Climate Emergency

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE5lZcruH1D/?igsh=bnViZXIxd2lkM2Zi

Video on Uruguay (backed by a study) showing that by investing in education and renewables whilst reducing over consumption you can not only become greener but economically stronger, more resilient to external shocks, socially more functional and with a happier population.

We are often told green costs the economy. This is another interesting case study showing that just not true. The main argument is of course the 10s of billions China is investing in green tech. They wouldn't be doing that if it harmed their economy.

SporadicAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

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.

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?  

Not saying any of this is good...

Either way, it needs to be read by those who think climate change is solely a population issue.

Leuth said:

Redskin said:

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/17/climate-change-giving-meaning-to-life/

Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson' 

In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable.
Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal  position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.

We can be critical of the powerful lobbyists, be they the oil & gas giants or those involved in animal agriculture, for how they influence the political direction of action on climate change to best serve their financial interests, but ultimately, in a democracy, the most powerful influencers of all are us. 

The power to reduce emissions is in everyone's gift, transcending politics. The oil giants won't drill unless there's profit to be made from what they're drilling for, and that stems from public demand, not necessarily need, at least not when alternatives are available. 

However, how many of the public can honestly say they consider it their top priority when voting, and that's reflected in how those they voted for act. Tougher sentences meted out to JSO activists who inconvenience the public in sounding the alarm bell gets more public support than the introduction of green policies that might inconvenience them!

If people expect the resolution to come from the politicians who represent them, we will fail. Some would say we already are in adopting that approach. Don't wait for them to act. I've reduced my carbon footprint without needing their half hearted encouragement.

swordfish said:

We can be critical of the powerful lobbyists, be they the oil & gas giants or those involved in animal agriculture, for how they influence the political direction of action on climate change to best serve their financial interests, but ultimately, in a democracy, the most powerful influencers of all are us. 

The power to reduce emissions is in everyone's gift, transcending politics. The oil giants won't drill unless there's profit to be made from what they're drilling for, and that stems from public demand, not necessarily need, at least not when alternatives are available. 

However, how many of the public can honestly say they consider it their top priority when voting, and that's reflected in how those they voted for act. Tougher sentences meted out to JSO activists who inconvenience the public in sounding the alarm bell gets more public support than the introduction of green policies that might inconvenience them!

If people expect the resolution to come from the politicians who represent them, we will fail. Some would say we already are in adopting that approach. Don't wait for them to act. I've reduced my carbon footprint without needing their half hearted encouragement.

I try to do as much as I can, but I know there is more I could do.

In the local elections, two of the candidates I voted for were the most likely to put environmental concerns first, the other was a person who I know does a lot of good work in the local area. In the General Election I voted for a party most likely to beat the candidate least likely to put the environment first. Until out electoral system changes, that is the best I can do.

swordfish said:

We can be critical of the powerful lobbyists, be they the oil & gas giants or those involved in animal agriculture, for how they influence the political direction of action on climate change to best serve their financial interests, but ultimately, in a democracy, the most powerful influencers of all are us. 

The power to reduce emissions is in everyone's gift, transcending politics. The oil giants won't drill unless there's profit to be made from what they're drilling for, and that stems from public demand, not necessarily need, at least not when alternatives are available. 

However, how many of the public can honestly say they consider it their top priority when voting, and that's reflected in how those they voted for act. Tougher sentences meted out to JSO activists who inconvenience the public in sounding the alarm bell gets more public support than the introduction of green policies that might inconvenience them!

If people expect the resolution to come from the politicians who represent them, we will fail. Some would say we already are in adopting that approach. Don't wait for them to act. I've reduced my carbon footprint without needing their half hearted encouragement.

Completely agree and I've posted many times about how our collective purchasing and voting decisions can drive corporations and policy decisionals.

However the funding point is relevant as a response when those against taking action on the climate (whether they deny it or not) are talking about the power of the green lobby.

Redskin said:

Leuth said:

Redskin said:

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/17/climate-change-giving-meaning-to-life/

Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson' 

In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable.
Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal  position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.

It's contrary to scientific evidence and comes from a site most likely to spread misinformation.

Dansk_Red said:

MP's turned down attempt by Lib Dem MP to introduce into law, that all new builds to be fitted with solar panels.

This is the thing that depresses me the most. It's so blindingly obvious that the only reason for this is developers lobbying against it. Have a fucking spine and implement it anyway. Fully expect the law on no gas boilers in new properties to be put back/abolished some time this year as well.

We're fucked. 

Redskin said:

Leuth said:

Redskin said:

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/17/climate-change-giving-meaning-to-life/

Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson' 

In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable.
Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal  position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.

Unfortunately for you, you live in a world that's increasingly accepting of the need to act on climate change, whether you like it or not. That will affect you and already is. You could protest of course, if you're convinced it's not something we should be spending money on, but as more scientists have concluded it's down to us than have concluded smoking is bad for your health,  the odds of convincing the majority it isn't aren't in your favour.

Examples of little old ladies who've smoked 50 Dreadnoughts a day for sixty years and are as fit as a fiddle at 90 and entering the marathon don't convince most that smoking isn't bad for your health, so the odd anomaly that goes against the vast body of scientific evidence on climate change won't be taken seriously either, by the majority.

As for the LA fires, the causes have nothing to do with the containment and management of them. That's an entirely separate issue.

Global population growth exacerbates (note: does not cause) global climate change. I don't think anyone on this thread opposes that notion. It's self-evident: if climate change is caused by man (which it undoubtedly is) then global population increase is going to make that change bigger. 

However, what no-one seems to be addressing is how do we mitigate the effects of global population increase. (Because we can't reverse it). 

