Climate change and human responsibility

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Macman

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.

Here are the top 20 companies in terms of emissions responsible for 1/3 of all emissions:
Saudi Aramco
Chevron
Gazprom
ExxonMobil
National Iranian Oil Co
BP
Royal Dutch Shell
Coal India
Pemex
Petroleos de Venezuela
PetroChina
Peabody Energy
ConocoPhillips
Abu Dhabi National Oil
Kuwait Petroleum Corp
Iraq National Oil
Total SA
Sonatrach
BHP Billiton
Petrobras


Basically all oil and coal companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-emissions

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

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.

The biggest problem we have with climate change (and literally every issue) is that even if people want things to change in general, they don't want it to impact them personally.

People want affordable housing built, just not anywhere near them.

People want climate action, but don't want the cost of energy to increase or to take the bus into work instead of driving solo each morning.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not really increasing though:


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

But that's because people are eating less meat. For example, here's the UK's cattle production, from 2005 to 2020:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/

This is despite population growth from 60.1 to 67.1 million in the UK.

[Macman]

Fossil fuels were here from the beginning so we're just utilizing what we have, how else are we going to survive as humans?

Yes we have to evolve and figure things out as we go but I don't see any real solutions from the climate change alarmists other than electric cars and solar energy which are good but so far still seem to be a bit impractical for the masses. How many people can afford a Tesla?

Maybe climate change is just natural evolution, the earth has been here roughly 6 billion years so of course we're going to get warmer than we've ever been.

Sunrise and sunsets, heat, solar flares, increased human population, it all adds up.

Yes it deserves attention but we'll survive and carry on, that much is certain.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Macman

Fossil fuels were here from the beginning so we're just utilizing what we have, how else are we going to survive as humans?

Yes we have to evolve and figure things out as we go but I don't see any real solutions from the climate change alarmists other than electric cars and solar energy which are good but so far still seem to be a bit impractical for the masses. How many people can afford a Tesla?

Maybe climate change is just natural evolution, the earth has been here roughly 6 billion years so of course we're going to get warmer than we've ever been.

Sunrise and sunsets, heat, solar flares, increased human population, it all adds up.

Yes it deserves attention but we'll survive and carry on, that much is certain.

So it was a good idea to go after the top emitters when it was China and India, but not when its O&G companies?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

People want climate action, but don't want the cost of energy to increase or to take the bus into work instead of driving solo each morning.

I can see why. People have a right to an air-conditioned V8 half-ton driving 40 kilometers to their office and back every day

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Macman

Fossil fuels were here from the beginning so we're just utilizing what we have, how else are we going to survive as humans?

Yes we have to evolve and figure things out as we go but I don't see any real solutions from the climate change alarmists other than electric cars and solar energy which are good but so far still seem to be a bit impractical for the masses. How many people can afford a Tesla?

Maybe climate change is just natural evolution, the earth has been here roughly 6 billion years so of course we're going to get warmer than we've ever been.

Sunrise and sunsets, heat, solar flares, increased human population, it all adds up.

Yes it deserves attention but we'll survive and carry on, that much is certain.

The Earth will survive and carry on. New life will take the place of those who have been wiped out.

But by no means is us (humanity) surviving and carrying on, certain.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Here are the top 20 companies in terms of emissions responsible for 1/3 of all emissions:
Saudi Aramco
Chevron
Gazprom
ExxonMobil
National Iranian Oil Co
BP
Royal Dutch Shell
Coal India
Pemex
Petroleos de Venezuela
PetroChina
Peabody Energy
ConocoPhillips
Abu Dhabi National Oil
Kuwait Petroleum Corp
Iraq National Oil
Total SA
Sonatrach
BHP Billiton
Petrobras


Basically all oil and coal companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-emissions

It found that 90% of the emissions attributed to the top 20 climate culprits was from use of their products, such as petrol, jet fuel, natural gas, and thermal coal. One-tenth came from extracting, refining, and delivering the finished fuels.

I think it's nonsense to blame producers of products we all use, enjoy, and have brought the world into the advanced state that we are. If you want to allocate emissions, you do it on consumption, not production. That list is largely meaningless.

[Macman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So it was a good idea to go after the top emitters when it was China and India, but not when its O&G companies?

But isn't China still burning coal and even bringing on new plants when they could be using natural gas which we have plenty of here.

