Comment deleted by Site Moderator
There are a lot of simple solutions that we could do that would reduce emissions.
No private flights. No energy intensive cryptononcery. Improvement in energy consumption of supertankers (install LNG systems). Reduction of single use plastics. Limits or higher vehicle tax on unneccesary vehicles with high emissions. Further tarrifs on renewable energy sources etc.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Most people and the UK media do is talk about and pull their hair out over these oil protest. Which is exactly what these oil protesters want you to do. And yet many dont still dont understand why they do it and claim they have no effects.
Fik tossas.
if just stop oil were serious about actually delivering change they would stand as a political party in their own right and drive that change if they get enough support
or at least tie in with the green party
Except no one is attempting to force you to do anything either.
Some activists act in a way that I don't think will help discourse, but it's not like they're actively stopping you from eating meat is it?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
Myth 1. “Small islands are doomed by rising sea levels”
We constantly hear Micronesia, the Maldives or Seychelles or something is going to be flooded and they’re only like a metre or two metres above sea level…What happens is most of these islands are coral islands, so they have actually occurred because they break off dead coral when there’s storms and wash it ashore. That accretes to the island and makes the island higher. At the same time, of course, a sea level rise makes the island lower. But it turns out that at least for now, and probably in the foreseeable future, the accretion is higher than the sea level rise.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 2: “Extreme weather events are killing more people”
If you take a graph of how many people die from climate related disasters, we have good data for that for the last 100 years. In the 1920s, about half a million people died each and every year from climate disasters. A lot of them were floods and droughts, especially in China and India that you’ve never heard of. What’s happened since then is that it’s declined dramatically. So in the 2010s, we were down to 18,000 deaths, so about 96% reduction in deaths. And last year, it was down to 14,000 or so in 2020. And in 2021, we don’t obviously have the whole year yet, but it looks like 2021 is set to be even lower at about 6000.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 3: “Climate lockdowns are a good solution”
The first thing to realise is despite the fact that we shut down the entire world in 2020, we still emitted almost as much. We probably cut our emissions about 6% globally. That’s because we still have to heat our homes. We sat at home and Zoomed instead and used electricity in that way. So when you shut down one thing you end up doing something else. And so yes, you can cut your emissions a little bit. But it turns out that it’s really hard to shut down dramatically. For example, when China was most shut down, it still emitted 84% of its normal emissions.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 4: “Electric cars don’t harm the environment”
Electric cars are being sold as net zero. But what they actually are is that they’re zero when they’re driving. But much of the energy that you tank up your car, unless you live in Norway, is basically fossil fuel. And of course, most of the battery is produced in China or somewhere else where it emitted a lot of co2 typically from coal fired power plants.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 5: “Polar bears are going extinct on melting ice caps”
First of all, remember the polar bears lived through the last time there was probably no ice in the Arctic, which was five to eight thousand years ago. So clearly, it’s not the end of the world for them. But also, and we need to recognise we’re still seeing a trending upwards of polar bears…We’ve probably gone from somewhere between five and ten thousand polar bears, up till today, where we have about 25,000 polar bears
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 6: “Stop eating meat to save the planet”
The reality is that going meat free is only going to do a little bit for climate. We often hear that, ‘Oh, it’s 50% of your food intake’, and you only hear the 50% so you can apparently reduce 50%. But it’s only 50% of your food emissions. So the reality is, when you look at the total impact it’s about 4%.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 7: “Wildfires are getting worse, and proof of climate change”
We’ve actually seen that wildfire has been declining in amount of burnt area pretty much every year since 1900…Overall, Australia for instance had one of its lowest burns ever. It used to burn in the early 1900s about 12% of the area of Australia every year. It went down to about 6-8%, typically in the early 2000s. In 2019/20 it burned a little less than 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be the Bjorn Lomborg who does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in journals devoted to climate change research?
The Bjorn Lomborg who was formally accused of scientific misconduct over one of his books which the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty stated was systematically biased in the choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
“In fact, just by simply not having beef yet having all other meat and dairy, a normal omnivore human diet is barely more harmful for the environment than a vegan diet.
So why do the climate activists militantly campaign for veganism?”
