It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
I am willing to take a bet that this does not happen
But this is worst case scenario from modelling. Much like in COVID where the modelling talked about in the news was always the worst case scenario assuming no mitigations are put in place and the very worst things happen. So obviously those never actually ended up as reality because mitigations were put in place and the worst possible series of events didnt all happen. It doesnt mean it isnt a viable scenario.
As with this - under the worst possible climate scenarios if we take no mitigations then this is very likely a viable scenario. But mitigations will be taken and we can hope we don't end up in the worst possible scenarios.
Will they? Because we should have taken ‘mitigations’ decades ago and it hasn’t happened. The best of all would be to stop drilling, but that’s increasing.
It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
I am willing to take a bet that this does not happen
This. Reminds me of the ‘500 people left in Japan by 2050’ thing. Not the same obviously, but a similar shock tactic style statement that won’t happen.
It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
I think that map probably has the wrong title. If was was titled, 'UK Areas That Will Be Below Sea Level by 2050', I'd have no doubts that this presents a highly likely scenario. But there's a difference between being below sea level and being underwater, just ask the Dutch whose country is already 1/3rd below sea level. Here's my take on the likelihood of some of those red areas really being below sea level:
Foulness Island - quite likely, it's a huge expanse of marsh and farm land with hardly anyone living there. It's an easy sacrifice. A bit worrying for me though as my village, Great Wakering, would become the first line of sea defence.
Wallasea Island (not named on the map, but next to the top of Foulness) - very likely, at least on a seasonal basis. Half of the island is marsh that's been created from Elizabeth Line excavations. This was deliberately built to soak up sea water which is seen as a more efficient way to hold back the tide than building expensive walls. All the wading birds there will love it.
Canvey Island - I'd be very surprised. Much of the Island (including, famously the local football ground) is already below sea level, but it's not underwater courtesy of higher sea walls than most other places; these a legacy of earlier flooding. And with a population density that is greater than several cities including Wolverhampton, Cambridge and Norwich, surely there'd be too much public outcry. Perhaps the marshland to the west of the Island will go but I can't see the water being allowed near the road.
Tilbury - Where the docks are? I think not.
Stratford - Are we talking about the same Stratford that's had £12 billion worth of investment and whose railway station handles 50 million passengers a year? Nah.
Westminster - Does anyone seriously think they'll let Tate Britain go under water? Let alone some even more famous buildings just up the road.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
I didn't like your post because you're nearly 70, but I do make you right as it's how individuals across the planet choose to live their lives that drives the demand for fossil fuels. Forget governments. It's not their priority and never will be. They're focus is on delivering a wealthy economy first and foremost. Trumps attitude typifies it.
The solution is for net greenhouse gas emitters (people) to make the changes necessary to reduce them. Not doing so makes the problem worse, and those who point to others they believe are worse offenders to justify their own harmful actions, those I call the 'look at everyone else, but not at me brigade,' don't fool anyone that they're free from responsibility in contributing to the problem.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
I didn't like your post because you're nearly 70, but I do make you right as it's how individuals across the planet choose to live their lives that drives the demand for fossil fuels. Forget governments. It's not their priority and never will be. They're focus is on delivering a wealthy economy first and foremost. Trumps attitude typifies it.
The solution is for net greenhouse gas emitters (people) to make the changes necessary to reduce them. Not doing so makes the problem worse, and those who point to others they believe are worse offenders to justify their own harmful actions, those I call the 'look at everyone else, but not at me brigade,' don't fool anyone that they're free from responsibility in contributing to the problem.
Please forget the fact that I'm nearly 70. Climate change will not affect me as I shall be long dead. But I have 2 children and 4 grandchildren. It's them I worry about Not me
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
Don't be frightened by population growth. It will soon stop.
Many countries (including China and India) are now experiencing birth rates below two and are going into sharp reverse and encouraging rather than discouraging people from having children.
The growth in the number of 70 - 90 year olds over the next twenty years is inevitable because of the huge rise in births around 70 years ago. We can easily predict the number of 70 year olds there will be in 20 years. Just count the number of fifty year olds there are now!
But the number of children living now is actually less now than there were 20 years ago. So we can be sure there will be less 20 - 30 years olds in twenty years time than there are now. Combined with the falling birth rate caused by birth control and accessible pensions, this could be disastrous.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
Don't be frightened by population growth. It will soon stop.
Many countries (including China and India) are now experiencing birth rates below two and are going into sharp reverse and encouraging rather than discouraging people from having children.
