Carbon Climate - activist

shirley_basso

But it's not really her voice which is creating headlines and conversations, it's her actions, so she really needs the media on side.

john80

blueturtle wrote:

Greta Thunberg making a statement with regards to climate change by sailing to New York by yacht . No mention of 5 crew members flying home from New York to be replaced by a new crew who will also be flying out to New York to bring the yacht back home . Strange that we do not hear this from the mainstream media. Probably does not fit the agenda!!

Not sure this is right. Usualky the imoca campaigns use the skipper with limited crew to gain mileage and work up the reliabilty of the boat. This is quite important when you want to finish a non stop round the world race.

pinno

john80 wrote:

...but in reality to tackle climate change the only real method to do this is population control first...

The guy in Manila living on a jetty made out of plastic with his 7 children have a tiny carbon footprint.
The bloke in Surrey in his huge house with 2 cars, all the mod cons, air conditioning, has 2 children, commutes to work and spends holidays abroad, has a huge carbon footprint.

It's about the 10% of the global population consuming 90% of the resources, i.e, the imbalance of resource consumption.

If anyone is in doubt about climate change, then that view is immaterial - we should take the precautionary principle.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

But it's not really her voice which is creating headlines and conversations, it's her actions, so she really needs the media on side.

True, although this latest action does seem to have generated a fair amount of cynicism as well as positive press.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

john80 wrote:

...but in reality to tackle climate change the only real method to do this is population control first...

The guy in Manila living on a jetty made out of plastic with his 7 children have a tiny carbon footprint.
The bloke in Surrey in his huge house with 2 cars, all the mod cons, air conditioning, has 2 children, commutes to work and spends holidays abroad, has a huge carbon footprint.

It's about the 10% of the global population consuming 90% of the resources, i.e, the imbalance of resource consumption.

If anyone is in doubt about climate change, then that view is immaterial - we should take the precautionary principle.

A large part of the future climate threat comes from a decent proprtion of the 90% moving towards consuming like the 10% are currently doing. Also birth rates in the developed nations are fair bit lower than elsewhere.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

john80 wrote:

...but in reality to tackle climate change the only real method to do this is population control first...

The guy in Manila living on a jetty made out of plastic with his 7 children have a tiny carbon footprint.
The bloke in Surrey in his huge house with 2 cars, all the mod cons, air conditioning, has 2 children, commutes to work and spends holidays abroad, has a huge carbon footprint.

It's about the 10% of the global population consuming 90% of the resources, i.e, the imbalance of resource consumption.

If anyone is in doubt about climate change, then that view is immaterial - we should take the precautionary principle.

A large part of the future climate threat comes from a decent proprtion of the 90% moving towards consuming like the 10% are currently doing. Also birth rates in the developed nations are fair bit lower than elsewhere.

Is the problem carbon or consumption? Because although they are related the relationship is not necessarily linear.

I think you are on dodgy ground if you start advocating population control, bluntly. But presumably those who go down this line or argument know this, and so by saying "THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT IT IS TO DO SOMETHING REALLY BAD" they try to move the conversation on.

There are plenty of things nations, societies, people can do to reduce emissions to a sustainable level without resorting to population control. Problem is, that affects the over 45, and that is really the crux of the "problem" of finding solutions.

It's similar to the "well it's all very well us doing stuff, but what about THE CHINEEEESE" as by saying "they're doing it worse so why bother" they get out of changing anything in their life to address the issue. It's a cop out.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's similar to the "well it's all very well us doing stuff, but what about THE CHINEEEESE" as by saying "they're doing it worse so why bother" they get out of changing anything in their life to address the issue. It's a cop out.

This is true, but in the end it's a moral argument not a practical one: unfortunately if you don't say "what about THE CHINEEEESE" you don't actually achieve anything. It's a variation of the old false syllogism: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done"

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's similar to the "well it's all very well us doing stuff, but what about THE CHINEEEESE" as by saying "they're doing it worse so why bother" they get out of changing anything in their life to address the issue. It's a cop out.

