Jump to content

Global Warming. Ah, whatever . . .


oldbitterandgrumpy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cop26 has come and gone. It’s been generally accepted that carbon emissions have to be drastically reduced. Apparently we have to take action now, no more procrastination.

 

So . . . how many of you would board a plane to Thailand or Florida, maybe The Maldives (or wherever the f**k the long haul flight took you), just so you could enjoy a week, maybe two weeks,  in the sun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldbitterandgrumpy said:

 

Cop26 has come and gone. It’s been generally accepted that carbon emissions have to be drastically reduced. Apparently we have to take action now, no more procrastination.

 

So . . . how many of you would board a plane to Thailand or Florida, maybe The Maldives (or wherever the f**k the long haul flight took you), just so you could enjoy a week, maybe two weeks,  in the sun?

For 20 years, I have regenerated waste land in north Angus, and have spent many weekends planting trees at my own expense. 

Every year I gather hundreds of beech and Oak seeds, and grew them in a poly tunnel and plant a year later in the autumn. I buy birch trees online and use them as a shelter for the hardwoods.

One Tory toff yoon Cnut of a land owner, who rented shooting nearby had his gamekeeper destroy some of my plantings because he felt my activities frightened off his pheasants (which he massacres every winter). But I have thousands of trees planted outside that cnuts wanderings. 
Im doing my best. I get a benefit of cutting down dead / diseased elm trees to heat the house, and I put far more back in. We have our holidays in Oban every year, and our car is economical. I am trying, but the oil companies are too powerful. They could have had hydrogen cars back in the 1970s, but yer Shells, BPs and Chevrons etc wouldn’t allow it. Believe they had some scientists bumped off to protect their “interests”. Conspiracy or not? I’m opene minded.

Greed is the biggest problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be tradable carbon permits. It tends to be the poor who don't take foreign holidays or own several cars, or even one car - so at least that way they could sell them and make some money.

The most environmentally beneficial thing one could do is not have children, apparently. So perhaps people should be taxed more for a third child, more again for a fourth one, etc. Of course I will be called an eco-fascist for this idea, however I think the following graph illustrates my point:

2017868332_carbonemissions0001.png.518ec683416d2d2d7414d9440789b717.png

Just in case anybody has failed to notice, taking one less flight saves less than 2 tonnes of CO2 per year. Not using a car saves less than 3 tonnes. Having one less child saves 58.6 tonnes!

As you can see, an increasing population is a massive, massive problem. The solution is for us all to eat bugs, live in micro-apartments and forego travelling, or maybe hope that the Covid vaccine really is a depopulation strategy after all! 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the preferred term not 'climate change'? I think the response is a zero-sum game. If the rest of the world cuts their emissions whilst, say China, refuses to, then China benefits from both the limited effects of climate change and economically, as she doesn't have to implement costly measures. The opposite is true for the rest of the world. 

So, whilst countries sign up to this, it will be interesting to see if they implement it. 

As for the growing population, referred to above, that's been understood for a long time. Our current capitalist model is predicated upon continued growth of GDP, and this is why there needs to be a GREAT RESET. Even if, what @AlbionSaint states is correct, and our superiors really do want us to eat insects and live in tiny apartments, etc - if the planet really is on a precipice, as claimed, then surely that couldn't be implemented quickly enough to save us? 

Tin foil hat time: could that be what the lockdowns were really about? That's not to say Covid isn't real, but would our superiors really care if we lost one percent of (arguably) some of the least productive people in society? Care enough to damage the economy? 

Anyone who knows the history of the Troubles will realise that the human cost wasn't what really brought the UK government to the negotiating table. It was the bombing of the Financial District...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put simply, we're fucked no matter what we do. Why? Because, with our current slavish devotion to capitalism, the world will burn in a few decades, leading us (and a lot of other life forms) to extinction or close to it.

Between now and our demise as a species, however, the opportunities for profit are massive.

When the entire world's response to the pandemic has been trying to return to BAU as fast as possible - with no more than lipservice paid to alternative pracitises, it is obvious there is no hope of the cultural and economic change required to save the species and the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, G_&_T said:

Is the preferred term not 'climate change'? I think the response is a zero-sum game. If the rest of the world cuts their emissions whilst, say China, refuses to, then China benefits from both the limited effects of climate change and economically, as she doesn't have to implement costly measures. The opposite is true for the rest of the world. 

So, whilst countries sign up to this, it will be interesting to see if they implement it. 

As for the growing population, referred to above, that's been understood for a long time. Our current capitalist model is predicated upon continued growth of GDP, and this is why there needs to be a GREAT RESET. Even if, what @AlbionSaint states is correct, and our superiors really do want us to eat insects and live in tiny apartments, etc - if the planet really is on a precipice, as claimed, then surely that couldn't be implemented quickly enough to save us? 

