Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

To be sure a lot of forest fires are lit by humans (usually unintentionally), but we’re talking about thousands of fire in Australia and the theory that they’re being purposely lit by a couple of hundred arsonists is unsubstantiated rubbish.

---

The arson explanation is clearly being exaggerated for political purposes. There are always arsonists, but why would there have been a sharp upsurge in arson activity this year compared to previous years?

In any case, it's beside the point. Every fire has a direct cause - arson, human carelessness, lightning strikes, power lines, etc. But it's the environmental conditions that determine how quickly the fire spreads and how difficult it is to control. If the climate is hotter and drier (and last year was the hottest and driest on record in Australia) then any fire that starts will spread more quickly and be harder to control, especially if there are also windy conditions, which has generally been the case on the hottest days. So I don't think the alternative explanations should be thought of as mutually exclusive possibilities.

On a positive note, the PM has changed his rhetoric in recent days to signal that the government may do more on climate change. It remains to be seen what this amounts to, but his approval rating has taken a big hit in recent polls so he has at least recognised the need to be seen to address people's concerns. So there's more grounds for optimism here than in the US - can you imagine Trump saying anything like this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...anted/11861016
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...t-poll-of-2020

Michael Bloomberg Backs Fracking & Invests in Fossil Fuels:

https://news.littlesis.org/2018/09/0...-fossil-fuels/

I have ambivalent reactions to George Monbiot's articles in The Guardian, but this review of the Michael Moore film on the envirnment is worth reading.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ent-falsehoods

I have not yet watched the film but it is here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

This is a link to a short film that debunks most, but not all of what Jeff Gibbs has to offer, pointing out how much of his data is years out of date, among other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have ambivalent reactions to George Monbiot's articles in The Guardian, but this review of the Michael Moore film on the envirnment is worth reading.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ent-falsehoods

---

It's interesting that people previously associated with the left sometimes do an about face and start appealing to the other side (Alan Dershowitz is another recent example, as is Germaine Greer). Is the motivation an attempt to gain attention once their relevance starts to wane? Is it an attempt to convince themselves that they are more impartial than others? Or is it just people becoming more grouchy and contrary as they age?.

Were they ever on 'the left'? Or were they critics of power who appeared to be on 'the left' because they were opposed to state-sponsored atrocities like Apartheid and the war in South-East Asia- to take two examples in the 1960s and 1970s? In the South African case the thrust of the argument was that Apartheid was morally wrong, politically stupid, and economically inefficient; the demonstrations against the US in Vietnam were pro-Communist/Revolutionary for a hard core, but for others was a critique of the US for a foreign policy that was at odds with its own Revoutionary heritage, and its Liberal values- the phrase was not common at the time but these days people might say 'we are better than this'.

Greer emerged in the Feminist movement in terms set by them, and was automatically 'the opposition' and did I think at one time attempt to locate women's struggles in a broader context of politics and the economy, and not just sexualized relations, but could she have written as comprehensive and at times, as radical a text as Kate Millet's Sexual Politics? Millet had a bigger infuence on me than The Female Eunuch. I think over time she shifted her interests and has written some fascinating books, but I am not sure she was ever, say, a Marxist, if that is one badge of the 'left'

The most obvious candidates are Michael Ignatieff and Christopher Hitchens. Ignatiieff (once ridiculed by Tariq Ali as 'the White Russian with a Canadian accent)' like Hitchens was a middle class critic of power, who flipped on 9/11 because all of a sudden, the US became the victim rather than the perpetrator of bad politics. Or from another perspective they woke up on 9/11 to a day when they had to confront their pitiless ignorance of the Middle East, and then tied themselves in knots of increasing absurdity as they discovered Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and it is right to get rid of him, when for years they looked the other way when the very same organs of power, criticism of whom made their careers, lavished Saddam with all the arms and support he needed to fight the Iranians. And yes, sometimes 'we' need to, indeed have the right to choose other people's governments -just as long as they don't choose ours.