This is true, but in the end it's a moral argument not a practical one: unfortunately if you don't say "what about THE CHINEEEESE" you don't actually achieve anything. It's a variation of the old false syllogism: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done"

Sure but you can control things in your environment (pun intended).

Doing something effective yourself and putting pressure on others to do the same is also not mutually exclusive. Western governments could do both, if they wanted.

The challenge is the most motivated voter bases in these democracies are nihilistic enough because they will be dead before it's a problem, so many are not incentivised to give up certain lifestyles they have had a long time to get accustomed to.

Arguably the communist rulers in China suffer a similar lack of incentives.

pinno

I certainly wasn't advocating population control but I presume you knew that anyway.
Increasing standards of living is commensurate to reducing population.
That means more education in developing countries, better health care and a fairer distribution of wealth.
It's also about empowerment - large conglomerates shredding rain forest as opposed to indigenous populations taking vested interest in the local environment for example.
The latter is a far bigger, macro challenge.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is the problem carbon or consumption? Because although they are related the relationship is not necessarily linear.

I think you are on dodgy ground if you start advocating population control, bluntly. But presumably those who go down this line or argument know this, and so by saying "THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT IT IS TO DO SOMETHING REALLY BAD" they try to move the conversation on.

There are plenty of things nations, societies, people can do to reduce emissions to a sustainable level without resorting to population control. Problem is, that affects the over 45, and that is really the crux of the "problem" of finding solutions.

It's similar to the "well it's all very well us doing stuff, but what about THE CHINEEEESE" as by saying "they're doing it worse so why bother" they get out of changing anything in their life to address the issue. It's a cop out.

I assume you're replying to John80 as he made the proposal? In any event I think you are making assumptions about what population control means.

However if we don't keep a lid on global population growth, then it's highly likely that our old friends famine, disease and conflict will do the job for us at some point in the future. And global warming will accelerate this/make it worse.

So quite frankly you are on shaky gound if you think that trying to educate people on the subject and increase access to contraception is worse than some combination of 'The Four Horsemen'.

And nobody said anything about us not doing anything, but that is missing the point (as usual). I'm talking about the other 90% here.

shirley_basso

What about the other 90%? They're not really doing anything wrong, apart from trying to survive in many cases.

pinno

Shirley Basso wrote:

What about the other 90%? They're not really doing anything wrong, apart from trying to survive in many cases.

Are you splitting hairs?

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

What about the other 90%? They're not really doing anything wrong, apart from trying to survive in many cases.

Its not a case of 'doing wrong' or morality type considerations. It's about the impact they will have on climate change in future, as I explained above. And about the 'elephant in the room', global population levels and growth.

shirley_basso

Pinno wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What about the other 90%? They're not really doing anything wrong, apart from trying to survive in many cases.

Are you splitting hairs?

Not intentionally. I don't really know what Stevo is trying to say re: the other 90% and the post after yours doesn't really clarify it.

I see the 10% as the main contributor to climate change and therefore to an extent everyone who can, should feel some obligation to have productive discussions and put pressure on the powers that be in the both private and public sector (though shopping habits, behaviours, recycling, lobbying, whatever) to help lead the change in behaviour and progress technological development to help everyone reduce their impact on the planet. So that when the 90% do have the means to ravage the planet like the rest of us do, we will be a bit more advanced than that and the impact lessened.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What about the other 90%? They're not really doing anything wrong, apart from trying to survive in many cases.

Are you splitting hairs?

Not intentionally. I don't really know what Stevo is trying to say re: the other 90% and the post after yours doesn't really clarify it.

I see the 10% as the main contributor to climate change and therefore to an extent everyone who can, should feel some obligation to have productive discussions and put pressure on the powers that be in the both private and public sector (though shopping habits, behaviours, recycling, lobbying, whatever) to help lead the change in behaviour and progress technological development to help everyone reduce their impact on the planet. So that when the 90% do have the means to ravage the planet like the rest of us do, we will be a bit more advanced than that and the impact lessened.