Tin foil hat time: could that be what the lockdowns were really about? That's not to say Covid isn't real, but would our superiors really care if we lost one percent of (arguably) some of the least productive people in society? Care enough to damage the economy? 

Anyone who knows the history of the Troubles will realise that the human cost wasn't what really brought the UK government to the negotiating table. It was the bombing of the Financial District...

FFS is there any issue that crazed conspiracy theorists won't have a field day over? 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, G51 said:

Taxing people for having children is an absolutely insane idea. Especially when we could simply tax the super rich.

How does taxing the rich reduce carbon emissions? You did understand the graph, didn't you?

 

1462885731_carbonemissions0001.png.4e3218cda4968ce1e266ccc6b2114053.png

 

Having children is by far the biggest contributor to global emissions. The resources they consume each and every year for ~80 years is FAR more significant than someone driving a big car or taking five holidays a year. If they eat bananas or avocados they're being transported from the other side of the world. Their TV, phone and other electronic devices use electricity, part of which is produced from fossil fuels; their clothes are usually manufactured in Asia and transported here; they too will want to take foreign holidays.

How does 'taxing the rich' offset the above, exactly?

 

Edited by AlbionSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

How does taxing the rich reduce carbon emissions? You did understand the graph, didn't you?

 

1462885731_carbonemissions0001.png.4e3218cda4968ce1e266ccc6b2114053.png

 

Having children is by far the biggest contributor to global emissions. The resources they consume each and every year for ~80 years is FAR more significant than someone driving a big car or taking five holidays a year. If they eat bananas or avocados they're being transported from the other side of the world. Their TV, phone and other electronic devices use electricity, part of which is produced from fossil fuels; their clothes are usually manufactured in Asia and transported here; they too will want to take foreign holidays.

How does 'taxing the rich' offset the above, exactly?

 

Pretty easy, actually. Those on low incomes use just enough electricity to get by on. It's a big expense to them and as such they are rarely wasteful. 

The rich on the other hand typically own bigger properties that consume more energy, drive cars, and drive gas guzzlers. They take the foreign holidays. They don't have a financial pressure to reduce their emissions. Taking some of their wasteful habits might make them think again and reduce their emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Put simply, we're fucked no matter what we do. Why? Because, with our current slavish devotion to capitalism, the world will burn in a few decades, leading us (and a lot of other life forms) to extinction or close to it.

Between now and our demise as a species, however, the opportunities for profit are massive.

When the entire world's response to the pandemic has been trying to return to BAU as fast as possible - with no more than lipservice paid to alternative pracitises, it is obvious there is no hope of the cultural and economic change required to save the species and the planet.

Well, what's the alternative to capitalism? Feudalism? Should only the super-rich take foreign holidays and the rest of us live very austerely, eating only locally grown produce and therefore never getting to eat a banana, avocado or macadamia nut to save the carbon emissions? Should we all wear pre-owned clothes and have our heating and electricity rationed? Showers limited to twice a week, for 2 minutes at a time?

I know you're not advocating the above, by the way. I don't mean to sound facetious or be an arsehole, I'm merely trying to point out that this isn't about an economic system per se. I mean, suppose you distribute wealth more evenly, that's unlikely to change energy consumption significantly. @scottsdad suggests that taxing the super-rich might make them more energy efficient, and it may do. However, if the money's distributed to the poor they're likely to actually consume more. Indeed the marginal propensity to consume diminishes as income rises - i.e. eventually people's consumption slows the richer they get and they might begin to save or invest their money rather than spend it on consumer goods, food or electricity.

You could try full-on Communism, abolish private property and have everybody allocated housing and goods based upon their perceived needs, but again the only way that will help climate change is if it reduces consumption, really. Plus I don't like the implications of that from a libertarian perspective, in addition to the fact that it's never really worked before - shortages and queues spring to mind. Also, it doesn't even help reduce inequality, as the inner-party members just replace the super-rich and have the best of everything.

Also, as Asian standards of living increase, in countries like China and India, energy consumption is only likely to increase further. Aye, we can produce more green energy, but that will take time to implement, and as their demand grows for food grown on the other side of the world and foreign holidays increases it's only likely to increase CO2 emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don’t believe the climate change warnings. I just think it’s an industry now which seeks to fund itself.

I believe in caring for the environment and the advancement of clean, green technology because it is the right, normal and sensible thing to do. 

I’ve planted hundreds of trees will go on to plant thousands. I’m getting rid of my oil boiler for an air source heat pump. I’m getting solar power. I don’t waste fuel. I recycle, even though I hate it. Haven’t been abroad in 8 years. 

