Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Yes it does.Leuth said:
Fast food and overconsumption of beef is a key contributor to climate destruction. It doesn't follow that more people means more cattle. We could eat other thingsblackpool72 said:
Cattle yes.Leuth said:You know whose population growth really is fucking everything over? Livestock. Cattle in particular
But with the world population doubled in the last 50 years the greater the demand for Cattle.
The greater demand for Cattle =the greater amount of rainforest destruction.
What do you think, that all the milk gets thrown down the drain and that the dead cows are thrown on the tip?
No, it's all consumed.
Supply and demand.
More cattle is bred to meet the growing demand.4 -
stevexreeve said:
200,000 more old people each day!MrWalker said:https://www.worldometers.info/Population not exactly tumbling down, is it?
200,000++ more each day.
of course population is the problem
If the birth rate falls below 2 per couple how (on earth!) can the population continue to increase?There is a lag - a couple don't produce 2 children and then die!There are currently around 400,000 global births a day and 200,000 deaths - hence the global population is increasing by around 200,000 per day. This will slow as birth rates decline and most estimates put the peak at around 10 billion by 2080 - it will then start to decline as by then the average per couple will be less than 2 and the lag will have eroded. The sharpest decline will be in Asia which will peak in around 2050.The rate of growth is already declining - it was 2.25% in 1960 - it is now less than 1%2 -
I'm not sure why this thread has descended into a population vs consumption argument. Both population and consumption per capita are growing. Both are part of the problem.
As for meat production, it's definitely on the increase. Not just because the World's population is bigger, but because people are eating more meat than ever before. The two maps below show the massive increase in meat eating in just 21 years, this century.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
3 -
Russians and Argentinians. Probably eating more meat just to increase emissions and flood the Thames Valley (devious bastards).0
-
I haven't look at all comparisons but the one that stands out is Canada - looks like halving their meat consumption.Edit: they could have gone from 101kg to 99kg of course!0
-
France as well.0
-
Well there's been a marked contraction in Heliciculture which might explain it. They're consuming fewer snails, or so I've read.Stig said:France as well.
"France is the largest consumer of snails globally, accounting for approximately 31% of total consumption volume. However, from the period of 2015-2020 consumption volume contracted by -3.8%"0 -
That and the fact that the Liberal Government led by Gavin Newsome cut the Firefighting budget by $17.6 million and allowed a huge reservoir that supplied the Palisades to be completely empty.ShootersHillGuru said:The dreadful fires in California are according to the President elect due to poor forest husbandry. The lack of rainfall and extreme temperatures have been completely dismissed as “weather”.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-palisades-reservoir-offline-empty-163924460.html
But yeh, all T**mps fault !4 -
FFS Can we try to keep politics out of this?
6 -
Sponsored links:
-
I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔0
-
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.0 -
See Bob's post, above1
-
Quite. The measure used is "relative" poverty which guarantees that about 30% of the populations falls within the definition.Hex said:
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.cantersaddick said:
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
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.cantersaddick said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
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’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
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.blackpool72 said: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.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
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 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households0 -
https://gavinnewsom.com/california-fire-facts/queensland_addick said:
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.
2 -
Have you just quoted GavinNewsom.com to prove that Gavin Newsom has done nothing wrong?ShootersHillGuru said:
https://gavinnewsom.com/california-fire-facts/queensland_addick said:
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.2 -
Well yes and no. I’m sure there is an element of covering tracks but some of the claims made by Trump and Fox News are palpably false. The Santa Ynez reservoir which empty was because it was under repair. I’d suggest that being the case it’s hardly an area with which to attack the authorities. Without getting into personality politics or politics at all. I think we can accept that Trumps record on telling porkies to further his agenda is without any doubt.cafcnick1992 said:
Have you just quoted GavinNewsom.com to prove that Gavin Newsom has done nothing wrong?ShootersHillGuru said:
https://gavinnewsom.com/california-fire-facts/queensland_addick said:
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.3 -
Quote:ShootersHillGuru said:
https://gavinnewsom.com/california-fire-facts/queensland_addick said:
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.
FACT: Wildland firefighters don’t use hydrants — they use water tenders.
Quote:
FACT: The Governor has called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir.
