A sobering read. Time is running out regarding climate change.

[SlowSpyder]

Who cares about my opinion? I care about the opinion of the experts. We are going to acidify the oceans. We are going to kill off all the coral reefs. We are going to cause increased flooding affecting hundreds of millions of people. We are going to alter weather patterns, making it more difficult to grow crops including wheat. We are going to continue to extend fire seasons, we are going to see more big hurricanes. There will be diminished summer snow pack in the mountains of the united states, causing water shortages. Just to name a few.

But you aren't turning off your computer, you use your thermostat and climate control in your house, you used powered transportation, etc. etc. But, you want the feel good social justice warrior high from pretending to care on the internet and hoping government feel good tickles in the form of big industry restriction that doesn't affect your life is the answer? Also, as said before, as long as our population is exploding all over the earth the way it is, all of this is just window dressing anyway.

 

[Commodus]

LOL. FUD.

It's called science.

Also, I'd like to remind you that you were gullible and stupid enough to fall for that fake manspreading story, and too much of a chickenshit coward to even admit you got it wrong and apologize. Your views are always worthless.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It's called science.

Also, I'd like to remind you that you were gullible and stupid enough to fall for that fake manspreading story, and too much of a chickenshit coward to even admit you got it wrong and apologize. Your views are always worthless.

Not true, There is always humor value in the truly stupid.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Not true, There is always humor value in the truly stupid.

Like the left saying climate change causes earthquakes?

 

[Paratus]

But you aren't turning off your computer, you use your thermostat and climate control in your house, you used powered transportation, etc. etc. But, you want the feel good social justice warrior high from pretending to care on the internet and hoping government feel good tickles in the form of big industry restriction that doesn't affect your life is the answer? Also, as said before, as long as our population is exploding all over the earth the way it is, all of this is just window dressing anyway.

Giving up a first world quality of living is a non-starter and idiotic if you are concerned about global populations, which you should be.

Here’s a bit of homework for you. Go look up the birth rates of 1st world and 3rd world countries and compare.

See if you see any interesting differences.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Giving up a first world quality of living is a non-starter and idiotic if you are concerned about global populations, which you should be.

Here’s a bit of homework for you. Go look up the birth rates of 1st world and 3rd world countries and compare.

See if you see any interesting differences.

My exwife and I had one kid, I did my part. Out of two of us one offspring.

 

[brycejones]

The sad thing is SlowSpyder doesn't even get paid for his act.

On the thread topic, For the next several years actions in the US will have to be taken at the local and state level. Generally though we will keep trending the right direction despite the orange moron and the party of snowballs since global economic trends require that our companies keep up or get left behind when it comes to energy efficiency.

 

[Paratus]

Like the left saying climate change causes earthquakes?

You mean peer reviewed scientists said evidence indicts that in certain situations that’s possible right?


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08042

 

[brycejones]

My exwife and I had one kid, I did my part. Out of two of us one offspring.

Can't imagine why you would have an exwife.

But did you do the research he gave you? Do you see any interesting differences in birthrates?

 

[JTsyo]

Do something? But mah monies!

The cost from climate change will blow the cost to prevent it out of the water. One is due now, the other later so we know which way it'll go.

 

[Paratus]

My exwife and I had one kid, I did my part. Out of two of us one offspring.

Neither here nor there.

Did you look up the different birth rates?

 

[Zorba]

And your degree is in...

Slow is well, slow, but the best way to fight climate change (and all other forms of environmental damage) is to have fewer kids. Here is one of many links discussing it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

 

[13Gigatons]

sigh...we really are screwed.

 

[Zorba]

Giving up a first world quality of living is a non-starter and idiotic if you are concerned about global populations, which you should be.

Here’s a bit of homework for you. Go look up the birth rates of 1st world and 3rd world countries and compare.

See if you see any interesting differences.

Although their birth rates are much higher, their impact on the planet per capita is much lower as well. Their populations are booming because we have given them first world medical and food technologies, without giving their women first world opportunities.

I agree that giving up first world quality of living is a non-starter, but it is also a non-starter to think the planet can actually support the entire population at first world levels and that it would somehow help climate change.

 

[Paratus]

Slow is well, slow, but the best way to fight climate change (and all other forms of environmental damage) is to have fewer kids. Here is one of many links discussing it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

That’s true but the conditions that foster smaller families can be entirely unethical and extremely problematic ie Chinas one child policy which led to mainly boys being born.

I’ve only come up with one ethical way based on evidence to reduce the population while still allowing the freedom for those who want it to have larger families.

The problem is Slow will dismiss it out of hand if I explain it so I want him to figure it out for himself.

 

[Zorba]

That’s true but the conditions that foster smaller families can be entirely unethical and extremely problematic ie Chinas one child policy which led to mainly boys being born.

