Carbon Climate - activist

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

Stevo's covered that - don't worry he's not a mad eugenicist.

I'll take that as a compliment RJS

Although you have to wonder if Rick actually reads what other people post before getting on his little soap box and voing off on a tangent to the actual discussion. (Rick - read the thread properly and try again).

I'm waiting for Lagrange to start that vote he mentioned in another thread. But in the meantime I'm off to reduce my carbon footprint by lounging next to the pool and supping some locally sourced drinks

Yeah you're saying you want to limit populations to improve the quality of life (on some bizarro assumption that they are inversely correlated. Would suggest having kids is often the most fulfilling part of peoples' lives).

So how do you propose to do this.

I guess you didn't read my post on page 4 of this thread either :roll:

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Of course, the irony is that the mindset that the planet is ours to do with what we will is exactly why we are in this mess. And personally I think that the idea that we can tech our way out of it and everyone on the planet can have new iphones every year is a very misguided one though who knows, it might work. Big gamble though. I'm glad I won't have to live in that world though - it sounds terrible.

Some of the views that we will be OK with more people is based on studies that have not yet factored in the potential future impacts of climate change - for example the impact on crop production and the effect of rising sea levels on low-lying densely populated areas and the resulting mass displacement of people. The latter is predicted to impact around 800m people by 2050:
https://www.c40.org/other/the-future-we-don-t-want-staying-afloat-the-urban-response-to-sea-level-rise

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Of course, the irony is that the mindset that the planet is ours to do with what we will is exactly why we are in this mess. And personally I think that the idea that we can tech our way out of it and everyone on the planet can have new iphones every year is a very misguided one though who knows, it might work. Big gamble though. I'm glad I won't have to live in that world though - it sounds terrible.

Some of the views that we will be OK with more people is based on studies that have not yet factored in the potential future impacts of climate change - for example the impact on crop production and the effect of rising sea levels on low-lying densely populated areas and the resulting mass displacement of people. The latter is predicted to impact around 800m people by 2050:
https://www.c40.org/other/the-future-we-don-t-want-staying-afloat-the-urban-response-to-sea-level-rise

Can't help noticing a red dot close to home.



You'd have thought this would focus minds more than it has. It blows the 'we can't afford it argument out of the (rising) water.

shirley_basso

Ummmm Thames barrier don't you know.

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

Ummmm Thames barrier don't you know.

Designed to provide protection until 2030. There is some debate over what protection it will provide beyond that date.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Of course, the irony is that the mindset that the planet is ours to do with what we will is exactly why we are in this mess. And personally I think that the idea that we can tech our way out of it and everyone on the planet can have new iphones every year is a very misguided one though who knows, it might work. Big gamble though. I'm glad I won't have to live in that world though - it sounds terrible.

Some of the views that we will be OK with more people is based on studies that have not yet factored in the potential future impacts of climate change - for example the impact on crop production and the effect of rising sea levels on low-lying densely populated areas and the resulting mass displacement of people. The latter is predicted to impact around 800m people by 2050:
https://www.c40.org/other/the-future-we-don-t-want-staying-afloat-the-urban-response-to-sea-level-rise

Can't help noticing a red dot close to home.



You'd have thought this would focus minds more than it has. It blows the 'we can't afford it argument out of the (rising) water.

Not just the red dot, there are quite a few other UK dots on that (just a bit hard to make out exactly which on that map).

However looking on the bright side, you and I could be the owners of some desirable waterfront properties in South London when we're old - we are about 60m above sea level. However anyone who lives in (say) Cambridge should be far more concerned about becoming a climate change refugee as that's only 6m above sea level

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Ummmm Thames barrier don't you know.

Designed to provide protection until 2030. There is some debate over what protection it will provide beyond that date.

If London gets a bit too moist to inhabit, don't you bother shifting North.

Besides, you might upset our peacefull, benign and very hairy 'Coos.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Ummmm Thames barrier don't you know.

Designed to provide protection until 2030. There is some debate over what protection it will provide beyond that date.

If London gets a bit too moist to inhabit, don't you bother shifting North.

Besides, you might upset our peacefull, benign and very hairy 'Coos.

No need, I'll have a beachfront property and a nice Mediterranean climate to go with it 8)

Whereas some people who think its all hunky dory to just keep on adding to the population when more people are one of the biggest drivers of greenhouse gas emissions might end up swimming rather than punting

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Ummmm Thames barrier don't you know.

Designed to provide protection until 2030. There is some debate over what protection it will provide beyond that date.

If London gets a bit too moist to inhabit, don't you bother shifting North.

Besides, you might upset our peacefull, benign and very hairy 'Coos.

Why would I need to move North? We've plenty of our own hills and more coos than yoos. :P

More seriously, I was reading an article earlier about how sea level rise is not just a case of the water rising. As the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt, the tectonic plates underneath them will rebound as the weight of ice is removed. There is debate as to the order this will occur and to what degree the rebound will cancel out sea level rise.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Why would I need to move North? We've plenty of our own hills and more coos than yoos. :P

Nice poetry btw.

But unfortunately you don't. We have some of the highest milk yielding herds in Europe locally.
...and one of the biggest creamery's to deal with all that milk.

https://www.lactalismclelland.co.uk/our-farmers/

http://groupelactalis.co.uk/our-locations.html#

rjsterry

Not literally here in South London, obviously :roll: In the south of the UK, I meant. Funnily enough Lactalis' head office is just down the road from me in Redhill.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

More seriously, I was reading an article earlier about how sea level rise is not just a case of the water rising. As the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt, the tectonic plates underneath them will rebound as the weight of ice is removed. There is debate as to the order this will occur and to what degree the rebound will cancel out sea level rise.