Let me try to put a bit more simply. We might be the largest contributors to global warming now but if living standards for nearly 10 times as many people in the developing world rise significantly, then what impact on climate change do think that might have?

Let me know what part of that isn't clear.

Pross

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What about the other 90%? They're not really doing anything wrong, apart from trying to survive in many cases.

Are you splitting hairs?

Not intentionally. I don't really know what Stevo is trying to say re: the other 90% and the post after yours doesn't really clarify it.

I see the 10% as the main contributor to climate change and therefore to an extent everyone who can, should feel some obligation to have productive discussions and put pressure on the powers that be in the both private and public sector (though shopping habits, behaviours, recycling, lobbying, whatever) to help lead the change in behaviour and progress technological development to help everyone reduce their impact on the planet. So that when the 90% do have the means to ravage the planet like the rest of us do, we will be a bit more advanced than that and the impact lessened.

Let me try to put a bit more simply. We might be the largest contributors to global warming now but if living standards for nearly 10 times as many people in the developing world rise significantly, then what impact on climate change do think that might have?

Let me know what part of that isn't clear.

Surely the ideal situation would be the currently developed nations create solutions to enable the high living standards to be achieved in a carbon neutral way and the developing nations then improve their living standards using those methods? Everyone ends up with better living standards without killing the planet as opposed to the current situation of developing countries growing using the previous generation of damaging technology.

rick_chasey

People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

slowbike

and now MPs have suggested that perhaps we shouldn't drive as much ..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49425402

ok - one idea on this - allow schools to setup vehicle exclusion/no stopping zones (which ever is appropriate) around them for drop off/pickup time - and fine anyone flouting these. They'll need to encourage use of scooters/bikes/walking or public transport to get the kids to school instead.

They've suggested ensuring fuel prices go up in line with public transport costs each year - I think in many cases, this isn't enough to get people out of their cars - PT/alternatives MUST be cheaper to offset the convenience of just jumping in your car. Either through lower PT cost or higher driving cost - how about, give us a tax break if we don't drive to work?

laurentian

Always baffles and infuriates me why so many people have to commute everyday by car to plug their computer into exactly the same internet that they can plug into at home . . .

slowbike

laurentian wrote:

Always baffles and infuriates me why so many people have to commute everyday by car to plug their computer into exactly the same internet that they can plug into at home . . .

well, quite - although you're missing out on some of the other bits ...

I don't have a desk like this at home, I don't have fast access to the servers at home, I can't have face2face conversations easily at home and most importantly - there's nobody else to make my coffee at home!

But *smug mode on* I did come in without burning any fossil fuel today ... although I'll have to burn some later when I go and pickup Little Slowbike (could do it by bike, but he'll be a bit knackered, as will I, and it's quite a trip to do by bike ... for a little one anyway)

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

Well exactly Rolf.

Rick, do you have any evidence to support your rather 'interesting' assertion that Global population growth can just carry on unchecked and indefinitely with no major consequences?

mr_goo

Firstly I find it rather creepy that tens of housands of adults are in awe of a 16 year old girl, irrespective of platform as a climate change activist.
Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.

As has already been pointed out but never addressed by any government. Too many people on planet earth. Resources are finite. Humans are by default wired to accumulate stuff some more than others. A recipe for the impending disaster we now find ourselves heading towards. I just don't see any way out of this.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Firstly I find it rather creepy that tens of housands of adults are in awe of a 16 year old girl, irrespective of platform as a climate change activist.
Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.

As has already been pointed out but never addressed by any government. Too many people on planet earth. Resources are finite. Humans are by default wired to accumulate stuff some more than others. A recipe for the impending disaster we now find ourselves heading towards. I just don't see any way out of this.

