Climate change and human responsibility

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yes but the word “threat” does not equate to impending doom. We are on this planet for a short time. Live responsibly and enjoy it.

There's the problem. We haven't been living responsibly, and have been enjoying it to much.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There's the problem. We haven't been living responsibly, and have been enjoying it to much.

Overpopulation leads to overconsumption. Until we face the fact there’s too many of us, the rest is just window dressing.

[Fuzz]

So short of mass culling, there is nothing we can do? I agree there are too many people(particularly on the TCH on weekends). But that's not really an easy problem to fix.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So short of mass culling, there is nothing we can do? I agree there are too many people(particularly on the TCH on weekends). But that's not really an easy problem to fix.

Population control through birth rate. China has already implemented this with the one child rule, although that is now history. Technology has increased to the point where they could introduce birth control to a water supply, and then anyone who wants to have a baby applies to the government for the antidote. I doubt the problem areas in the world will agree to that.

The second option is education. The higher educated a country is, the lower the birth rate. Canada sees this as a problem to the 'perpetual growth' economic model, and increased immigration to compensate, but in many countries it is already a solution to unfettered growth.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Overpopulation leads to overconsumption. Until we face the fact there’s too many of us, the rest is just window dressing.

That's not exactly true. The richest 10% of people, which includes you and I, produce 50% of he CO2.

A more accurate statement would be "overpopulation of the wealthy leads to overconsumption".

Cries of overpopulation is a convenient way for white people to blame brown people for environmental devastation.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Read the article to answer your question. There’s a difference between fixating on what “could be” and trying to get people to understand what “will be”. Nuclear Holocaust could happen but likely won’t as long as superpowers have MAD as a deterrent. Y2K was going to happen if efforts weren't made to fix the errant code. Climate change will cause catastrophic events word-wide even if we if we don’t take action now.

It’s not good to always fixate on negative possible outcomes but when something this huge is still preventable it’s ok to shout about it from the rooftops.

FYP.

The house is already on fire, the catastrophe part isn't really preventable, it's probably going to get really bad much quicker than people imagine.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to put the fire out, because it's not like we have another house to live in, but we're already deeply effed.

On the upside, there's little need to shout from the rooftops since the matter is going to be quite settled soon enough.

Of course much of the elite has already decided that their reaction is to try to maximize personal profits and find ways to further isolate themselves from the masses, but that's another topic.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So short of mass culling, there is nothing we can do? I agree there are too many people(particularly on the TCH on weekends). But that's not really an easy problem to fix.

Not easy but necessary. Look at the predicted population curves. It’s frightening. Meanwhile plant and animals are becoming extinct by the hour. I just find it’s irresponsible for us not to be putting resources and effort into dealing with the biggest issue facing all species of this planet.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

We’re likely ####ed. I don’t see us making the necessary changes in time. Electric vehicles are far from being feasible for most people and the newest models are too sporty and huge to be properly efficient. Coal is still a huge source of power in some countries and even though natural gas is much better, sadly it needs to go too.

Our consumption habits aren’t changing. If anything we’re consuming more with stores like Amazon making it quick and easy to get crap right to your doorstep. Plant-based meat alternatives and “lab-grown” versions are novelties at best.

The goalposts for climate deniers have moved from “hoax” to “too disruptive” and finally they’re right. We’re at a point where making the necessary changes would require entire industries to go bankrupt and force us to make quality of life choices we would never accept. So yeah, we’re probably ####ed.

https://www.reuters.com/business/env...ns-2021-08-09/

[Ozy_Flame]

I agree that continuous population growth is a humanity trend that causes a myriad of problems and challenges. That said, volume of people doesn't necessarily change the way our technology evolves. ICE vehicles are still ICE vehicles whether there is 1 or 7 Billion people - we need to constantly improve our tech while continuously shutting the door on older/obsolete technologies. And this includes crops, robotics, chemicals, infrastructure, logistics, etc.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The second option is education. The higher educated a country is, the lower the birth rate.

I agree with this statement. And to that end I have been donating to Plan Canada for two decades given their focus on educating young girls and helping them prepare for good jobs. But my money is going to projects in Guatemala. Guatemala can double their population.... triple their population... and there would be negligible increase in worldwide CO2. Because, per capita, they produce very little.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That's not exactly true. The richest 10% of people, which includes you and I, produce 50% of he CO2.

A more accurate statement would be "overpopulation of the wealthy leads to overconsumption".

Cries of overpopulation is a convenient way for white people to blame brown people for environmental devastation.