The vast, vast majority that I see are *encouraging* people to *consider* *reducing* the amount of meat and dairy they consume.
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
Not a bad list Rosso. A couple of things though,
Buying second hand, stating the obvious, there is no second hand without it being new.
There is a,, what to call it? a movement to people buying year old cars. But if nobody buys the new there are no second hand. Car sales in France are down 17%, there are always consequences.
I had a weeks holiday in Majorca, by plane of course. There is no way boats can cope with the number of visitors, and are boats greener.
Holiday islands would be devasted with tourists.
comment by tcruel87 (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by tcruel87 (U11882)
posted 5 seconds ago
Flying in the context of the average person (one holiday per year or even less) or diet, forcing everyone to become vegan, (contrary to vegan propaganda, humans have had a significant amount of meat in their diet from the very start) should not even be on the table. In fact, just by simply not having beef yet having all other meat and dairy, a normal omnivore human diet is barely more harmful for the environment than a vegan diet.
https://www.greeneatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/foods-carbon-footprint-7.gif
So why do the climate activists militantly campaign for veganism, and not just polite advice to eat less beef, but of course continue to be omnivores. Because of ulterior motives, they are vegan because they don't believe humans should eat meat, they want to force it on everyone else and they think doing it under the cover of affection for the climate will make that goal more realistic. There are way too many (not so ) hidden agendas with the climate nonces (everyone should be vegan, overthrow capitalism) that harms the cause of practical solutions to climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think an awful lot of it is via anti-capitalist roots, for sure.
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's also funny how they exclusively make this demand to countries that already have birth rates below maintenance anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I read that for the first time in history less than half of women at 30 years old have a child. I didn't fact check it but that was gist
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
Not a bad list Rosso. A couple of things though,
Buying second hand, stating the obvious, there is no second hand without it being new.
There is a,, what to call it? a movement to people buying year old cars. But if nobody buys the new there are no second hand. Car sales in France are down 17%, there are always consequences.
I had a weeks holiday in Majorca, by plane of course. There is no way boats can cope with the number of visitors, and are boats greener.
Holiday islands would be devasted with tourists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without tourists*
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
thats unknown
ecosystems adapt and evolve
heathlands can burn for weeks on end and within days of the flames being put out there are green shoots again
its easy to base the future on the past but that doesnt take into account any kiind of evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can't find ways to tackle droughts and keep producing food in an increasingly hostile and unstable climate, we ourselves will fail to keep up. An unknown, yes, but a serious possibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are droughts increasing or decreasing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there will be counter-views but the droughts this year are quite pronounced? And I'm talking about the future, i.e. if the next few years are like this one or worse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/absolutely-no-doubt-that-climate-intensified-current-drought/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3117/drought-makes-its-home-on-the-range/
comment by tcruel87 (U11882)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 minute ago
Except no one is attempting to force you to do anything either.
Some activists act in a way that I don't think will help discourse, but it's not like they're actively stopping you from eating meat is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the long term goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be their goal but it'll never happen that we outright ban meat or milk from cows, not in our lifetimes anyway.
A middle ground though where we reduce our consumption and find less carbon alternatives definitely.
Ryan air just had their most profitable year.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
thats unknown
ecosystems adapt and evolve
heathlands can burn for weeks on end and within days of the flames being put out there are green shoots again
its easy to base the future on the past but that doesnt take into account any kiind of evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can't find ways to tackle droughts and keep producing food in an increasingly hostile and unstable climate, we ourselves will fail to keep up. An unknown, yes, but a serious possibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are droughts increasing or decreasing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there will be counter-views but the droughts this year are quite pronounced? And I'm talking about the future, i.e. if the next few years are like this one or worse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/absolutely-no-doubt-that-climate-intensified-current-drought/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3117/drought-makes-its-home-on-the-range/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For drought, the IPCC concludes “there is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence” (IPCC 2013a, 871). Moreover, it concludes “there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought” with drought having “likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950” (IPCC 2013a, 50). The IPCC repudiated previous findings from 2007, saying our “conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported” (IPCC 2013a, 44). This was because new data showed no increased global drought (Sheffield et al., 2012; van der Schrier et al. 2013), and one study even showed a persistent decline since 1982 (Hao et al., 2014), while the number of consecutive dry days has been declining for the last 90 years (Donat et al., 2013, 2112). The new IPCC 1.5°C report concurs, but adds that there is medium confidence that greenhouse gas warming has contributed to increased drying in the Mediterranean region (IPCC 2018, 196).
