advertisement


So that's the climate f****d then

dweezil,

Yeah, it's hard to see how we can get to a low carbon economy, but greater energy efficiency, energy conservation, going veggie and reforesting the planet are where I would start.

Joe
 
I'd go for that, low amount of Carbon per person and any policy reducing fertility.

Education, free condoms, free radio after vasectomy (or other hifi item for those on here).

It'll be a demographic nightmare but better than the alternative
 
dweezil,

Yeah, it's hard to see how we can get to a low carbon economy, but greater energy efficiency, energy conservation, going veggie and reforesting the planet are where I would start.

Joe



CBC_Have_fewer_children_645_406_75.jpg
 
Wilson,

It depends on where these fewer kids would have been born, but we do need to slow down.

Educating girls and empowering women would go a long way in some countries, just as eating less beef, flying fewer miles and not living in a mansion would in other countries.

Joe
 
Wilson,

By the way, does this mean that, after all those years you’ve doubted anthropogenic climate change, you’ve come around?

Joe
 
Valid point, Joe. In which countries do you think educating girls and empowering women would go the furthest?

And yes, I am coming around.

Cheers,

John
 
John,

It’s unfortunate — and tragic — that climate change became political. It’s transcends the here and now, nations and political stripes.

Educating girls and empowering women going furthest? Counties with high birth rates where girls can’t go to school (or go far enough) and where women are treated as second-class citizens. Plenty of examples, obviously. But even in many of those nations, the average person’s carbon footprint is tiny compared with an American’s or Canadian’s footprint.

We like to pat ourselves on the back that we have a smaller carbon footprint than Americans have, but it’s much larger than the average Scandinavian’s. Would life really be that horrible if we were more like Sweden?

Joe
 
I believe that climate change was politicized in the early 1970's, primarily by the left. I lived through that fear mongering and was justifiably skeptical when it was turned on its head 30 years later.
 
John,

Both sides politicized climate change. But now we have a big global problem that needs to be solved pronto.

Joe
 
Wow, the denier arguments are approaching absurdity. Here's Steve Milloy, a lawyer, lobbyist, author and Fox News commentator, making the argument that the Earth will be just fine because Venus is still here.

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1073757414770524162

  • Atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Venus: 96.5%
  • Atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Earth: ~0.04%

Good ol' Steve, of JunkScience.com — "All the junk that’s fit to debunk" — might want to go that extra step and show what lots of CO2 does to a planet's temperature.
  • Average surface temp on Venus: 462º C (864º F) — hot enough for lead to melt
  • Average surface temp on Earth: 15°C (59°F)
Joe
 
Good ol' Steve, of JunkScience.com — "All the junk that’s fit to debunk" — might want to go that extra step and show what lots of CO2 does to a planet's temperature.
  • Average surface temp on Venus: 462º C (864º F) — hot enough for lead to melt
  • Average surface temp on Earth: 15°C (59°F)
Joe

And just to make sure:

Earth population: 7.53 billion

Venus population: Zero
 
Seeker,

And just to make sure:

Earth population: 7.53 billion

Venus population: Zero

Yup, and to further make the point ... the handful of probes sent to Venus have lasted mere minutes before their electronics were fried — http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus-

Yes, several landers from the former Soviet Union have landed on Venus. They were only able to send us information for a short time because the extremely high temperature and pressure on the surface of Venus melted and crushed the landers. On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing. On Oct. 22, 1975, Venera 9 landed on the surface of Venus. It took the first close-up photograph of the planet's surface. Three days later Venera 10 landed on Venus. Venera 10 took photographs of its surface and studied its rocks. In December 1978, Venera 11 and Venera 12 landed on Venus and sent back more data on the atmosphere of Venus. Venera 12 sent back data for 110 minutes (the longest of any Venera lander) before the effects of heat and pressure ended its mission. In March 1982 two more Soviet spacecraft landed on Venus — Venera 13 and Venera 14. They sent back images and studied soil.
Joe
 
And just to make sure:

Earth population: 7.53 billion

Venus population: Zero

Joe - we should send Trump to Venus. Assuming we are only counting intelligent life, the population of Venus would still be zero.

Been watching Blue Planet II on Netflix. The very deep ocean is a very weird place.

 
Hook,

We just need to pitch this right. With Trump’s deep insights into and understanding of science it won’t be easy to fool him.

Perhaps if we told him that Venus is never cold — even the nights are warm — and not a mosquito can be seen as far as the eye can see in an atmosphere so thick that it refracts light like a lens.

Joe
 
Bangladesh, 2017

file1.jpg


This photo is part of a project focused on climate change, migration and current issues of today's Bangladesh. One of the country's major challenges is becoming the capital city of Dhaka with more than seventeen million inhabitants. It is the fastest growing metropolis in the world, suffering from the highest population density. Each day, over two thousand people move from different corners of the country. Families are forced to leave their homes due to the loss of land caused by floods, cyclones and rising sea levels. Dhaka is not enough to absorb population growth, and life in the city is literally a nightmare; February 2017, Bangladesh, Dhaka.

(google translate from czech)

https://www.czechphoto.org/cpp/deta...ie/priroda-veda-a-zivotni-prostredi/309/4184/


4184
 
Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan in 1971 with a population of 71 million. The population today is estimated at 166 million.
 
Bangladesh is by far the largest country that will have to be evacuated as sea levels rise. No idea where they will all go
 
Bangladesh, 2017

file1.jpg


This photo is part of a project focused on climate change, migration and current issues of today's Bangladesh. One of the country's major challenges is becoming the capital city of Dhaka with more than seventeen million inhabitants. It is the fastest growing metropolis in the world, suffering from the highest population density. Each day, over two thousand people move from different corners of the country. Families are forced to leave their homes due to the loss of land caused by floods, cyclones and rising sea levels. Dhaka is not enough to absorb population growth, and life in the city is literally a nightmare; February 2017, Bangladesh, Dhaka.

4184
Most alarmed by that picture of Bangladesh: second chimneystack from left (the one in the background) is not straight and is an obvious health & safety risk.
 
This sounds as if it would fit in very well with the 'Copanhagen Consesus'.

I agree on most points with them. I think they put direct action on CO2 as a very low priority for humanity (about number 10 if I recall correctly).
I think the exec summary of the climate change piece is highly simplistic, and considers only the effects on humanity, ignoring concerns over biodiversity, extinctions and risks of a tipping point. I haven't read the full piece, but is everything on that website reduced to consideration of the issues affecting people, or is a wider, more ethical perspective taken at all?
 


advertisement


Back
Top