Hitchens in particular suffered because his eloquent essays are often just that -he wrote quite well on many aspects of Islam, but his speed reading approach meant that one day last year in a charity bookshop I found him quoting the Quran to make a negative point, yet when I consulted the offending passage in a copy of the Quran that was on another shelf, it was clear he was misquoting it. Hitchens was also -or is now - known to have a problem with women, about whom he rarely had anything to say, and when he did, it was disparaging.

If the critique of power is what matters, then a distorted film such as the Moore/Gibbs one in the links above helps convert those people who want to find a way out of the 'both sides have a point' mess that much of the climate change debate has become, if it is even a debate. It enables them to avoid the 'Climate change is a hoax' position, while mounting a disillusioned critique of their own side.
It was always the case that the Al Gore view was that climate change is best managed by capitalists, because they have the money and the expertise, rather than the radicals, who only have a loud voice and the ability to mount demonstrations. It was an attempt to co-opt a radical movement into the mainstream of poitical economy, and it has done so with great effect -though whether or not it will advance or retard the energy transition is hard to say.

The great irony now is that the fossil fuel industry is in trouble because nobody expected the critical mass that has taken place to simultaneously reduce production and demand and prices at the level that it has, with who knows what consequences for the future?
And if it is bad for cash rich petroleum companies, how are 'green energy' companies going to cope when we are living, in the advanced and prosperous 'west'/'north', the most critical challenge to consumption in my lifetime? Small is beautiful when all you have is small enough to fit into a backpack -but do people really want it small?

where is greta

Pollution linked to one in six deaths:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-41678533

JP Morgan economists warn of 'catastrophic' climate change: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51581098

Humanity on Track to Soon Hit 1.5ºC Paris Accord Limit as Atmospheric CO2 Nears Level Not Seen in 15 Million Years:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...level-not-seen

The Wealthy 1% = Climate Change Accelerators!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzMA2gMcTs

Winter Storms Offer a Taste of the Climate Chaos Ahead If We Don’t Cut Emissions:

https://truthout.org/articles/winter...cut-emissions/

As Solar, Wind Costs Plummet, Coal, Gas Vastly Over-Priced in Bubble That Could Burst Worse Than 2008:

https://www.juancole.com/2021/03/plu...ed-bubble.html

Can we turn deserts green? It appears to have happened in China, can it happen in the Sinai -or on Mars?

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-desert-green

Rivers are Key to Restoring the World’s Biodiversity

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/05...-biodiversity/

The Cop26 message? We are trusting big business, not states, to fix the climate crisis:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sis-neoliberal

'Green' Germany Prepares To Fire Up the Coal Furnaces
https://reason.com/2022/06/24/green-...coal-furnaces/

Most Voters Say Supreme Court Shouldn’t Bar EPA From Regulating Air Pollution:
https://truthout.org/articles/most-v...air-pollution/

European Parliament backs listing nuclear energy, gas as 'green'
https://www.dw.com/en/european-parli...een/a-62377411

Heat emergency declared in England as temperature expected to hit 40C:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ted-to-hit-40c

Overpopulation In The Era Of Climate Change
https://www.magellantv.com/articles/...climate-change

When you combine logic and simple math, PRESTO! The root cause is quite easy to see!

Clearly if there were only ever a few hundred thousand people on Earth burning fossil fuels, we’d never gather enough inertia to budge the planetary heat engine that drives its’ atmospheric and oceanic currents. However, there are over seven billion people on the planet and our economy’s immediate energy source is fossil fuel. It’s our use of fossil fuel that is responsible for the climate’s energy imbalance, that is heating the planet and threatening the future of our children. We can either start losing people or we can start changing the way we produce and use energy.

I agree Trish. I read the article and it states that we should reduce the rate of population growth. Yet it doesn't make the case that with the current population levels and greenhouse gas emission held constant we wouldn't still have a big problem. So if population levels are the variable we're using, then the author is really talking about unrealistic (and ghoulish) things like driving down the population.

I talked to a Republican I know before the start of covid and they told me covid might be a good thing because overpopulation is a problem. They are not volunteering to leave the planet early or to have tight government controls on how many kids they have. They're showing indifference to the lives of people who they think are more likely to die. Or any reproductive limit should be for other people and nations.

Instead of population being the right variable to influence, how about types of energy use, implementation of new technology, some constraints on manufacturing processes? That's inhumane they say!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree Trish. I read the article and it states that we should reduce the rate of population growth. Yet it doesn't make the case that with the current population levels and greenhouse gas emission held constant we wouldn't still have a big problem. So if population levels are the variable we're using, then the author is really talking about unrealistic (and ghoulish) things like driving down the population.

I talked to a Republican I know before the start of covid and they told me covid might be a good thing because overpopulation is a problem. They are not volunteering to leave the planet early or to have tight government controls on how many kids they have. They're showing indifference to the lives of people who they think are more likely to die. Or any reproductive limit should be for other people and nations.

Instead of population being the right variable to influence, how about types of energy use, implementation of new technology, some constraints on manufacturing processes? That's inhumane they say!

---

Again, it's simple math and logic - to illustrate.
One person driving a car, no problem.
1 billion, big problem.

Look at all the "green" areas (deforestation) that are now gone because of population growth.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand this.

I’m not disputing (neither do I believe is broncofan) that seven billion people driving cars, heating and cooling their homes, and using products manufactured in factories all powered by fossil fuels is a problem. The immediate problem is a climate that’s already killing people. So what is your proposal: kill even more people before the climate does, or adopt greener energy policies?

It doesn’t help that the U.S. just overthrew Roe vs Wade, and many states are on the brink of outlawing contraception. In 2019 the U.S. birthrate was 1.7 births/woman; i.e., below replacement. A woman’s right chose is crucial, not only to her health and well being, but the well being of all.

Brazil: Amazon deforestation up 20% last year — report
https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-amazon-...ort/a-62517871

Like I said....simple math of too many people....

Fanti seriously. You're the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't respond to what people say and just repeats himself.

Everyone agrees that if there were fewer people on Earth there would be less greenhouse gas emissions. If there were no people on Earth humans would not be responsible for any greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. This is not mysterious and yet most people don't think that the solution to anthropogenic climate change is to drive the extinction of humanity.

What is your plan to reduce the population without killing people or instituting policies that prohibit people from making their own reproductive choices (to have or have not)?

As an alternative, we could implement new technology that reduces such emissions, or use the technology we have more efficiently. Please don't repeat yourself again. It doesn't do anything except irritate.

The actual Malthusian argument is that the human population grows geometrically whereas we can only produce food arithmetically. We’ve already demonstrated that humans, by their own choice, can and have achieved birthrates below replacement. So Malthus was wrong. The math was right, but his assumptions were incorrect.

Nevertheless, we agree with you that seven billion people driving fossil-fueled cars is a problem. How does one ameliorate the problem? One obvious way is to eliminate the fossil-fueled cars.


Perhaps you’re proposing we just do nothing and just let the climate wipe out enough people until balance is restored. How many people do you think it will take? Earth’s population is currently 7.75 billion people; at the start of the industrial revolution and the beginning of the current warming period (roughly 1750 AD) was 0.814 billion. Consider the difference. I don’t believe the petroleum industry really wants to the lose that many customers. What will be the state of the climate when this is achieved? I guarantee it won’t be comfortable: not for people, not for nations, not for civilization, not even for capitalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Fanti seriously. You're the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't respond to what people say and just repeats himself.

---

If I don't respond, then there's a good chance that I have that person on ignore and can't see the response ;-)

Here's some simple math

In 1800 world production of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was 97 terawatt-hours. In the latest year it was 137,000 terawatt-hours.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...on-consumption

So fossil fuel consumption increased 1400 times over a period in which world population increased just under 8 times. https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/ That means consumption per person increased 180 times.

It should be clear from this that population growth accounts for only a small share of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

I may respond to any post that appears in these forums, because I don’t have anyone on ignore. But I can only write for those, like you dear reader, who read those responses: those whose egos and reasoning are not so fragile that they listen to (indeed seek to listen to) all sides of issues about which they are curious.