The World Meteorological Organization has through the Lincoln Declaration on Drought Indices recommended that “the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) be used to characterize the meteorological droughts around the world” (Hayes et al., 2010). Fig. 9 shows the global area under severe meteorological drought for 1901–2017, showing no increase over the last 116 years.
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree with this. In fact, I most often see 'overpopulation is the root cause' put forward as an argument against making behavioural / economic adaptations. It's very dangerous logic, because there are already eco-fascist movements in the fringes, which see mass depopulation as the solution to environmental collapse. It's not hard to imagine this going much more mainstream as effects of global warming accelerate and panicked societies demand more urgent action. Think of the kind of dehumanising 'invasion' rhetoric about the migrants crossing the Channel today (in relatively small numbers)... not hard to join the dots between that political impulse and how many might respond to mass displacement in the developing world when there are explanations telling us it's because there were just too many billions of people (in Africa and Asia) for the planet to support.
It's important to point out that this 'too many people' narrative is not just dangerous in its implications, but factually untrue. The average person in the global south has a fraction of the carbon footprint of the average American or European. We've known for decades how we could lead prosperous lives within a circular, regenerative economy. The planet could sustain many billions more lives if we structured our production, consumption and energy systems differently. (And it doesn't have to mean an end to free markets, for those who are afraid it's a communist plot - the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental impact.)
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
Not a bad list Rosso. A couple of things though,
Buying second hand, stating the obvious, there is no second hand without it being new.
There is a,, what to call it? a movement to people buying year old cars. But if nobody buys the new there are no second hand. Car sales in France are down 17%, there are always consequences.
I had a weeks holiday in Majorca, by plane of course. There is no way boats can cope with the number of visitors, and are boats greener.
Holiday islands would be devasted with tourists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without tourists*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course.
The maintain/secondhand/repair/reuse movement is more about trying to extend the lifetimes of products than expecting that we can somehow live forever without ever buying new. It’s about maximising the value of the environmental footprints locked into these products through their manufacture and distribution, rather than continuing with the shocking throwaway culture we’ve developed.
As to tourism, I think we’ve got to think long and hard about that. A more localised global tourism market would deliver enormous benefits for the environment and fight against climate change. A transition towards that would also have longer term benefits for those areas - like certain island groups - that would really suffer if tourism were to drop off a cliff at some point in future. Agriculture, fishing/sustainable aquaculture, scientific research, etc. are all viable and potentially important alternatives for some communities which even now suffer as a result of their failure to diversify their economies.
There are (valid) arguments about the development of certain tourism-dependent areas in the developing world, of course; but there are better ways to help lift those communities up than continuing to send wealthy tourists to foreign-owned resorts at which locals are paid poverty wages.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
thats unknown
ecosystems adapt and evolve
heathlands can burn for weeks on end and within days of the flames being put out there are green shoots again
its easy to base the future on the past but that doesnt take into account any kiind of evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can't find ways to tackle droughts and keep producing food in an increasingly hostile and unstable climate, we ourselves will fail to keep up. An unknown, yes, but a serious possibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are droughts increasing or decreasing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there will be counter-views but the droughts this year are quite pronounced? And I'm talking about the future, i.e. if the next few years are like this one or worse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/absolutely-no-doubt-that-climate-intensified-current-drought/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3117/drought-makes-its-home-on-the-range/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For drought, the IPCC concludes “there is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence” (IPCC 2013a, 871). Moreover, it concludes “there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought” with drought having “likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950” (IPCC 2013a, 50). The IPCC repudiated previous findings from 2007, saying our “conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported” (IPCC 2013a, 44). This was because new data showed no increased global drought (Sheffield et al., 2012; van der Schrier et al. 2013), and one study even showed a persistent decline since 1982 (Hao et al., 2014), while the number of consecutive dry days has been declining for the last 90 years (Donat et al., 2013, 2112). The new IPCC 1.5°C report concurs, but adds that there is medium confidence that greenhouse gas warming has contributed to increased drying in the Mediterranean region (IPCC 2018, 196).