Amelioration of the effects of industrialisation is the only workable solution. Reducing the dependency on fossil fuels. Creating new, better sources of efficient, low-cost energy. This is the only thing we can achieve that will start to reverse the effects of centuries of industrialisation. 

To those who appear to be suggesting that global population growth is the most important factor to be addressed, I have questions. What does addressing population growth look like? Are you suggesting we reduce the world's population somehow? If so, how? (Because there are only a couple of areas in which that can be done: reducing birth rate and increasing death rate. Neither of which are particularly attractive. Or possible. Or legal).  

If you think that reversing population growth is the only, or primary, means by which global climate change can be reversed, how do you propose that it's done? (Preferably legally and morally). 

Arthur_Trudgill said:

ME14addick said:

This is what we are up against:

https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/dark-day-nature?fbclid=IwY2xjawH4bfVleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHYFbgZHNUIH_D4PI2fLblBVtUWxrZ-0xUmkPjpm7K1ZIWxHYsFV5JyN8IA_aem_Mk-NMjlA4JWi1gmmbGNyqQ

Kent Wildlife Trust has expressed deep disappointment and serious concerns for wildlife following the approval of a planning application for a new bike factory by manufacturer Brompton.

The factory, which will be built on the South Willesborough Dykes Local Wildlife Site, was approved on Wednesday, January 15th, despite widespread concern over the impact on this ecologically significant area.

While Brompton has announced plans to invest £100 million in creating new wetland habitat as part of the development, Kent Wildlife Trust has say that such measures cannot compensate for the loss of an irreplaceable natural corridor. This site, part of the Ashford Green Corridor, serves as a critical haven for a diverse array of wildlife, including protected species like dormice, great crested newts, and several bat species, as well as numerous birds and aquatic invertebrates.

Odd that Brompton promise to invest £100m on creating wetland habitat when their profits for year to Mar 2024 were £4,600:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/02/brompton-profits-plunge-amid-bike-industry-turmoil?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This came to my attention this morning when Kent Wildlife Trust posted about the decision on Facebook. They mention the financial instability of Brompton.

All too often developers say they will mitigate, as they are required to do, but then do not actually do as they promise.

Stig said:

Redskin said:

Leuth said:

Redskin said:

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/17/climate-change-giving-meaning-to-life/

Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson' 

In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable.
Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal  position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.

In other words, we recognise that a friend of ours has fallen downs far down a rabbit hole and is so unlikely to get out that it's best not to waste any time on the links that they post - especially when it's just a link and they have been unwilling or unable to say even a few words as to why the link should be clicked. Even more so when the link concerned is to the Daily Septic. 

We all only get one life, we shouldn't be expected to waste it reading absolute rubbish from discreditable sources just because someone posts a link. Thanks for the public service, Leuth. 

We're at least 10 years into a world where some will insist upon platforming both sides of a debate, even when one side is based upon research and expert opinion whilst the other consists conspiracy theories and is amplified / funded by those who seek to derail efforts to explain, socialise debate and then move towards resolution of aspects of this 21st century polycrisis.

Trump kicks off on Monday and I've just read a very interesting piece around what may happen around tariffs and a reengineering of global trade and exchange rates. This is so relevant because both China and India have massive economies, but are in the early stages of development and are thus creating huge amounts of greenhouse gasses via coal, cement etc.

There are no simple answers, but it would probably help to understand our environmental history. Seen good reviews of this book but probably not for the faint hearted!  https://undark.org/2024/10/18/book-review-the-burning-earth/

I refer again to the insurance industry because there are some incredibly smart people modelling catastrophe risk, and associated premiums. Insurance pricing will influence both business and international policy approaches, but will that lead to positive change?

As for rabbit holes, do we attempt to rescue people? Or simply cry man down and march on through our daily challenges together with contemplating the evolving world. The real challenge for western democracies and capitalism is whether we can retain a sufficiently informed debate around choices ahead, or will that be drowned out by those who object to rational discussion?!

Think our fella means 'war' tbh, although my money is on an extreme weather event causing drought/famine or a sudden polar ice cap melt 

Leroy Ambrose said:

Chizz said:

Global population growth exacerbates (note: does not cause) global climate change. I don't think anyone on this thread opposes that notion. It's self-evident: if climate change is caused by man (which it undoubtedly is) then global population increase is going to make that change bigger. 

However, what no-one seems to be addressing is how do we mitigate the effects of global population increase. (Because we can't reverse it). 

Amelioration of the effects of industrialisation is the only workable solution. Reducing the dependency on fossil fuels. Creating new, better sources of efficient, low-cost energy. This is the only thing we can achieve that will start to reverse the effects of centuries of industrialisation. 

To those who appear to be suggesting that global population growth is the most important factor to be addressed, I have questions. What does addressing population growth look like? Are you suggesting we reduce the world's population somehow? If so, how? (Because there are only a couple of areas in which that can be done: reducing birth rate and increasing death rate. Neither of which are particularly attractive. Or possible. Or legal).  

If you think that reversing population growth is the only, or primary, means by which global climate change can be reversed, how do you propose that it's done? (Preferably legally and morally). 

I mean, there's one way of reducing the earth's population. Nobody wants to think it will happen, but I think the rise of populism, aided and abetted by oligarchs makes it pretty much inevitable at some point in the next few years. 

Education reduces the growth of world population. Women when they have the knowledge and appropriate resources limit the size of their families. Hence many nations now have ageing populations with births below 2.1 /couple, some countries (?S Korea) at 1.1 but many UK/Italy/China etc etc around 1.5 ie shrinking the population and too few younger members of population.
Countries such as India and some African countries are still growing.