And all those companies are filling a demand for fossil fuel products which we still largely need and haven't found replacements for.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

But that's because people are eating less meat. For example, here's the UK's cattle production, from 2005 to 2020:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/

This is despite population growth from 60.1 to 67.1 million in the UK.

I'm not sure what your point is. You say cattle number are increasing, I show you they are not, and then you show me they are decreasing?

[Itse]

Population is largely irrelevant actually.

49% of the global co2 emissions are produced to support the lifestyles of the richest 10%, while the poorest 50% (which includes most growing populations) only cause 10% of the emissions, and that disparity is only growing.

And now you also know why effectively absolutely nothing has really happened to curb the emissions. It's convenient to blame the Chinese farmer who has more meat in their diet, but the real culprits are probably a lot closer to you.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think it's nonsense to blame producers of products we all use, enjoy, and have brought the world into the advanced state that we are. If you want to allocate emissions, you do it on consumption, not production. That list is largely meaningless.

You are right but the end result is to lower consumption which will devastate those companies when their isn't demand for their production.

[Harry Lime]

Judging from this exchange, part of the problem with climate change is that people are focusing on only the CO2 problem. Which is a big problem. But one that is tied into many other climate related issues that are just as important, if not as well reported. What is happening to the oceans is just as potentially devastating to the world as CO2 emission, and it is directly influenced by population.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Judging from this exchange, part of the problem with climate change is that people are focusing on only the CO2 problem. Which is a big problem. But one that is tied into many other climate related issues that are just as important, if not as well reported. What is happening to the oceans is just as potentially devastating to the world as CO2 emission, and it is directly influenced by population.

Which thing that is happening to the oceans?

[Torture]

Meanwhile, in Alberta. *facepalm*

https://twitter.com/user/status/1423449320792084483

[flamesfever]

I have always held that the primary problem facing mankind is overpopulation, and everything else is secondary.

I believe that much of the rhetoric, at this point in time, is being done for political reasons.

I think we should avoid being too cynical and pessimistic, and keep hopeful that science will find a way out of our dilemma. Remember there is no real shortage of non-polluting energy...we just have to find a way to harness it.

I believe some of the solutions to consider worldwide are:

1. Increase our effort to promote birth control

2. Increase our effort to promote education, particularly women

3. Increase our effort to keep and enhance our forests

4. Recycle as much as possible

Remember that whenever the economic shocks to our economy begin to happen, when we have to address the consequences of overspending and placing our faith in renewables, we will need to adapt our thinking and behavior accordingly i.e. become less materialistic and more spiritual, be grateful for what we have, believe that mankind is basically good, and has a higher purpose.

I think its important that we study how societies managed to adapt to change in the past.

just a few ideas from an old guy that lived through the cold war, and face the fact that the world, as we know it, could disappear in an instant.

[Torture]

Aside from technology and getting off fossil fuels as our primary source of power, educating women is one of the biggest things we can do:

We model the influence of two rights-based solutions on global population: universal education and family planning. Increased access to and quality of voluntary reproductive healthcare, family planning resources, and 12-13 years of schooling are essential components to achieve the United Nations’ 2015 medium global population projection of 9.7 billion people by 2050. If investment and support of these fundamental human rights-centered solutions does not materialize, the world’s population could come closer to the higher projection, adding another 1 billion people to the planet.

We model the impact of this population difference in more-developed as well as least-and less-developed countries, in terms of how much energy, building space, food, waste, and transportation would be used. The resulting emissions reductions across the entire system could be as high as 85.4 gigatons of carbon dioxide, just within the window of 2020-2050. Health & Education have a compounding impact, however, with greater climate impacts into the future.

https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education

[Fuzz]

We also need a new economic system that isn't designed to "win" by perpetual growth. It's just more of everything. Population pressures would drop if we weren't constantly trying to increase output. Canada is dependent on immigrants to increase our population. Why? Why do we need to increase it? Oh, right, to keep the economy alive. More people mean more things, more consumption, more pressure on the environment.

The odds of us ever shifting before collapse are pretty low, though.

[Bill Bumface]

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

If your house is filled with #### made in China YOU are the biggest and heaviest polluter. Just because we offshore our emissions doesn't mean they aren't driven by our own behaviours.

[Bill Bumface]

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.

The other complication is the energy intensity of agriculture. Industrialized agriculture is significantly more energy intensive than hand farming. A basket of berries grown on some remote hillside in Chile and shipped via containership is significantly less carbon intensive than anything grown around Calgary and trucked to your local farmer's market.