The World Meteorological Organization has through the Lincoln Declaration on Drought Indices recommended that “the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) be used to characterize the meteorological droughts around the world” (Hayes et al., 2010). Fig. 9 shows the global area under severe meteorological drought for 1901–2017, showing no increase over the last 116 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting. One day I'll get round to reading more of it. Seems to be different from stuff I've come across eleswhere.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 seconds ago
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree with this. In fact, I most often see 'overpopulation is the root cause' put forward as an argument against making behavioural / economic adaptations. It's very dangerous logic, because there are already eco-fascist movements in the fringes, which see mass depopulation as the solution to environmental collapse. It's not hard to imagine this going much more mainstream as effects of global warming accelerate and panicked societies demand more urgent action. Think of the kind of dehumanising 'invasion' rhetoric about the migrants crossing the Channel today (in relatively small numbers)... not hard to join the dots between that political impulse and how many might respond to mass displacement in the developing world when there are explanations telling us it's because there were just too many billions of people (in Africa and Asia) for the planet to support.
It's important to point out that this 'too many people' narrative is not just dangerous in its implications, but factually untrue. The average person in the global south has a fraction of the carbon footprint of the average American or European. We've known for decades how we could lead prosperous lives within a circular, regenerative economy. The planet could sustain many billions more lives if we structured our production, consumption and energy systems differently. (And it doesn't have to mean an end to free markets, for those who are afraid it's a communist plot - the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental impact.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two points, I wasn't necessarily linking but I would wager that if we polled all of those whom believed in this depopulation nonsense, they would be vehemently anti-capitalist.
Agree with your comments in entirety and would just add that I think we need more people, not less.
I don't particularly want to align myself with Bill Gates but I agree with his comments linked earlier in saying that innovation will be the key.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 38 seconds ago
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree with this. In fact, I most often see 'overpopulation is the root cause' put forward as an argument against making behavioural / economic adaptations. It's very dangerous logic, because there are already eco-fascist movements in the fringes, which see mass depopulation as the solution to environmental collapse. It's not hard to imagine this going much more mainstream as effects of global warming accelerate and panicked societies demand more urgent action. Think of the kind of dehumanising 'invasion' rhetoric about the migrants crossing the Channel today (in relatively small numbers)... not hard to join the dots between that political impulse and how many might respond to mass displacement in the developing world when there are explanations telling us it's because there were just too many billions of people (in Africa and Asia) for the planet to support.
It's important to point out that this 'too many people' narrative is not just dangerous in its implications, but factually untrue. The average person in the global south has a fraction of the carbon footprint of the average American or European. We've known for decades how we could lead prosperous lives within a circular, regenerative economy. The planet could sustain many billions more lives if we structured our production, consumption and energy systems differently. (And it doesn't have to mean an end to free markets, for those who are afraid it's a communist plot - the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental impact.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s possible to completely separate this from people in the developed world quietly making personal and pragmatic decisions based on their own beliefs though, no?
It isn’t an incoherent position to take the personal decision not to have children on environmental grounds whilst accepting that others should be completely free to make their own, unpressured, choices.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting. One day I'll get round to reading more of it. Seems to be different from stuff I've come across eleswhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah it's a massive topic with nearly endless amounts of studies, articles and research to wade through. I'm sure there is completely contradictory data & analysis.
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
Sign in if you want to comment
Fack the protestors
Page 8 of 17
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 8/11/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/11/22
There are a lot of simple solutions that we could do that would reduce emissions.
No private flights. No energy intensive cryptononcery. Improvement in energy consumption of supertankers (install LNG systems). Reduction of single use plastics. Limits or higher vehicle tax on unneccesary vehicles with high emissions. Further tarrifs on renewable energy sources etc.
posted on 8/11/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/11/22
Most people and the UK media do is talk about and pull their hair out over these oil protest. Which is exactly what these oil protesters want you to do. And yet many dont still dont understand why they do it and claim they have no effects.
Fik tossas.
posted on 8/11/22
if just stop oil were serious about actually delivering change they would stand as a political party in their own right and drive that change if they get enough support
or at least tie in with the green party
posted on 8/11/22
Except no one is attempting to force you to do anything either.
Some activists act in a way that I don't think will help discourse, but it's not like they're actively stopping you from eating meat is it?
posted on 8/11/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/11/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/11/22
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
Myth 1. “Small islands are doomed by rising sea levels”
We constantly hear Micronesia, the Maldives or Seychelles or something is going to be flooded and they’re only like a metre or two metres above sea level…What happens is most of these islands are coral islands, so they have actually occurred because they break off dead coral when there’s storms and wash it ashore. That accretes to the island and makes the island higher. At the same time, of course, a sea level rise makes the island lower. But it turns out that at least for now, and probably in the foreseeable future, the accretion is higher than the sea level rise.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 2: “Extreme weather events are killing more people”
If you take a graph of how many people die from climate related disasters, we have good data for that for the last 100 years. In the 1920s, about half a million people died each and every year from climate disasters. A lot of them were floods and droughts, especially in China and India that you’ve never heard of. What’s happened since then is that it’s declined dramatically. So in the 2010s, we were down to 18,000 deaths, so about 96% reduction in deaths. And last year, it was down to 14,000 or so in 2020. And in 2021, we don’t obviously have the whole year yet, but it looks like 2021 is set to be even lower at about 6000.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 3: “Climate lockdowns are a good solution”
The first thing to realise is despite the fact that we shut down the entire world in 2020, we still emitted almost as much. We probably cut our emissions about 6% globally. That’s because we still have to heat our homes. We sat at home and Zoomed instead and used electricity in that way. So when you shut down one thing you end up doing something else. And so yes, you can cut your emissions a little bit. But it turns out that it’s really hard to shut down dramatically. For example, when China was most shut down, it still emitted 84% of its normal emissions.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 4: “Electric cars don’t harm the environment”
Electric cars are being sold as net zero. But what they actually are is that they’re zero when they’re driving. But much of the energy that you tank up your car, unless you live in Norway, is basically fossil fuel. And of course, most of the battery is produced in China or somewhere else where it emitted a lot of co2 typically from coal fired power plants.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 5: “Polar bears are going extinct on melting ice caps”
First of all, remember the polar bears lived through the last time there was probably no ice in the Arctic, which was five to eight thousand years ago. So clearly, it’s not the end of the world for them. But also, and we need to recognise we’re still seeing a trending upwards of polar bears…We’ve probably gone from somewhere between five and ten thousand polar bears, up till today, where we have about 25,000 polar bears
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 6: “Stop eating meat to save the planet”
The reality is that going meat free is only going to do a little bit for climate. We often hear that, ‘Oh, it’s 50% of your food intake’, and you only hear the 50% so you can apparently reduce 50%. But it’s only 50% of your food emissions. So the reality is, when you look at the total impact it’s about 4%.
- BJORN LOMBORG, UNHERDTV
Myth 7: “Wildfires are getting worse, and proof of climate change”
We’ve actually seen that wildfire has been declining in amount of burnt area pretty much every year since 1900…Overall, Australia for instance had one of its lowest burns ever. It used to burn in the early 1900s about 12% of the area of Australia every year. It went down to about 6-8%, typically in the early 2000s. In 2019/20 it burned a little less than 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be the Bjorn Lomborg who does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in journals devoted to climate change research?
The Bjorn Lomborg who was formally accused of scientific misconduct over one of his books which the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty stated was systematically biased in the choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
posted on 8/11/22
“In fact, just by simply not having beef yet having all other meat and dairy, a normal omnivore human diet is barely more harmful for the environment than a vegan diet.
So why do the climate activists militantly campaign for veganism?”
The vast, vast majority that I see are *encouraging* people to *consider* *reducing* the amount of meat and dairy they consume.
posted on 8/11/22
BTW MU52, all boomers aren't the issue. They most likely did not know that things that they were doing in the past were harmful. The issue is that a lot of boomers now, refuse to change because they have done things in a certain way all of their lives and who are some young wokies to come and tell them what to do?
The next 10 years will be interesting though. Our 20 years olds will be 30. Starting to get into more positions of power.