The growth in the number of 70 - 90 year olds over the next twenty years is inevitable because of the huge rise in births around 70 years ago. We can easily predict the number of 70 year olds there will be in 20 years. Just count the number of fifty year olds there are now!
But the number of children living now is actually less now than there were 20 years ago. So we can be sure there will be less 20 - 30 years olds in twenty years time than there are now. Combined with the falling birth rate caused by birth control and accessible pensions, this could be disastrous.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
Don't be frightened by population growth. It will soon stop.
Many countries (including China and India) are now experiencing birth rates below two and are going into sharp reverse and encouraging rather than discouraging people from having children.
The growth in the number of 70 - 90 year olds over the next twenty years is inevitable because of the huge rise in births around 70 years ago. We can easily predict the number of 70 year olds there will be in 20 years. Just count the number of fifty year olds there are now!
But the number of children living now is actually less now than there were 20 years ago. So we can be sure there will be less 20 - 30 years olds in twenty years time than there are now. Combined with the falling birth rate caused by birth control and accessible pensions, this could be disastrous.
You might want to have a think about that.
Not really, as no amount of encouragement is going to work when you've spent decades telling people siblings are bad and one child is the only route to success, mindsets don't change overnight.
Add that to a ridicuoisly brutal work culture (12 hours a day, 6 days a week being the norm for many) and you've got a serious recipe for disaster.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
I am willing to take a bet that this does not happen
But this is worst case scenario from modelling. Much like in COVID where the modelling talked about in the news was always the worst case scenario assuming no mitigations are put in place and the very worst things happen. So obviously those never actually ended up as reality because mitigations were put in place and the worst possible series of events didnt all happen. It doesnt mean it isnt a viable scenario.
As with this - under the worst possible climate scenarios if we take no mitigations then this is very likely a viable scenario. But mitigations will be taken and we can hope we don't end up in the worst possible scenarios.
Will they? Because we should have taken ‘mitigations’ decades ago and it hasn’t happened. The best of all would be to stop drilling, but that’s increasing.
That's a fair challenge. Usually I'm pretty pessimistic about the climate outlook but you must have caught me on an optimistic day!
We have to assume that at a certain point things will go so far that mitigations will be put in place to slow down climate change. There's also the point about mitigations (flood defenses etc.) To deal with the consequences of climate change even if we've done nothing to prevent it. Unless it happens very suddenly (there is a school of thought that we will see sudden changes) we won't just let London look like that!
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
No it isn't. We've come too far to turn back having evolved to exploit nature to our advantage. I don't see us going back to living in balance with nature because it would be to our disadvantage in lifestyle compared to what it is today.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
The doomsday scenario you're painting would naturally lead to a population reduction.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map's headline is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
The doomsday scenario you're painting would naturally lead to a population reduction.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
I'm not sure what's to be gained from laughing at predictions made a while back for a time twenty five years from now. If there's one thing we've learnt in the last twenty five years, its that the forecasts made back then for where we are now underestimated the pace of climate change, but who finds that hilarious?
It doesn't have to be accurate does it, and it's not provable for a long time yet. The narrative is that sea levels are rising and there are going to be widespread population migrations as a consequence, some happening already.
I read somewhere that the Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, but if not, then before then end of the century. How's that for inaccuracy. Should we ignore it as scare mongering then, even though the threat is real?
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
The doomsday scenario you're painting would naturally lead to a population reduction.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
I'm not sure what's to be gained from laughing at predictions made a while back for a time twenty five years from now. If there's one thing we've learnt in the last twenty five years, its that the forecasts made back then for where we are now underestimated the pace of climate change, but who finds that hilarious?
It doesn't have to be accurate does it, and it's not provable for a long time yet. The narrative is that sea levels are rising and there are going to be widespread population migrations as a consequence, some happening already.
I read somewhere that the Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, but if not, then before then end of the century. How's that for inaccuracy. Should we ignore it as scare mongering then, even though the threat is real?
The headline is hilarious. I'll edit the first part of the post.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
Said absolutely no one.
But its exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
The doomsday scenario you're painting would naturally lead to a population reduction.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
I'm not sure what's to be gained from laughing at predictions made a while back for a time twenty five years from now. If there's one thing we've learnt in the last twenty five years, its that the forecasts made back then for where we are now underestimated the pace of climate change, but who finds that hilarious?
It doesn't have to be accurate does it, and it's not provable for a long time yet. The narrative is that sea levels are rising and there are going to be widespread population migrations as a consequence, some happening already.
I read somewhere that the Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, but if not, then before then end of the century. How's that for inaccuracy. Should we ignore it as scare mongering then, even though the threat is real?