That's an interesting way to look at it considering it's not just the wealthy taking up land space. You seemed overly worried about saving the planet for you. I'm more worried about saving the planet for the rest of the plants and animals inhabiting earth. People like you will be happy to see 12 billion of us driving EV's and patting yourself on the back for your efforts in reducing CO2 meanwhile millions of other species will have been wiped out.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Not easy but necessary. Look at the predicted population curves. It’s frightening. Meanwhile plant and animals are becoming extinct by the hour. I just find it’s irresponsible for us not to be putting resources and effort into dealing with the biggest issue facing all species of this planet.

Can you show me the predicted population curves? The one at "Our World in Data" does not look all that frightening. We are currently at 8 billion. Their projection has us peaking at 11 billion and levelling off in 2100. As worldwide poverty decreases, the number of children per family is dropping. The rate of growth is falling drastically. The problem is that while the rate of growth of population is going down, resource consumption is going up.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The thing with methane and agriculture is it's basically a steady state if herd sizes stay the same. Because methane doesn't last that long, the cycle is now stable(and number of cattle are not in creasing in NA). It's not like burning oil, where you take locked up carbon and keep releasing it. So I think there is a bit of exaggeration as to how bad farmed animals are.

As long as the human population grows and becomes more affluent, cattle numbers will increase, unless we change our consumption habits.

That being said, I've also seen non-meat eaters do ridiculous things, like eat imported soy products in lieu of meat, with the rationale being that meat is simply always a worse option. The methane issue is purposely exaggerated. For example, many charts will feature methane concentrations in "parts per billion", and then feature carbon concentrations overall in "parts per million".

[Macman]

Or maybe it's time to directly go after the biggest and heaviest polluters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/unit...ange-1.6134493

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's an interesting way to look at it considering it's not just the wealthy taking up land space. You seemed overly worried about saving the planet for you. I'm more worried about saving the planet for the rest of the plants and animals inhabiting earth. People like you will be happy to see 12 billion of us driving EV's and patting yourself on the back for your efforts in reducing CO2 meanwhile millions of other species will have been wiped out.

That is humorous. I have never owned a car and bicycle everywhere.
It is possible to provide for 11 billion people if we didn't need such resource intensive lives. Previous in this thread meat production was being discussed. One really easy way of reducing the amount of land we need is to reduce meat consumption. For cattle, you need to grown soybean or grain to feed them or huge tracts of grazing land. There is more than enough land for everyone to have a happy existence if we didn't need three cars, steak dinners and homes our grandparents would consider mansions.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Macman

Or maybe it's time to directly go after the biggest and heaviest polluters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/unit...ange-1.6134493

I read the linked article. It doesn't specify who the "biggest and heaviest polluters" are. Can you tell me?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That is humorous. I have never owned a car and bicycle everywhere.
It is possible to provide for 11 billion people if we didn't need such resource intensive lives. Previous in this thread meat production was being discussed. One really easy way of reducing the amount of land we need is to reduce meat consumption. For cattle, you need to grown soybean or grain to feed them or huge tracts of grazing land. There is more than enough land for everyone to have a happy existence if we didn't need three cars, steak dinners and homes our grandparents would consider mansions.

Truthfully, the problem is pretty simple to me. We're gluttons. I completely include myself in that, and I'm using "we" as in humans, but also just western society. We consume unreal amounts of food and drinks, but just buy everything constantly. And if those habits aren't enough, we want those things delivered to our houses on a whim at all hours of the day. "I feel like a Big Mac, but I don't want to bother going all the way there, so I'll just have someone make that and drive it to my house." It's unbelievable what we've become accustomed to!

[Macman]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

I read the linked article. It doesn't specify who the "biggest and heaviest polluters" are. Can you tell me?

And that's the problem, why don't they mention it? Isn't it China and India?

Yes China produces a lot of products for the rest of the world and that seems to be why us in Canada and even the US are constantly blamed for climate change when in fact both countries were to shut down it would have no impact on climate change, from what I've read and understand anyway.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-in-the-world/

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

There is more than enough land for everyone to have a happy existence if we didn't need three cars, steak dinners and homes our grandparents would consider mansions.

I think this is going to be very sobering for many people, particularly in the Western world. Large houses with relatively high personal consumption of land, water, electricity, gas, and other resources is likely going to be put under a microscope. More severe droughts and deforestation are increasingly impacting arable land, and building larger cities, urban areas, and infrastructure to accommodate that slowly whittles away that land over time. Additionally, using arable land as pastures and grazing areas should be addressed with a long-term vision.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

As long as the human population grows and becomes more affluent, cattle numbers will increase, unless we change our consumption habits.

That being said, I've also seen non-meat eaters do ridiculous things, like eat imported soy products in lieu of meat, with the rationale being that meat is simply always a worse option. The methane issue is purposely exaggerated. For example, many charts will feature methane concentrations in "parts per billion", and then feature carbon concentrations overall in "parts per million".

It's not really increasing though:


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-1990/