Pretty much all boomers will be retired with little influence on the world apart from sheer numbers when it comes to voting.
We are reaching a tipping point with boomers going out and millenials/Gen Z coming in. It is only going one way from here.
posted on 8/11/22
Not a bad list Rosso. A couple of things though,
Buying second hand, stating the obvious, there is no second hand without it being new.
There is a,, what to call it? a movement to people buying year old cars. But if nobody buys the new there are no second hand. Car sales in France are down 17%, there are always consequences.
I had a weeks holiday in Majorca, by plane of course. There is no way boats can cope with the number of visitors, and are boats greener.
Holiday islands would be devasted with tourists.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by tcruel87 (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by tcruel87 (U11882)
posted 5 seconds ago
Flying in the context of the average person (one holiday per year or even less) or diet, forcing everyone to become vegan, (contrary to vegan propaganda, humans have had a significant amount of meat in their diet from the very start) should not even be on the table. In fact, just by simply not having beef yet having all other meat and dairy, a normal omnivore human diet is barely more harmful for the environment than a vegan diet.
https://www.greeneatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/foods-carbon-footprint-7.gif
So why do the climate activists militantly campaign for veganism, and not just polite advice to eat less beef, but of course continue to be omnivores. Because of ulterior motives, they are vegan because they don't believe humans should eat meat, they want to force it on everyone else and they think doing it under the cover of affection for the climate will make that goal more realistic. There are way too many (not so ) hidden agendas with the climate nonces (everyone should be vegan, overthrow capitalism) that harms the cause of practical solutions to climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think an awful lot of it is via anti-capitalist roots, for sure.
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's also funny how they exclusively make this demand to countries that already have birth rates below maintenance anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I read that for the first time in history less than half of women at 30 years old have a child. I didn't fact check it but that was gist
posted on 8/11/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
Not a bad list Rosso. A couple of things though,
Buying second hand, stating the obvious, there is no second hand without it being new.
There is a,, what to call it? a movement to people buying year old cars. But if nobody buys the new there are no second hand. Car sales in France are down 17%, there are always consequences.
I had a weeks holiday in Majorca, by plane of course. There is no way boats can cope with the number of visitors, and are boats greener.
Holiday islands would be devasted with tourists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without tourists*
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
thats unknown
ecosystems adapt and evolve
heathlands can burn for weeks on end and within days of the flames being put out there are green shoots again
its easy to base the future on the past but that doesnt take into account any kiind of evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can't find ways to tackle droughts and keep producing food in an increasingly hostile and unstable climate, we ourselves will fail to keep up. An unknown, yes, but a serious possibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are droughts increasing or decreasing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there will be counter-views but the droughts this year are quite pronounced? And I'm talking about the future, i.e. if the next few years are like this one or worse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/absolutely-no-doubt-that-climate-intensified-current-drought/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3117/drought-makes-its-home-on-the-range/
posted on 8/11/22
comment by tcruel87 (U11882)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 1 minute ago
Except no one is attempting to force you to do anything either.
Some activists act in a way that I don't think will help discourse, but it's not like they're actively stopping you from eating meat is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the long term goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be their goal but it'll never happen that we outright ban meat or milk from cows, not in our lifetimes anyway.
A middle ground though where we reduce our consumption and find less carbon alternatives definitely.
posted on 8/11/22
Ryan air just had their most profitable year.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
thats unknown
ecosystems adapt and evolve
heathlands can burn for weeks on end and within days of the flames being put out there are green shoots again
its easy to base the future on the past but that doesnt take into account any kiind of evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can't find ways to tackle droughts and keep producing food in an increasingly hostile and unstable climate, we ourselves will fail to keep up. An unknown, yes, but a serious possibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are droughts increasing or decreasing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there will be counter-views but the droughts this year are quite pronounced? And I'm talking about the future, i.e. if the next few years are like this one or worse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/absolutely-no-doubt-that-climate-intensified-current-drought/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3117/drought-makes-its-home-on-the-range/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For drought, the IPCC concludes “there is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence” (IPCC 2013a, 871). Moreover, it concludes “there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought” with drought having “likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950” (IPCC 2013a, 50). The IPCC repudiated previous findings from 2007, saying our “conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported” (IPCC 2013a, 44). This was because new data showed no increased global drought (Sheffield et al., 2012; van der Schrier et al. 2013), and one study even showed a persistent decline since 1982 (Hao et al., 2014), while the number of consecutive dry days has been declining for the last 90 years (Donat et al., 2013, 2112). The new IPCC 1.5°C report concurs, but adds that there is medium confidence that greenhouse gas warming has contributed to increased drying in the Mediterranean region (IPCC 2018, 196).