Quote:
FACT: Reservoirs are full and water is available.
So no lack of water eh Gavin.
Except in the Santa Ynez Reservoir it seems, which was offline for 9 months prior to the fire.
"An independent investigation" eh Gavin.
Why not just say that the reservoir was empty due to the lack of rain because of Climate change.1 -
I think he has🤣🤣cafcnick1992 said:
Have you just quoted GavinNewsom.com to prove that Gavin Newsom has done nothing wrong?ShootersHillGuru said:
https://gavinnewsom.com/california-fire-facts/queensland_addick said:
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.1
-
This thread is about the global climate crisis - it could be argued as the biggest threat to humanity. The last thing we want is left/right wing bickering that will threaten to close the thread.Whether Newsom is correct, Trump and his acolytes denying climate change, or the conspiracy theorists on the shithouse formerly known as Twatter (paedophile tunnels and satanic rituals!) it is for places like X or Faceache.Let us at least try to keep the thread open.9
-
This isn’t in the news but Madagascar has unprecedented wildfires at the moment too – in the rainforest in rainy reason.
“Madagascar’s rainy season runs between November and April, but “it has not rained in December or January,” Wright [of Centre Valbio] said. “Everything in the rainforest is wilted and dry.”
‘Nightmare’ fire threatens iconic Madagascar national park
If anyone wants to help (a little does go a long way in Madagascar) then Centre Valbio is the main charity on-site and is assisting fire fighters: Donate to CVB | Centre ValBio
2 -
Southern California has had very little rain for months, together with periods of extreme heat, that has made the vegetation tinder dry. It doesn't take much for a fire to run out of control with the fierce Santa Ana winds.queensland_addick said:
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall.Stig said:I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
So yes, it was different in this instance in California.
It was due to Government incompetence.1 -
According to the Financial Times, no less, Scientists are calling this 'The Wiplash effect' . The article states that there is a belief amongst scientists that increased rainfall encourages growth of foliage, trees, bushes and suchlike, this is largely developing unchecked and then this is followed by a dry season, turning the 'bush' tinder dry and under the heat of the sun becomes a fire that is almost impossible to fight.RedPanda said:This isn’t in the news but Madagascar has unprecedented wildfires at the moment too – in the rainforest in rainy reason.
“Madagascar’s rainy season runs between November and April, but “it has not rained in December or January,” Wright [of Centre Valbio] said. “Everything in the rainforest is wilted and dry.”
‘Nightmare’ fire threatens iconic Madagascar national park
If anyone wants to help (a little does go a long way in Madagascar) then Centre Valbio is the main charity on-site and is assisting fire fighters: Donate to CVB | Centre ValBio
1 -
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.Bailey said:This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
1 -
Greenhouse gases are molecules in our atmosphere that absorb heat radiating from Earth’s surface, preventing it from being emitted into space. The most common greenhouse gases are (in order of atmospheric concentration) water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a suite of halogen-bearing gases (like fluorocarbons) that are derived from industrial activities.queensland_addick said:
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day.Bailey said:This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
With the exception of water vapor, industrial processes and land use changes have significantly increased the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past one and a half centuries, leading to a more than 1 degree C (2 degrees F) increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial era.
Put simply it means that heat cannot escape and warms the planet.2 -
No it doesn't. The weather changes literally every single day. Climate change is, by its nature, protracted. Climate is usually defined as a period of over 30 years.queensland_addick said:
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day.Bailey said:This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.9 -
Thank you.Jints said:
Quite. The measure used is "relative" poverty which guarantees that about 30% of the populations falls within the definition.Hex said:
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.cantersaddick said:
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
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.cantersaddick said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
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’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
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.blackpool72 said: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.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
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 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households
The definition is: Relative Poverty measures individuals who have income below 60% of median incomes. Relative poverty will fall if: individuals with low incomes see their incomes rise more than the Median average; or. individuals with low incomes see their incomes fall less than the Median average.
Whatever happens you can never get rid of it. If, say, you gave £1m to half the families in relative poverty, most people would think you would halve poverty, but you wouldn't. It's basic stats .... which I like, but not those that are misused.0 -
So effectively you are climate change denier ?queensland_addick said:
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day.Bailey said:This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.2