But I don’t believe the whole “world on a precipice” stuff. I just don’t.

My son is 8 and was telling me yesterday how he’s sad that he’s missed the best of times and how the future is ruined because of humans and climate change. This is what he gets taught at school. 

Edited by Thorongil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

How does taxing the rich reduce carbon emissions? You did understand the graph, didn't you?

 

1462885731_carbonemissions0001.png.4e3218cda4968ce1e266ccc6b2114053.png

 

Having children is by far the biggest contributor to global emissions. The resources they consume each and every year for ~80 years is FAR more significant than someone driving a big car or taking five holidays a year. If they eat bananas or avocados they're being transported from the other side of the world. Their TV, phone and other electronic devices use electricity, part of which is produced from fossil fuels; their clothes are usually manufactured in Asia and transported here; they too will want to take foreign holidays.

How does 'taxing the rich' offset the above, exactly?

 

Birth rates aren’t going to be sustained. The more people are educated and the faster their standards of living increase, the faster the birth rate drops. 

Education and standards of living should be the priority for governments around the world.

Birth rates are declining now, rapidly. What more do you want?

Edited by Thorongil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

My son is 8 and was telling me yesterday how he’s sad that he’s missed the best of times and how the future is ruined because of humans and climate change. This is what he gets taught at school. 

That's very sad, however I'm not sure your son's wrong unfortunately. The earth's definitely warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not. However, CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the earth's atmosphere, which intuitively makes me wonder how it could have such a drastic effect on the climate, but we DO seem to be experiencing more extreme weather conditions.

2 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Birth rates aren’t going to be sustained. The more people are educated and the faster their standards of living increase, the faster the birth rate drops. 

Education and standards of living should be the priority for governments around the world.

Indeed, however can the world sustain 7.9 billion people (as it stands) driving cars, taking foreign holidays and having their food flown in from the other side of the world? Is that viable? Are we approaching, or have we even reached, Peak Oil? I'm sure I saw a model predict the global population will reach at least 9 billion before it starts to decline.

3 hours ago, G51 said:

if every single person decided to murder just one other person in cold blood, emissions would collapse instantly. why is no one talking about this?!?!

Are you comparing the advocation of birth control to involuntary euthanasia? You think disincentivising having children is the same as murdering people? I mean, we're not even talking about abortion here...

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Ignore the Malthusian fruitloop.

Well many people would say you're the fruit loop as you presumably don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. Have you been listening to Lord Monckton? 

Also, the global population has been increasing exponentially, and is only now starting to slow, though we're still predicted to reach 11 billion before the end of this century:

Time-taken-to-increase-population-by-one-billion-774x550.png.b2d4017b026bb0d10424c2852e1e938b.png

 

ELEVEN BILLION PEOPLE! If Ghengis Khan's belligerence is thought to have had an impact on the planet's temperature, then another three billion people breathing our carbon dioxide alone will have an impact:

Quote
In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass.
 

That's before we consider food, clothing, consumer goods, travel, etc. Are you suggesting this won't have an impact on the earth's climate? I'd be fascinated to understand why! Please, do explain. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son is wrong. There plenty of hope for the future for this planet for around the next 4 billion years. Filling kids heads with these fears on top of COVID is just ridiculous. It’s no wonder CAMHS has a 3 year waiting list. 
 

And like I say, I just don’t believe it’s true. And if I’m wrong and it is true, humans will find a way to adapt and survive as they are already doing. 

My green credentials are as good if not better than the people peddling fear for a living. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as gloomy for my grandniece and grandnephew's prospects nearly as much by the growth of tyrants and loss of faith in liberal democracy and science as I am by anthropogenic climate change. They're doomed I tell ya! Only hope is Greta taking over a World Government as we boomers die off imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ghengis Khan's belligerence is thought to have had an impact on the planet's temperature”

This stuff makes me laugh. I don’t say that to be disrespectful to you, but it does.

what is science? Science to me is the combustion engine, covid vaccines, putting a man on the moon, cancer treatments etc. 

The industry that claims to tell us what the temperature in Mongolia was 900 years ago or what the temperature was in Pangea when dinosaurs were stoating about is not science. It is a racket. The same people predict the weather in 50 years from now with certainly also, when meteorologists can’t predict tomorrow’s weather accurately. 

Absolute charlatans, but people love drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, welshbairn said:

I'm as gloomy for my grandniece and grandnephew's prospects nearly as much by the growth of tyrants and loss of faith in liberal democracy and science as I am by anthropogenic climate change. They're doomed I tell ya! Only hope is Greta taking over a World Government as we boomers die off imo.

Wee Greta would soon be putting people up against a wall and organising detention camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...