An interesting bit of information that has arisen from the no deal Brexit preparation is that the UK has sufficient suitable land to be calorifically self-sufficient. It would mean significant changes to diet and land use, but we don't need to import food. If we continue as we (in the developed world) are then that is not sustainable but that does not mean that the planet is incapable of sustainably supporting the current population. Arguing that we can't change is nonsense. Change is one of the things we are best at.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

you are actually relying on the birth rate in the developing world reducing. This has always happened as healthcare improves the need to guarantee an heir and a spare requires fewer kids.

Malthus was only 200 years and and has been proved to be as wrong as the Romans. I really can't see the world running out of food.

I have a lot of sympathy with developing nations being lectured by developed countries who are essentially advocating that they should remain impoverished for the good of the world. It is the international version of Harry and his missus telling us to have less kids before jumping on another private jet.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

you are actually relying on the birth rate in the developing world reducing. This has always happened as healthcare improves the need to guarantee an heir and a spare requires fewer kids.

Malthus was only 200 years and and has been proved to be as wrong as the Romans. I really can't see the world running out of food.

I have a lot of sympathy with developing nations being lectured by developed countries who are essentially advocating that they should remain impoverished for the good of the world. It is the international version of Harry and his missus telling us to have less kids before jumping on another private jet.

Correct.

This argument is shifting responsibility and not addressing the real issue. The biggest gains *right now* to be made are in the developed world, and they literally can more easily afford to make the adjustments.

Rather than being king cnut and trying to stop people having sex, why not focus on actual solutions?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Firstly I find it rather creepy that tens of housands of adults are in awe of a 16 year old girl, irrespective of platform as a climate change activist.
Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.

As has already been pointed out but never addressed by any government. Too many people on planet earth. Resources are finite. Humans are by default wired to accumulate stuff some more than others. A recipe for the impending disaster we now find ourselves heading towards. I just don't see any way out of this.

An interesting bit of information that has arisen from the no deal Brexit preparation is that the UK has sufficient suitable land to be calorifically self-sufficient. It would mean significant changes to diet and land use, but we don't need to import food. If we continue as we (in the developed world) are then that is not sustainable but that does not mean that the planet is incapable of sustainably supporting the current population. Arguing that we can't change is nonsense. Change is one of the things we are best at.

this time of year it is very easy to eat locally sourced seasonal fruit/vegetables. the rest of the year I can not see people doing so voluntarily

rjsterry

I'm struck by the contrast between people urging positivity and a can-do attitude in one thread, suggesting others are being overly negative, etc.; and arguing that there's nothing we can do, no point trying/we're all doomed anyway in this thread.

TheBigBean

For much of the less developed world it is now cheaper to deploy renewables for the generation of electricity. That will help a lot. Dirty cars/trucks etc. will remain, but if electric/hydro cars are ever cheaper then it is easy to see these being adopted as well.

Also to add that the constraint in many countries is its grid, so in some ways renewables can help by allowing more localised deployment.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Firstly I find it rather creepy that tens of housands of adults are in awe of a 16 year old girl, irrespective of platform as a climate change activist.
Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.

As has already been pointed out but never addressed by any government. Too many people on planet earth. Resources are finite. Humans are by default wired to accumulate stuff some more than others. A recipe for the impending disaster we now find ourselves heading towards. I just don't see any way out of this.

An interesting bit of information that has arisen from the no deal Brexit preparation is that the UK has sufficient suitable land to be calorifically self-sufficient. It would mean significant changes to diet and land use, but we don't need to import food. If we continue as we (in the developed world) are then that is not sustainable but that does not mean that the planet is incapable of sustainably supporting the current population. Arguing that we can't change is nonsense. Change is one of the things we are best at.

this time of year it is very easy to eat locally sourced seasonal fruit/vegetables. the rest of the year I can not see people doing so voluntarily

Who knows until we try it. Everyone said a plastic bag tax wouldn't work. In the space of a year, suddenly everyone is concerned about marine plastics. Anyway, who said anything about voluntarily? :twisted: