World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state

[Vacuum]

It's all about money.

[milwaukeeboy]

Yet, we live in a monetary system matrix that requires "economic growth" on a planet of finite resources.

Without the growth, there will be collapse. Those conjuring the currency into existence know this well and since 2008 have had the printing presses running nonstop to keep up the charade of "economic growth" which has resulted in the untold wealth of a small minority of individuals both hoarding the currency and purchasing all the resources on the planet with a fraction of it.

They are the ones who will determine who will be culled in order for their progeny to have a more pleasant future. This "hothouse" narrative is but another distraction.

[RickBradford]

32 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Oh really? So you do think that anthropomorphic climate change is real and is already causing unusual weather events and an increase in their frequency and severity. Well done then, carry on. You have an unusual way of expressing your agreement though, which seems to be writing the opposite of what you actually intend to mean...

I think that man's activities have the ability to affect climate in all sorts of ways, from generating greenhouse gases to putting particulates into the atmosphere.

 

I think that to attribute any particular weather phenomena to man-made climate change should be done with extreme caution, given that global temperature has gone up just 1C in the last 150 years, and man's influence is only a part of that.

 

I do not believe that climate change is currently "a threat to our survival" (and sane observers agree with me). 

 

I certainly do not believe that humanity is best served by pursuing Marxist-sounding schemes like "behavioral changes", "new governance arrangements" and "transformed social values", which is what Steffen et al advocate.

 

Nor do I think that dismantling the capitalist economy will work, and while Steffen's idea of "decarbonization of the global economy" is a laudable aim, the fact is we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time yet.

 

An expansion of nuclear power would be great, but, of course, Big Green won't wear that at all.

[dick dasterdly]

5 hours ago, KittenKong said:

All the ecological problems that the world faces stem from one very simple fact: there are far too many people on it.

 

Ninety percent need to be culled, and that would put things back into order. Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job.

 

3 hours ago, KittenKong said:

I'm already doing my part: I have no children and never will.

I agree that our planet is over populated by people, and so not having children helps (in a small way) towards reducing the problem.

 

But you stated "Ninety percent need to be culled" and "Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job." ?

 

Hence Canackamuck's post asking whether you were volunteering to be culled!

[dick dasterdly]

55 minutes ago, JCauto said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-scientists-warning-climate-change-global-warming-experts-a8243606.html

 

What patent nonsense you write. And yes, when we observe wildfires breaking out in greater severity than seen before across multiple countries while we observe that the data tells us the four hottest years on record for the planet were 2015, 2016, 2017 and, so far, 2018 that is not us opportunistically cherry-picking results that suit our predictions. It's our predictions turning out to be true. 

As noted in my other post, quite hypocritical and disgusting to observe the generation that led us into this mess that our children will be the unfortunate heirs to absolving themselves or responsibility and actively working to prevent even minor mitigation efforts.

 

 

"As noted in my other post, quite hypocritical and disgusting to observe the generation that led us into this mess that our children will be the unfortunate heirs to absolving themselves or responsibility and actively working to prevent even minor mitigation efforts."

 

I think it's a bit unfair to blame "the generation that led us into this mess".  Surely it should be blamed on the ever increasing greed of big business and politicians?

 

 

[JCauto]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I think that man's activities have the ability to affect climate in all sorts of ways, from generating greenhouse gases to putting particulates into the atmosphere.

 

I think that to attribute any particular weather phenomena to man-made climate change should be done with extreme caution, given that global temperature has gone up just 1C in the last 150 years, and man's influence is only a part of that.

 

I do not believe that climate change is currently "a threat to our survival" (and sane observers agree with me). 

 

I certainly do not believe that humanity is best served by pursuing Marxist-sounding schemes like "behavioral changes", "new governance arrangements" and "transformed social values", which is what Steffen et al advocate.

 

Nor do I think that dismantling the capitalist economy will work, and while Steffen's idea of "decarbonization of the global economy" is a laudable aim, the fact is we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time yet.

 

An expansion of nuclear power would be great, but, of course, Big Green won't wear that at all.

Well, that's at least a reasonable position.

 

I would counter that there are some pretty sane people who have identified climate change as a threat to our survival, and any serious analysis of the impacts demonstrates that there will be massive instability, huge numbers of deaths and all the wonderful things that come with that. I have not too much faith in humanity's ability to overcome that circumstance given that we're getting a sneak preview at the moment in dealing with "large" numbers of refugees in Europe and Myanmar, and this will be seen by future historians as a trickle compared to the raging river of refugees that is in our near future. So yes, one of our points of disagreement is the scale and scope of the impact of climate change; I see it as something that threatens everything that we currently hold dear and you believe it's something we can ride out. I sure hope so, but it goes against everything that I know and see.

 

I would also agree that it's very difficult to attach "climate change" as the indisputable cause of this or that event, but we can't ignore the global indicators such as planetary temperature records that are not showing any doubt and are exceeding projections. If that doesn't worry you, it should. 

 

I would agree too that the sorts of mealy-mouthed solutions advocated by Steffen aren't the way forward. We need a breakthrough on energy or we're screwed from my point of view. The current options aren't cutting it, and the more we pour into the carbon industry the faster we're heading to crisis. I too don't really see an effective "alternative" to capitalism but we already have enough variations on that to be able to see that there are a lot of ways to adjust capitalism to realize the benefits without causing massive externalities. Resource Extraction Capitalism has run its course in terms of sustainability. Big Green (as you call it) has recognized this and attempted to impose a Carbon Tax, but this hasn't really worked very well and many people have become more cynical with it as often it just serves as yet another unmarked revenue source that gets used for whatever despite its supposed explicit purpose. We do need to find a way to ensure the full costs of whatever we use is accounted for so that the externalities are removed, and capitalism is clearly the only likely candidate to enable this. 

 

I personally think there's much merit in mobilizing capitalism to address environmental needs. The creation of the EPA back in the 1970's was a model for this, and they basically were able to create businesses, money, profit and jobs by legislating that some things had to get cleaned up and leaving it to the Private Sector to figure out how. Turning the economy back into one focused on recycling and resource efficiency maximization while focusing research onto big solutions to the energy problem seems to me to be the best way to harness capitalism in the service of cleaning up the mess we've made in the rush for human development.

 

Anyway, kudos to you for providing serious debate in support of your points. Most of the ones I debate on this topic just like to make noise and run away when the facts come out.

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, micmichd said:

Ever heard of the Club of Rome's report (Limits to growth)? That was published in 1972, so the current situation should not be a surprise. 

You could count half of Africa's population as victims of the climate change - what do you think the refugee crisis in Europe comes from?

"The Limits To Growth" has become evermore relevant but with only 16 million copies out there in a population of 7.5 billion, obviously the message is not reaching the parts that Heineken can (no pun intended). Your African "half" is  arbitrary - the African population has doubled since 1981 and set to double again by 2050 - these figures do not indicate a continent that is overly troubled by thirst (yet) and most Africans have obviously not read the book, either.

 

The climate is certainly changing everywhere but it has not changed enough yet to be counted as a driver of migration. The migrants from Africa are almost all of the economic type and they have enough money (or are sponsored) to pay thousands of dollars to the people-smuggling gangs, mainly using Libya. 

 

Climate-driven migration maybe just around the corner (and not necessarily just African) but I expect that climate will be cited as a reason in the meantime, anyway. 

[BritManToo]

10 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I would counter that there are some pretty sane people who have identified climate change as a threat to our survival,

Depends on who you think 'us' and 'our' is.

I'm more worried about threats to the future of MY white race (my definition of us and our), so climate change isn't high up on my 'things to fix' list. But if you consider 'us' and 'our' as non-white people, not genetically related you except in the broadest definition, then you may be right to worry.

Edited August 7, 2018 by BritManToo

[JCauto]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"As noted in my other post, quite hypocritical and disgusting to observe the generation that led us into this mess that our children will be the unfortunate heirs to absolving themselves or responsibility and actively working to prevent even minor mitigation efforts."

 

I think it's a bit unfair to blame "the generation that led us into this mess".  Surely it should be blamed on the ever increasing greed of big business and politicians?

 

 

Well, there seems to me to have been plenty of greed and lack of morals, ethics, and what have you among big business and politicians for quite some time, even before "capitalism" existed, if there ever really were such a time. The difference is that the earlier generations lacked the kind of technology to really mess things up, although whenever provided such they certainly had a go.

 

The other thing that's different is that we've become aware that what we're doing is genuinely and irrefutably affecting the planet. Big Oil knew this in the early 1970's and buried it, then hired shills to combat the findings they were the only ones who knew about by manufacturing research to show that what they knew was wrong. That's the Baby Boomers, the ones who followed "the Greatest Generation" who put things in place for a better world. By the end of the 1950's, the American economy was doing fantastically well and the middle class were able to afford a great standard of living. Corporate clawback of taxes and political control from that point on has destroyed the ideals and foundation that had been put in place. They enjoyed the incredible wealth and prosperity created by their parents and grandparents then destroyed it by wanting everything and then some, and by not shepherding resources for their children and children's children.

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, milwaukeeboy said:

Yet, we live in a monetary system matrix that requires "economic growth" on a planet of finite resources.

Without the growth, there will be collapse. Those conjuring the currency into existence know this well and since 2008 have had the printing presses running nonstop to keep up the charade of "economic growth" which has resulted in the untold wealth of a small minority of individuals both hoarding the currency and purchasing all the resources on the planet with a fraction of it.

They are the ones who will determine who will be culled in order for their progeny to have a more pleasant future. This "hothouse" narrative is but another distraction.

Good points.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Depends on who you think 'us' and 'our' is.

I'm more worried about threats to the future of the white race (my definition of us and our), so climate change isn't high up on my 'things to fix' list.

To get you back on topic, it would be interesting to see the per capita contribution of greenhouses gases and use of natural resources for the ‘White Race’ you are concerned for, and then compare these with those of Africans, or Asians.

 

 

[JCauto]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Depends on who you think 'us' and 'our' is.

I'm more worried about threats to the future of MY white race (my definition of us and our), so climate change isn't high up on my 'things to fix' list. But if you consider 'us' and 'our' as non-white people then you may be right to worry.

Well, I guess you're at least honest about your racism. 

 

Yes, my "us" and "our" includes white, brown, black, yellow...you name it. People. In fact, you'll be horrified to learn that I'm among the many who have engaged in miscegenation by mating with one of these local brown folk. How terrible, eh?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, PhonThong said:

Your right. Earth will be fine. It's the people that are screwed.

Partial extinction events have happened before so another one should be no surprise. The earth will be fine until it burns up! 

Edited August 7, 2018 by nauseus

[BritManToo]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

To get you back on topic, it would be interesting to see the per capita contribution of greenhouses gases and use of natural resources for the ‘White Race’ you are concerned for, and then compare these with those of Africans, or Asians.

1

I think you'll find Chinese and Indians produce more shit than anyone else.

But ultimately environmentalists should 'logically' be campaigning to nuke the world back to the stone age.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, BritManToo said:

I think you'll find Chinese and Indians produce more shit than anyone else.

But ultimately environmentalists should 'logically' be campaigning to nuke the world back to the stone age.

On the evidence you’ve presented, I’m not at all sure you are right I’m this last assertion.

[BritManToo]

10 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Well, I guess you're at least honest about your racism. 

 

Yes, my "us" and "our" includes white, brown, black, yellow...you name it. People. In fact, you'll be horrified to learn that I'm among the many who have engaged in miscegenation by mating with one of these local brown folk. How terrible, eh?

I don't actually view non-whites as inferior (so don't consider myself a racist).

I agree with your mating strategy, to breed with some non-whites in their own countries is probably our (white folks) best chance for our DNA to survive, and I'm doing my bit in SEA.

Edited August 7, 2018 by BritManToo

[dick dasterdly]

37 minutes ago, milwaukeeboy said:

Yet, we live in a monetary system matrix that requires "economic growth" on a planet of finite resources.