The World Meteorological Organization has through the Lincoln Declaration on Drought Indices recommended that “the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) be used to characterize the meteorological droughts around the world” (Hayes et al., 2010). Fig. 9 shows the global area under severe meteorological drought for 1901–2017, showing no increase over the last 116 years.
posted on 8/11/22
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree with this. In fact, I most often see 'overpopulation is the root cause' put forward as an argument against making behavioural / economic adaptations. It's very dangerous logic, because there are already eco-fascist movements in the fringes, which see mass depopulation as the solution to environmental collapse. It's not hard to imagine this going much more mainstream as effects of global warming accelerate and panicked societies demand more urgent action. Think of the kind of dehumanising 'invasion' rhetoric about the migrants crossing the Channel today (in relatively small numbers)... not hard to join the dots between that political impulse and how many might respond to mass displacement in the developing world when there are explanations telling us it's because there were just too many billions of people (in Africa and Asia) for the planet to support.
It's important to point out that this 'too many people' narrative is not just dangerous in its implications, but factually untrue. The average person in the global south has a fraction of the carbon footprint of the average American or European. We've known for decades how we could lead prosperous lives within a circular, regenerative economy. The planet could sustain many billions more lives if we structured our production, consumption and energy systems differently. (And it doesn't have to mean an end to free markets, for those who are afraid it's a communist plot - the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental impact.)
posted on 8/11/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
Not a bad list Rosso. A couple of things though,
Buying second hand, stating the obvious, there is no second hand without it being new.
There is a,, what to call it? a movement to people buying year old cars. But if nobody buys the new there are no second hand. Car sales in France are down 17%, there are always consequences.
I had a weeks holiday in Majorca, by plane of course. There is no way boats can cope with the number of visitors, and are boats greener.
Holiday islands would be devasted with tourists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without tourists*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course.
The maintain/secondhand/repair/reuse movement is more about trying to extend the lifetimes of products than expecting that we can somehow live forever without ever buying new. It’s about maximising the value of the environmental footprints locked into these products through their manufacture and distribution, rather than continuing with the shocking throwaway culture we’ve developed.
As to tourism, I think we’ve got to think long and hard about that. A more localised global tourism market would deliver enormous benefits for the environment and fight against climate change. A transition towards that would also have longer term benefits for those areas - like certain island groups - that would really suffer if tourism were to drop off a cliff at some point in future. Agriculture, fishing/sustainable aquaculture, scientific research, etc. are all viable and potentially important alternatives for some communities which even now suffer as a result of their failure to diversify their economies.
There are (valid) arguments about the development of certain tourism-dependent areas in the developing world, of course; but there are better ways to help lift those communities up than continuing to send wealthy tourists to foreign-owned resorts at which locals are paid poverty wages.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
thats unknown
ecosystems adapt and evolve
heathlands can burn for weeks on end and within days of the flames being put out there are green shoots again
its easy to base the future on the past but that doesnt take into account any kiind of evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can't find ways to tackle droughts and keep producing food in an increasingly hostile and unstable climate, we ourselves will fail to keep up. An unknown, yes, but a serious possibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are droughts increasing or decreasing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there will be counter-views but the droughts this year are quite pronounced? And I'm talking about the future, i.e. if the next few years are like this one or worse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/absolutely-no-doubt-that-climate-intensified-current-drought/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3117/drought-makes-its-home-on-the-range/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For drought, the IPCC concludes “there is low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century to human influence” (IPCC 2013a, 871). Moreover, it concludes “there is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought” with drought having “likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950” (IPCC 2013a, 50). The IPCC repudiated previous findings from 2007, saying our “conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported” (IPCC 2013a, 44). This was because new data showed no increased global drought (Sheffield et al., 2012; van der Schrier et al. 2013), and one study even showed a persistent decline since 1982 (Hao et al., 2014), while the number of consecutive dry days has been declining for the last 90 years (Donat et al., 2013, 2112). The new IPCC 1.5°C report concurs, but adds that there is medium confidence that greenhouse gas warming has contributed to increased drying in the Mediterranean region (IPCC 2018, 196).
