amount for petrol as we do in Europe would be toast. Blaming the burgeoning billions in third world countries, most of whom consume a minuscule amount of the energy compared to that consumed by the average citizen in the West, especially in the US, is utterly bogus. Trump's greatest nation on earth is a bloody rotten role model for the rest of us and is set to get a lot worse. Do not make the poorest billions on the planet the scapegoats for western energy profligacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:15 AM

If you halved energy consumption tomorrow with a population of 7.4 billion then by 2100 the estimate is 11.2 billion. By shortly after 2100 all those energy savings will be cancelled out by the demands of yet more people.
That is why humanity is the true problem. That same demand for energy obviously extends to water, raw materials, living space etc etc.
That is why I see no happy outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:42 PM

A massive drive towards energy conservation, which means stopping subsidies to rich landowners to put turbines and solar cells in place and, instead, insulating all our houses and replacing inefficient boilers for free, charging the earth for anyone who wants to use aircon, forcing yanks to pay at least treble for the fuel they use in order to charge around in their gas-guzzling six-pots - stuff like that. Add your own gripes to my list. Renewable energy just makes us feel good about wasting it. And, on top of all that (here's where I lose friends), nuclear power. We simply can't behave ourselves with fossil fuels.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:25 AM

Steve Shaw.
This is one of those occasions where I would hope to be proved wrong, but short of a belief in God and miracles, I see no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 07:04 PM

Not saying much there, Iains, are you? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:17 PM

The person in the woodpile in this discussion is of course mankind and his inability to master and understand his exponential growth. There are limits to growth and climate change is but one of the limiting factors. Degradation of environment leading to shortages of food and water, the pillaging of natural resources etc. etc. If all this was solved overnight, then reverting back to the situation of the mid 20th century would take generations.
    The true problem is multifaceted. Science can recognise the problems and quantify many of the variables but the inability to master the exponential means that science has no hope of curing the problem in any acceptable way.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:43 PM

As the world warms up one thing we are losing is the northern permafrost and all the soil which is being held by it.

Planting trees and looking after them as the latitude at which they will survive increases might be a sensible thing to do. They could at some time in the future represent much needed fuel stocks.

Devising cheap wood burning stoves and assisting in getting trees replanted further south might also be a good idea, rather than struggling with the production and distribution of oil burning stoves and the fuel for them.
Burning wood seems to be regarded as a crime these days, but trees are actually rejuvenated by having their top growth removed, they also supply useful materials for making tools, fences, houses, vehicles - even weapons. The soft regrowth makes great food for brousing animals, and breaks the force of heavy rain, wind or snow.
A bit of help to turn deserts into productive woodland would go a long way towards peotecting soil, local wildlife and wandering nomads, and maybe people in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 06:20 AM

It's a bit easier for the elderly in some ways, as we were brought up to be extremely thrifty, and any waste was seen as 'wicked'. We were quite used to having no plastic in our world, and no plastic bags or wrapping. (Everything was sold loose from sacks in the grocer's, or wooden bunkers in the greengrocers', bread was sold 'bare' and meat was wrapped in newspaper!) We walked or biked everywhere. We all grew produce on allotments and/or the gardens, and kept hens. Nothing much came here from abroad. So we were accustomed to this eco-friendly existence. I suppose burning coal was a bad thing though.

I'm glad quite a few people on here think it's worth being globally aware in our own small, limited ways. 'Mony a mickle maks a muckle' and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Thompson
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:05 AM

Climate change is not a question of normal variables. If you're saying that, you're like someone saying "Ah, sure families always quarrel" while your neighbour takes a shotgun to his wife and kids.
The graph on this US government website will give you an idea of the real scale of a disaster which is virtually certain to make humans extinct within the next 50 years.
For myself, I do what I can: I use shopping bags, not plastic bags, I cycle everywhere - 40% of car trips in Ireland are under 4km (a figure that's similar in most places), and if all those trips were made on a bike instead of in a car it would have a big effect on carbon emissions. I eat less meat than I did - meat production is wasteful. It's probably like throwing a thimbleful of water into an inferno, but enough thimblefuls and we might, might, maybe have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Yet Abt Ending Climate Change?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 06:42 PM

I'd love a good, open banter about climate change. But this thread ain't it.