As I said it was 2030 according to an extinction rebellion group just a few years ago. At least we won't have to pay the qe bridge toll in 5 years if we want to pop to lakeside for a bit of shopping 😃
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
Said absolutely no one.
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
The doomsday scenario you're painting would naturally lead to a population reduction.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
I'm not sure what's to be gained from laughing at predictions made a while back for a time twenty five years from now. If there's one thing we've learnt in the last twenty five years, its that the forecasts made back then for where we are now underestimated the pace of climate change, but who finds that hilarious?
It doesn't have to be accurate does it, and it's not provable for a long time yet. The narrative is that sea levels are rising and there are going to be widespread population migrations as a consequence, some happening already.
I read somewhere that the Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, but if not, then before then end of the century. How's that for inaccuracy. Should we ignore it as scare mongering then, even though the threat is real?
As I said it was 2030 according to an extinction rebellion group just a few years ago. At least we won't have to pay the qe bridge toll in 5 years if we want to pop to lakeside for a bit of shopping 😃
It's not the people on the QE2 Bridge I'm worried about, it's the poor buggers in the tunnel.
It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
I think that map probably has the wrong title. If was was titled, 'UK Areas That Will Be Below Sea Level by 2050', I'd have no doubts that this presents a highly likely scenario. But there's a difference between being below sea level and being underwater, just ask the Dutch whose country is already 1/3rd below sea level. Here's my take on the likelihood of some of those red areas really being below sea level:
Foulness Island - quite likely, it's a huge expanse of marsh and farm land with hardly anyone living there. It's an easy sacrifice. A bit worrying for me though as my village, Great Wakering, would become the first line of sea defence.
Wallasea Island (not named on the map, but next to the top of Foulness) - very likely, at least on a seasonal basis. Half of the island is marsh that's been created from Elizabeth Line excavations. This was deliberately built to soak up sea water which is seen as a more efficient way to hold back the tide than building expensive walls. All the wading birds there will love it.
Canvey Island - I'd be very surprised. Much of the Island (including, famously the local football ground) is already below sea level, but it's not underwater courtesy of higher sea walls than most other places; these a legacy of earlier flooding. And with a population density that is greater than several cities including Wolverhampton, Cambridge and Norwich, surely there'd be too much public outcry. Perhaps the marshland to the west of the Island will go but I can't see the water being allowed near the road.
Tilbury - Where the docks are? I think not.
Stratford - Are we talking about the same Stratford that's had £12 billion worth of investment and whose railway station handles 50 million passengers a year? Nah.
Westminster - Does anyone seriously think they'll let Tate Britain go under water? Let alone some even more famous buildings just up the road.
It's happening already! Only yesterday I said that I expected Wallasea Island to be spending more time under water as a result of climate change. It's in the news today that the RSPB are expanding their reserve there by 100 hectares. This land bought from local farmers. The rational of the selling party is explained in the local paper: The farm owners had been wanting to sell the land for a while due to the challenging impacts of climate change on coastal areas, with the low seawall on the south of the island making the land susceptible to sea level rise.
It's great that the reserve is being expanded; the reasons for it happening, rather less so.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
Said absolutely no one.
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.
It wasn't that long ago on a thread on this site that someone posted this map (or an equivalent) stating it as inevitable fact.
You don't have to be a climate denier to acknowledge there's a lot of nonsense spouted about the inevitability of our doom.
I think that map probably has the wrong title. If was was titled, 'UK Areas That Will Be Below Sea Level by 2050', I'd have no doubts that this presents a highly likely scenario. But there's a difference between being below sea level and being underwater, just ask the Dutch whose country is already 1/3rd below sea level. Here's my take on the likelihood of some of those red areas really being below sea level:
Foulness Island - quite likely, it's a huge expanse of marsh and farm land with hardly anyone living there. It's an easy sacrifice. A bit worrying for me though as my village, Great Wakering, would become the first line of sea defence.
Wallasea Island (not named on the map, but next to the top of Foulness) - very likely, at least on a seasonal basis. Half of the island is marsh that's been created from Elizabeth Line excavations. This was deliberately built to soak up sea water which is seen as a more efficient way to hold back the tide than building expensive walls. All the wading birds there will love it.
Canvey Island - I'd be very surprised. Much of the Island (including, famously the local football ground) is already below sea level, but it's not underwater courtesy of higher sea walls than most other places; these a legacy of earlier flooding. And with a population density that is greater than several cities including Wolverhampton, Cambridge and Norwich, surely there'd be too much public outcry. Perhaps the marshland to the west of the Island will go but I can't see the water being allowed near the road.
