Tons of discussions about Brexit which in the longterm scheme of things is of little importance, yet no discussions on global warming (natural or unnatural) that has the capacity to drastically change the world! The Berant Sea for instance, which is in the process of changing from Arctic to Atlantic climate. Just saying. Rich
Brexit is REAL.
Global Warming is a MYTH. Just ask the Orange One !
Ah, the Orange one, denial’s a bad thing you know, ask the Ostrich! As for Brexits real, we’ll yes, a real mess at the moment! But 20 years down the line, a new generation and it’ll be just an interesting piece of our history. Rich
Horrendous heatwave in Australia just now, with so much loss of wildlife, and farmers struggling more than ever.
You may jest about the Orange one, and the American Right wing in general, but their climate change denial, ignoring the whole issue of carbon emissions, etc. seems to have spread far beyond this group now. Perhaps the press have got bored of it - OK, they like dramatic pictures of melting glaciers, but there seems to me to be very little discussion of what we might do to make a real difference. For example, UK recycling is in a state of disarray, the move against diesel (albeit for sound reasons) will push many to petrol, thus higher CO2 emissions, etc. etc. Realistically, our efforts so far have been unsuccessful, as we have failed to reduce carbon emissions at all, and until the thorny issue of population reduction emerges, I am sure this will continue to be the case.
And until the world stops measuring our advancement as a species by GDP growth… lower populations are unacceptable in many countries if GDP goes down accordingly
Ah! Population reduction !
At last, others have caught onto this as well as myself and George Fredrick. Look back 10 or possibly 15 years when the old forums are available to search and you will see that we have been pointing out this simple fact for quite some time.
It’s not the only solution, ingenuity is the other solution.
Will it happen. Put simply, no!
If you could persuade all the nations to agree to population reduction, you could persuade them to do anything.
This reminds me of the most enjoyable bad movie I’ve seen: Idiocracy.
Build dikes, no walls.
China, if I remember correctly used to have a one child policy many years ago. How about tax incentives for small families? Still I’m sure mother nature will force our hand, for example bug’s, both flying and germ are getting increasingly resistant to human efforts to eradicate. Once there’s not enough food to go round there will be war and famine, the problem will be cured although humanity may regress to an earlier age.
The actual issue with flying bugs is that we too good at eradicating them. Insects are critical to the food chain, and their populations are collapsing worldwide.
Whilst agreeing that bug’s are critical to the food chain, change that and every thing above will fall down like dominoes. A lot of bugs are increasingly immune to insecticide, they’re evolving to survive. This is happening on a faster scale than most scientists imagined only a few years ago as it was thought it took millenia for evolution. It’s only a matter of time before most of the other bugs follow suit, adapt or die. Adapt or die also follows through to the human race. We have the capability to adapt but at the moment we’re little better than the Ostrich, you could say that as far as to the survival of the species we’re somewhat ‘bird brained’. Apologies to the Crow family and other highly intelligent birds! See < http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/mallet89tree.pdf > ‘Have the insects won?’ Rich
As a self-confessed member of the American right wing (which is not the same as being a Trump supporter), let me say that the characterization of the prevailing opinion is often (though not always) intentionally inaccurate with the intent of making a dissenting perspective appear idiotic. The majority opinion on the right, is in agreement with Bjorn Lomborg, who is far from being American, or a climate change denier. In brief:
- The climate is changing, and getting warmer
- The extent to which this is anthropogenic (man made) is not proven scientifically (nor could it be when the scientific method cannot be applied to this question).
- The above point is irrelevant since the likelihood of a correction in carbon output is nil
- The primary reason for this is that the costs, when properly accounted for are not something anyone is willing to pay
- Given all that, the right thing to do is stop bellyaching about a change in climate that is inevitable, and instead focus energy and resources on adapting to that coming change
None of these points, even if you disagree, are that outlandish. The last is the only controversial one, and could be applied to many a change in human history (industrialization, agricultural reform, AI, etc…). There have always been people (conservatives) who resisted change, and people (progressives) who embraced it in the knowledge that it was inevitable and that adaptation is the best strategy for survival. The only odd thing is that today we label as progressive those who resist change, and conservative those who embrace it.
If nothing else, Trump is a fool for this reason: the development of technology to mitigate or even reverse the effects of climate change - manmade or otherwise - is the single greatest opportunity to make money that exists in the world today.
America is in danger of being left behind by the Chinese and others in the creation of this technology and may be impoverished as a result.
I’m not sure you’re right there, I pay a premium for some products to minimise packaging and have moderated my consumption of meat, bought an electric car etc.
I think there is appetite to make changes, whether it’s wide enough or deep enough is open to question.
Maybe the gradual ineffectiveness of antibiotics is nature’s response to the damage that mankind is doing - potentially a powerful countermeasure to population growth.
Yes, I’d agree that “anyone” is too absolute/harsh. Many people choose to reduce their environmental impact at a cost to themselves. “Not enough people are willing to pay” is likely a better term.
As do I. In fact, I don’t own an internal combustion engine car, just an all-electric Tesla. Even then, I walk to work and back every day, I recycle, and I try not to waste. But we’re in a tiny minority, and given the data on how the great majority behaves, I think reducing consumption to the point where it might make a difference is hopeless. Better to invest in the technological advances required to adapt.
An interesting read…
I find it terrifying when some folks imply that the deaths of billions might somehow make the world a better place…