The World Meteorological Organization has through the Lincoln Declaration on Drought Indices recommended that “the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) be used to characterize the meteorological droughts around the world” (Hayes et al., 2010). Fig. 9 shows the global area under severe meteorological drought for 1901–2017, showing no increase over the last 116 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting. One day I'll get round to reading more of it. Seems to be different from stuff I've come across eleswhere.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 seconds ago
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree with this. In fact, I most often see 'overpopulation is the root cause' put forward as an argument against making behavioural / economic adaptations. It's very dangerous logic, because there are already eco-fascist movements in the fringes, which see mass depopulation as the solution to environmental collapse. It's not hard to imagine this going much more mainstream as effects of global warming accelerate and panicked societies demand more urgent action. Think of the kind of dehumanising 'invasion' rhetoric about the migrants crossing the Channel today (in relatively small numbers)... not hard to join the dots between that political impulse and how many might respond to mass displacement in the developing world when there are explanations telling us it's because there were just too many billions of people (in Africa and Asia) for the planet to support.
It's important to point out that this 'too many people' narrative is not just dangerous in its implications, but factually untrue. The average person in the global south has a fraction of the carbon footprint of the average American or European. We've known for decades how we could lead prosperous lives within a circular, regenerative economy. The planet could sustain many billions more lives if we structured our production, consumption and energy systems differently. (And it doesn't have to mean an end to free markets, for those who are afraid it's a communist plot - the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental impact.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two points, I wasn't necessarily linking but I would wager that if we polled all of those whom believed in this depopulation nonsense, they would be vehemently anti-capitalist.
Agree with your comments in entirety and would just add that I think we need more people, not less.
I don't particularly want to align myself with Bill Gates but I agree with his comments linked earlier in saying that innovation will be the key.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 38 seconds ago
What I find utterly horrid also is the call for people to have less children or no children at all. Talk about future regrets where the future generations will despise us - that’s one right there
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree with this. In fact, I most often see 'overpopulation is the root cause' put forward as an argument against making behavioural / economic adaptations. It's very dangerous logic, because there are already eco-fascist movements in the fringes, which see mass depopulation as the solution to environmental collapse. It's not hard to imagine this going much more mainstream as effects of global warming accelerate and panicked societies demand more urgent action. Think of the kind of dehumanising 'invasion' rhetoric about the migrants crossing the Channel today (in relatively small numbers)... not hard to join the dots between that political impulse and how many might respond to mass displacement in the developing world when there are explanations telling us it's because there were just too many billions of people (in Africa and Asia) for the planet to support.
It's important to point out that this 'too many people' narrative is not just dangerous in its implications, but factually untrue. The average person in the global south has a fraction of the carbon footprint of the average American or European. We've known for decades how we could lead prosperous lives within a circular, regenerative economy. The planet could sustain many billions more lives if we structured our production, consumption and energy systems differently. (And it doesn't have to mean an end to free markets, for those who are afraid it's a communist plot - the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental impact.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s possible to completely separate this from people in the developed world quietly making personal and pragmatic decisions based on their own beliefs though, no?
It isn’t an incoherent position to take the personal decision not to have children on environmental grounds whilst accepting that others should be completely free to make their own, unpressured, choices.
posted on 8/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Saint (U22900)
posted 28 seconds ago
as temperatures catch up, is too fast for ecosystems to keep up with.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting. One day I'll get round to reading more of it. Seems to be different from stuff I've come across eleswhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah it's a massive topic with nearly endless amounts of studies, articles and research to wade through. I'm sure there is completely contradictory data & analysis.
posted on 8/11/22
Half the feckers have just travelled the world, own an SUV, on benefits. Get to facking work ya cuunts.
They are work shy, grubby, smelly hypocrites. Run the feckers over
Page 8 of 17
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13