Got a link to that?

Although I'm not sure that there are too many people in Greenland and Antarctice who will be relieved by that point, unless the land rise affects a much wider area than the parts covered by ice.

rjsterry

Here you go.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -coastline

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why- ... e-is-wrong

Not a get out of jail card by any means; just that it's more complicated than looking at current elevation above sea level.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Here you go.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -coastline

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why- ... e-is-wrong

Not a get out of jail card by any means; just that it's more complicated than looking at current elevation above sea level.

Thanks - that is interesting stuff and new for me. It's a complex system so will be hard to predict accurately.

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Here's that article on solar farms directly powering rail lines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-farm

I believe Network Rail still own lots of long thin strips of lineside land, which could be put to use in this way and are not much good for anything else.

I've wondered if it would be possible to have some form of wind capture at the side of high speed roads that could harness the air disturbance from passing vehicles (likewise trackside I suppose). I seem to recall vaguely some discussion of harnessing kinetic energy from vehicles on motorways to power lighting a few years ago but might have imagined it.

Pross

To fan the flames on population control, maybe people are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. It would probably be better to put less effort (and money) into extending life at its far end than creating new life. Better for the economy as younger people are needed to keep things going and big savings on pension payments, medical care and social care. Not talking about actively ending life but rather not artificially prolonging it.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here's that article on solar farms directly powering rail lines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-farm

I believe Network Rail still own lots of long thin strips of lineside land, which could be put to use in this way and are not much good for anything else.

I've wondered if it would be possible to have some form of wind capture at the side of high speed roads that could harness the air disturbance from passing vehicles (likewise trackside I suppose). I seem to recall vaguely some discussion of harnessing kinetic energy from vehicles on motorways to power lighting a few years ago but might have imagined it.

This what you meant?

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/c ... en-energy/

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here's that article on solar farms directly powering rail lines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-farm

I believe Network Rail still own lots of long thin strips of lineside land, which could be put to use in this way and are not much good for anything else.

I've wondered if it would be possible to have some form of wind capture at the side of high speed roads that could harness the air disturbance from passing vehicles (likewise trackside I suppose). I seem to recall vaguely some discussion of harnessing kinetic energy from vehicles on motorways to power lighting a few years ago but might have imagined it.

This what you meant?

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/c ... en-energy/

The thing I vaguely remember was a trial using something mounted on central reservation safety fencing. There does seem to be a lot of 'lost' energy generated through everyday activity though, I guess the issue is always going to be harvesting that in an economically viable way and getting it into the grid.

socrates

She could have reduced her carbon footprint even more by staying at home. She has to fly back, people had to bring the boat across (not by sail I believe). Really it is a nonsense.

Stevo_666

socrates wrote:

She could have reduced her carbon footprint even more by staying at home. She has to fly back, people had to bring the boat across (not by sail I believe). Really it is a nonsense.

I wonder if anyone suggested that she does it by way of video conference?

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Here you go.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -coastline

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why- ... e-is-wrong

Not a get out of jail card by any means; just that it's more complicated than looking at current elevation above sea level.

Good time to buy Greenland then?

robert88

Getting fracking serious in Blackpool.

Ben6899

TheBigBean wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Network Rail is the largest land owner in the UK.

A quick google reveals it is not in the top 10.

I got my facts mixed up. I think they're the largest landlord.

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Network Rail is the largest land owner in the UK.

A quick google reveals it is not in the top 10.

I got my facts mixed up. I think they're the largest landlord.

I think their property division has split off as a separate company. They certainly do a lot of development work.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

They certainly do a lot of development work.

They what?!

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Ummmm Thames barrier don't you know.

Designed to provide protection until 2030. There is some debate over what protection it will provide beyond that date.

If London gets a bit too moist to inhabit, don't you bother shifting North.

Besides, you might upset our peacefull, benign and very hairy 'Coos.

Why would I need to move North? We've plenty of our own hills and more coos than yoos. :P

More seriously, I was reading an article earlier about how sea level rise is not just a case of the water rising. As the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt, the tectonic plates underneath them will rebound as the weight of ice is removed. There is debate as to the order this will occur and to what degree the rebound will cancel out sea level rise.

That idea is as old as the hills. The UK is undoubtedly an example: Scotland had more ice for longer than SE England. Consequently when the ice melted the weight loss in the north was greater than that in the south. Scotland is rising whilst southern England is sinking. This despite the Glaswegian taste for battered Mars bars which is unfortunately no match for developers importing ever more concrete in and around London.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Here you go.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -coastline

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why- ... e-is-wrong

Not a get out of jail card by any means; just that it's more complicated than looking at current elevation above sea level.

Well, you get land rising where the ice is and mostly nobody lives except the folk of the US State of Greenland - and see level rising in compensation everywhere else where people live.

I hope by the time this all happens West Yorkshire will have claimed independence so all the pesky refugees from the flooded plain of York won't be cluttering up my now coastal des res!

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here you go.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -coastline

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why- ... e-is-wrong

Not a get out of jail card by any means; just that it's more complicated than looking at current elevation above sea level.

Well, you get land rising where the ice is and mostly nobody lives except the folk of the US State of Greenland - and see level rising in compensation everywhere else where people live.

I hope by the time this all happens West Yorkshire will have claimed independence so all the pesky refugees from the flooded plain of York won't be cluttering up my now coastal des res!

You didn't read it, did you.

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

I hope by the time this all happens West Yorkshire will have claimed independence so all the pesky refugees from the flooded plain of York won't be cluttering up my now coastal des res!

Heat waves will see the fatties inundate your coastal des res.
Every silver lining has a cloud.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Every silver lining has a cloud.

That could be the Cake Stop motto?