Tilbury - Where the docks are? I think not.
Stratford - Are we talking about the same Stratford that's had £12 billion worth of investment and whose railway station handles 50 million passengers a year? Nah.
Westminster - Does anyone seriously think they'll let Tate Britain go under water? Let alone some even more famous buildings just up the road.
It's happening already! Only yesterday I said that I expected Wallasea Island to be spending more time under water as a result of climate change. It's in the news today that the RSPB are expanding their reserve there by 100 hectares. This land bought from local farmers. The rational of the selling party is explained in the local paper: The farm owners had been wanting to sell the land for a while due to the challenging impacts of climate change on coastal areas, with the low seawall on the south of the island making the land susceptible to sea level rise.
It's great that the reserve is being expanded; the reasons for it happening, rather less so.
The costs of maintaining London's flood defences, and of protecting areas of land below sea level, are ever increasing, as paid for by a combination of the Environment Agency and local authorities, so the public purse. Then, there are the knock on effects of general insurance premiums being paid by all.
So if anyone thinks climate change isn't affecting them, they're wrong as it already is, in paying out for precautionary measures, and to remedy the damage caused by it.
Let's be honest, the London map won't look like that projection by 2050, but to prevent it becoming like it will come at a greater cost to us, and that's not so funny.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
That's a startling statistic. I'm assuming it refers to their wider business affairs rather than their own personal / private consumption, which is obviously an important distinction.
I looked this up and I'm assuming it's from an Oxfam report as they make a couple of similar points:-
"Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity" (Oxfam 2017).
"The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population (77 million people) produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity". (Oxfam 2023).
I'm struggling to correlate the two in relation to that statistic, unless the top 20 are disproportionate within the 77 million?
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
Said absolutely no one.
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that a third of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households
Comments
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
The solution is for net greenhouse gas emitters (people) to make the changes necessary to reduce them. Not doing so makes the problem worse, and those who point to others they believe are worse offenders to justify their own harmful actions, those I call the 'look at everyone else, but not at me brigade,' don't fool anyone that they're free from responsibility in contributing to the problem.
Climate change will not affect me as I shall be long dead.
But I have 2 children and 4 grandchildren.
It's them I worry about
Not me
Many countries (including China and India) are now experiencing birth rates below two and are going into sharp reverse and encouraging rather than discouraging people from having children.
The growth in the number of 70 - 90 year olds over the next twenty years is inevitable because of the huge rise in births around 70 years ago. We can easily predict the number of 70 year olds there will be in 20 years. Just count the number of fifty year olds there are now!
But the number of children living now is actually less now than there were 20 years ago. So we can be sure there will be less 20 - 30 years olds in twenty years time than there are now. Combined with the falling birth rate caused by birth control and accessible pensions, this could be disastrous.
Add that to a ridicuoisly brutal work culture (12 hours a day, 6 days a week being the norm for many) and you've got a serious recipe for disaster.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
We have to assume that at a certain point things will go so far that mitigations will be put in place to slow down climate change. There's also the point about mitigations (flood defenses etc.) To deal with the consequences of climate change even if we've done nothing to prevent it. Unless it happens very suddenly (there is a school of thought that we will see sudden changes) we won't just let London look like that!
World's population decade by decade.
1970. 3.6 Billion
1980. 4.4 Billion
1990. 5 2 Billion
2000. 6.1 Billion
2010 6 9 Billion
2020. 7.8 Billion
Anyone saying that this is not a problem and is sustainable is kidding themselves.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map's headline is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
It doesn't have to be accurate does it, and it's not provable for a long time yet. The narrative is that sea levels are rising and there are going to be widespread population migrations as a consequence, some happening already.
I read somewhere that the Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, but if not, then before then end of the century. How's that for inaccuracy. Should we ignore it as scare mongering then, even though the threat is real?
It's not the people on the QE2 Bridge I'm worried about, it's the poor buggers in the tunnel.
It's great that the reserve is being expanded; the reasons for it happening, rather less so.
So if anyone thinks climate change isn't affecting them, they're wrong as it already is, in paying out for precautionary measures, and to remedy the damage caused by it.
Let's be honest, the London map won't look like that projection by 2050, but to prevent it becoming like it will come at a greater cost to us, and that's not so funny.
I looked this up and I'm assuming it's from an Oxfam report as they make a couple of similar points:-
"Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity" (Oxfam 2017).
"The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population (77 million people) produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity". (Oxfam 2023).
I'm struggling to correlate the two in relation to that statistic, unless the top 20 are disproportionate within the 77 million?
Not saying any of this is good...
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that a third of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households