Without the growth, there will be collapse. Those conjuring the currency into existence know this well and since 2008 have had the printing presses running nonstop to keep up the charade of "economic growth" which has resulted in the untold wealth of a small minority of individuals both hoarding the currency and purchasing all the resources on the planet with a fraction of it.

They are the ones who will determine who will be culled in order for their progeny to have a more pleasant future. This "hothouse" narrative is but another distraction.

I agree with everything you say, other than the final sentence.

[dick dasterdly]

16 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Well, there seems to me to have been plenty of greed and lack of morals, ethics, and what have you among big business and politicians for quite some time, even before "capitalism" existed, if there ever really were such a time. The difference is that the earlier generations lacked the kind of technology to really mess things up, although whenever provided such they certainly had a go.

 

The other thing that's different is that we've become aware that what we're doing is genuinely and irrefutably affecting the planet. Big Oil knew this in the early 1970's and buried it, then hired shills to combat the findings they were the only ones who knew about by manufacturing research to show that what they knew was wrong. That's the Baby Boomers, the ones who followed "the Greatest Generation" who put things in place for a better world. By the end of the 1950's, the American economy was doing fantastically well and the middle class were able to afford a great standard of living. Corporate clawback of taxes and political control from that point on has destroyed the ideals and foundation that had been put in place. They enjoyed the incredible wealth and prosperity created by their parents and grandparents then destroyed it by wanting everything and then some, and by not shepherding resources for their children and children's children.

"The other thing that's different is that we've become aware that what we're doing is genuinely and irrefutably affecting the planet."

 

I agree and, to look on the bright side, every increasing numbers of people are doing their best to make their lives more 'environmentally friendly'.

 

An added bonus to this is that as a result - some politicians and businesses are making a small effort to change some of their policies to attract the more environmentally aware.

Edited August 7, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[Cadbury]

6 hours ago, Lungstib said:

A recent Youtube that I watched mentioned the extreme long life of carbon in the atmosphere and suggested it was far more resilient than radiation in that over 1000 years it would still exist even though diminishes by a factor of 2 or 3. In effect everything we add in the next hundred years stays on top of what we already have. If that is so I see no escape, earth is doomed.

You refer to "carbon" like particles or lumps of carbon. If you really mean carbon dioxide please call it that.

So if you do mean carbon dioxide that is the colourless, odourless gas that keeps vegetation alive which in turn converts it through photosynthesis into oxygen which keeps you and the rest of the world alive.

Carbon dioxide is essential to life; don't knock it despite what BS Youtube gurus and propagandists might have you believe.

[JCauto]

9 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

You refer to "carbon" like particles or lumps of carbon. If you really mean carbon dioxide please call it that.

So if you do mean carbon dioxide that is the colourless, odourless gas that keeps vegetation alive which in turn converts it through photosynthesis into oxygen which keeps you and the rest of the world alive.

Carbon dioxide is essential to life; don't knock it despite what BS Youtube gurus and propagandists might have you believe.

Seriously? Your point is that we need carbon dioxide for plants hence we shouldn't be trying to regulate the AMOUNT of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere? Just when you thought it couldn't get any dumber...

 

No, nobody on the climate change side is trying to tell you that we DON'T need CO2. We're telling you that there's too much of it in the atmosphere, and that this is resulting in anthropomorphic (that means "man-made") rises in temperature globally. 

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Seriously? Your point is that we need carbon dioxide for plants hence we shouldn't be trying to regulate the AMOUNT of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere? Just when you thought it couldn't get any dumber...

 

No, nobody on the climate change side is trying to tell you that we DON'T need CO2. We're telling you that there's too much of it in the atmosphere, and that this is resulting in anthropomorphic (that means "man-made") rises in temperature globally. 

It's anthropogenic but we get it.

[Snow Leopard]

1 hour ago, micmichd said:

Silly question. Simply stop making children, that'll do. Especially children in the Northern Hemisphere produce too much pollution, so start there - or face enforced sterilization.

No offence mate. I just looked at a map and NO the Equator hasn't moved. Most of the worlds population lives in the Northern Hemisphere. Maybe that has something to do with it?