I’ve only come up with one ethical way based on evidence to reduce the population while still allowing the freedom for those who want it to have larger families.

The problem is Slow will dismiss it out of hand if I explain it so I want him to figure it out for himself.

Well, I think we need to start with easy and free availability of birth control around the world and assuring women have an opportunity to become educated.

Actual limits on births do have issues, but at some point may make sense. At an minimum we should stop incentivizing mass procreation as we currently do both through taxes and religious teachings.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL. FUD.

Why embrace ignorance as you are?

 

[soulcougher73]

The climate change deniers always bring me back to this pic.

 

[Paratus]

Although their birth rates are much higher, their impact on the planet per capita is much lower as well. Their populations are booming because we have given them first world medical and food technologies, without giving their women first world opportunities.

I agree that giving up first world quality of living is a non-starter, but it is also a non-starter to think the planet can actually support the entire population at first world levels and that it would somehow help climate change.

Well if I’m a subsistence level farmer and slashing and burning rainforest for crop land is the only way to feed my kids I’m slashing and burning.

It’s unethical to ask the rest of the world to be poor so we don’t have to be. Besides outside of military intervention how would we prevent the third worlds population from increasing or increasing their use of resources?

Until their basic needs are met securely no one will think beyond their needs of today.


I’d agree that giving everyone a US quality of life is probably a no go. However the other thing to point out is not all 1st world countries are the same. Italy and Iceland are both first world countries but Iceland uses 50,000kWh/ year per household and Italy uses 5000. We shoot for the lower bound of 1st world not the upper bound. (US is around 12,000).

Couple that with continued efficiency improvements, decarbonization of energy/GDP through the use of renewables and those former third worlders won’t have the same environmental impact as we did.

 

[mect]

Slow is well, slow, but the best way to fight climate change (and all other forms of environmental damage) is to have fewer kids. Here is one of many links discussing it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

There's no doubt about that. If we could instantly shrink the world's population to 600 million people, this problem would possibly disappear, and certainly be much simpler. The problem is that just reducing reproduction rates isn't going to have an impact until its too late. In other words, its only one piece of the puzzle.

 

[cfenton]

I’d agree that giving everyone a US quality of life is probably a no go. However the other thing to point out is not all 1st world countries are the same. Italy and Iceland are both first world countries but Iceland uses 50,000kWh/ year per household and Italy uses 5000. We shoot for the lower bound of 1st world not the upper bound. (US is around 12,000).

Couple that with continued efficiency improvements, decarbonization of energy/GDP through the use of renewables and those former third worlders won’t have the same environmental impact as we did.

It's important to consider where the power comes from. Iceland is almost 100% renewable (geothermal and hydro), while Italy is only about 20% renewable. While Iceland uses far more power per person, it isn't spewing toxins in the air to do it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why embrace ignorance as you are?

He doesn't, said he was divorced

 

[mect]

But you aren't turning off your computer, you use your thermostat and climate control in your house, you used powered transportation, etc. etc. But, you want the feel good social justice warrior high from pretending to care on the internet and hoping government feel good tickles in the form of big industry restriction that doesn't affect your life is the answer? Also, as said before, as long as our population is exploding all over the earth the way it is, all of this is just window dressing anyway.

I do turn off my computer when I'm not using it. I ride my bike to work. I keep my thermostat set at 60 F in the winter. No, I don't want the feel good social justice warrior high. I realize that my individual actions are not enough to correct for this. Only collective action taken through legislation is going to avert a serious future crisis. There is vast consensus for this among experts.

 

[Stokely]

We already know the GOP will do nothing about this, and actually have gone out of their way to hide data and prevent honest discussion.

Sadly, even if the Democrats get back into power, asking the public to make sacrifices about anything, let alone on the scale that studies are suggesting is needed is a quick way to just get voted back to oblivion again.

We'd all better hope that the scientists are wrong, or that some miracle solution based on future tech comes out of nowhere to save us. The country was willing to sacrifice during WWII, I have a hard time seeing it happen for this, when half the country just thinks all the scientists have some kind of leftist agenda sponsored by Soros or something. In other words, we are probably fucked.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's no doubt about that. If we could instantly shrink the world's population to 600 million people, this problem would possibly disappear, and certainly be much simpler. The problem is that just reducing reproduction rates isn't going to have an impact until its too late. In other words, its only one piece of the puzzle.

Other than eliminating humans AKA killing them it's too late to impose limits on reproduction. Emission have to pretty much go to preindustrial levels between one and two decades because the oxygen producing plankton will die off and we'll suffocate.

People are looking at this as something that's about famine and drought and flooding but it's a hell of a lot worse than that. This is a Great Filter without doubt.