Double post....

Topic debate is fine - when it devolves from that.....well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Here's some simple math

In 1800 world production of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was 97 terawatt-hours. In the latest year it was 137,000 terawatt-hours.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...on-consumption

So fossil fuel consumption increased 1400 times over a period in which world population increased just under 8 times. https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/ That means consumption per person increased 180 times.

It should be clear from this that population growth accounts for only a small share of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

---

Per capita by vehicle, yes you are correct.
But guess what feeds most electric grids? Fossil Fuels and Nuclear.
Wind and solar can't produce all the urban power that's required to charge 100% EVs and supporting infrastructure (lights, electric rail, machines, etc.....)

And why is that so? Because of the huge population of urban areas.

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!
But it will be interesting to see an concrete jungle where the Amazon rainforest once was.....

If there were only 1000 people on the planet, and only 1000 cars, would there be catastrophic climate change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I may respond to any post that appears in these forums, because I don’t have anyone on ignore. But I can only write for those, like you dear reader, who read those responses: those whose egos and reasoning are not so fragile that they listen to (indeed seek to listen to) all sides of issues about which they are curious.

---

I knew he meant you because he was quoting me. The things you've said to him are much milder than things I've said which is to your credit. You've always shown more self-control on these forums than I have. I'll always enjoy reading what you have to say, and it's his loss that he's so threatened by discourse with you.

We use energy to produce food but we also use it to travel and to manufacture things that aren't essential. It should be pretty clear there are major differences in the way we use energy per person and some of those differences are optional.

We are not reducing global population by 7 billion without a catastrophe. Any manmade problem is proportionally less serious if there are fewer people. Instead of regulating guns we could simply get rid of people and there would be nobody to use them. Nobody recommends this because actually being alive is part of human welfare.

But as filghy pointed out above, population accounts for increases in number of users of energy, but not for per person use which dwarfs population differences. How we use energy is also easier to alter within a generation than how many people there are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!

If there were only 1000 people on the planet, and only 1000 cars, would there be catastrophic climate change?

---

Let me label this sentence and question I'm quoting A) and B).

He never said A). He didn't say it or imply it. If you want to know what he thinks should be done about deforestation maybe ask him.

B) People accept this point. We don't understand how you plan to roll back population from nearly 8 billion to 1000. How do you plan to do that?

So for sake of discussion, I'll disregard the population theory as bunk and false.
So when is the West going to stop raping Africa for that precious Cobalt for EVs?

Or is the attack on climate change such a global top priority at the expense of Africans?

Workers report “colonial-era” abuse at Congolese cobalt mines
https://african.business/2021/11/ene...-cobalt-mines/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

So for sake of discussion, I'll disregard the population theory as bunk and false.

---

?? I'm not sure there's really been much discussion. You remember when you tried to distract from a conversation about gun control by posting an article about marijuana overdose deaths you hadn't read? Sorry. I'm feeling nostalgic:)

The article MrFanti posted is about the exploitation of Congolese cobalt miners. I’m surprised to find MrFanti is concerned with worker exploitation anywhere. He must’ve thought the article was about deforestation. Certainly deforestation is often a problem whenever any kind of mine is under a forest, whether it’s a cobalt mine in Africa, a copper mine in Arizona or an open pit coal mine in West Virginia that levels a mountain. Cobalt is used in the manufacture of lithium batteries (like the one you’re probably using right now). Coal is used in…well you know.


All mass production, of food or minerals or other materials, has an effect on the environment, as well as our uses of those materials. That’s exactly why we should choose what we use and how we use it wisely.


Malthus assumed but never proved that human populations must reproduce exponentially. We know empirically this is not the case. Malthus lived before the advent of unions and before effective birth control. When people have fair wages, pensions, social security, don’t need to rely upon their offspring to survive into old age and have the freedom to make decisions about their own reproductive health, then they tend to have birthrates near (and often below) replacement level.