[Snow Leopard]

13 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Seriously? Your point is that we need carbon dioxide for plants hence we shouldn't be trying to regulate the AMOUNT of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere? Just when you thought it couldn't get any dumber...

 

No, nobody on the climate change side is trying to tell you that we DON'T need CO2. We're telling you that there's too much of it in the atmosphere, and that this is resulting in anthropomorphic (that means "man-made") rises in temperature globally. 

So how do we reduce the CO2 then?

[JCauto]

3 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

So how do we reduce the CO2 then?

Reduce then phase out fossil fuel consumption in favour of carbon neutral energy sources. Find a way to include costs for all environmental externalities into the price of goods. Shift economies towards reuse and recycle. Increase education and invest in population control. For starters... 

[Cadbury]

14 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Seriously? Your point is that we need carbon dioxide for plants hence we shouldn't be trying to regulate the AMOUNT of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere? Just when you thought it couldn't get any dumber...

 

No, nobody on the climate change side is trying to tell you that we DON'T need CO2. We're telling you that there's too much of it in the atmosphere, and that this is resulting in anthropomorphic (that means "man-made") rises in temperature globally. 

If you read my post you will see I wasn't commenting as to whether there was too much of it or not enough. Just that CO2 as opposed to "carbon" is essential for life.

I leave it for experts like you to decide the question if there is too much of the stuff. 

You are welcome to debate the issue with yourself as much as like. Leave me out of it.

Why don't you reply to Snow Leopard (post#53) and share your profound wisdom with him.

[Snow Leopard]

42 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Reduce then phase out fossil fuel consumption in favour of carbon neutral energy sources. Find a way to include costs for all environmental externalities into the price of goods. Shift economies towards reuse and recycle. Increase education and invest in population control. For starters... 

I agree with your last 2 points. Very good. Please don;t forget that religion is involved here as well.

 

The first two comments are nonsense. 

 

There is no way there can be a carbon neutral way until another cheaper alternative is developed and becomes available en mass. Bat Bashers and Solar are not carbon neutral. They are actually the complete opposite.

 

Good luck with having everyone pay more as well. 

 

 

[RickTik]

Real estate markets at the North pole and Siberia might get some action out of this scam story. ?  However, the reality is that they are expecting a significant Earth cool down in the next 20 years. Enjoy your day, use a fan, and drink a lot of water.  

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

But you stated "Ninety percent need to be culled" and "Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job."

Hence Canackamuck's post asking whether you were volunteering to be culled!

I understood the question. If you want an answer to it: yes, I would be prepared to be part of the 90% if it came to that.

[dunroaming]

There is no such thing as climate change.  Donald Trump said so, so it must be true!

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, Snow Leopard said:

I agree with your last 2 points. Very good. Please don;t forget that religion is involved here as well.

 

The first two comments are nonsense. 

 

There is no way there can be a carbon neutral way until another cheaper alternative is developed and becomes available en mass. Bat Bashers and Solar are not carbon neutral. They are actually the complete opposite.

 

Good luck with having everyone pay more as well. 

 

 

Well, the cost of solar is already competitive, wind less so. But yes, I agree we're desperately in need of a breakthrough on alternative energy sources. The main point being that one should always strive to reduce one's carbon footprint where one can and we're already seeing that having an impact. No, it won't be enough, and no, I'm not saying that solar and wind power can replace fossil fuels completely. In developed countries, it's possible, but the main issue is that there are more new consumers of fossil fuels coming onto the roads than those coming off. I don't believe that one should sit on one's hands until a complete solution presents itself. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.  

 

As to the feasibility of incorporating externalities into the cost of goods, it's also something that's already been done. Whenever regulations require industry to respond, they do as compelled and costs increase as a result. Those costs are passed onto the public in the form of higher prices. For example, they legislated lead to be removed from petrol. It took a number of years for them to get the cars that used leaded fuel off the roads, but eventually they did. It took a number of years for the demand for leaded fuel to dry up completely but it did. Now you can't even find it. There are ways to get these things done, just because the first attempt at carbon tax was a failure is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's many ways to skin a cat. 

I'll just stop now before I run out of convenient cliches...