Scientists warn a million species at risk of extinction

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, utalkin2me said:

There are countries who currently have glass recyclable bottles for everything... beer, coke etc. Why not make all manufacturers do this?

 

Because manufacturers, empowered by a conservative, market-driven mindset, want whatever is cheapest at the point of sale.  On the other hand we have the liberal/progressive answer, which is to...  

 

 

1 minute ago, utalkin2me said:

Outlaw or tax to such an extent nobody will buy the plastics.

 

 

A politician who votes for this will likely not be reelected.  Exhibit A is the short-lived carbon pricing plan in Australia that came into effect in 2012, which the opposition leader Tony Abbott said would "swing through the Australian economy like a wrecking ball".  What actually ended up happening is that companies facing a potential liability for having a large carbon footprint made themselves more energy efficient - which is exactly what we want to happen.  Within a few days of carbon pricing being introduced, supermarkets put up transparent curtains in front of their open refrigerators.  This cut their energy bill, resulting in reduced CO₂ emissions and a reduced carbon pricing liability - which was the goal from the very start.

 

Here's an archived article about A.J. Bush & Sons, a company that was initially against carbon pricing but was forced to modernize and become more efficient, had a change of heart and said it was able to make improvements that cut its coal usage by half and made the company more competitive, resulting in a net positive impact on the business. Furthermore, carbon "tax" money collected by the government was rebated back to consumers to offset somewhat higher energy prices and subsidize the purchase of new, energy-saving devices that cut energy usage even further.

 

Abbott later admitted that carbon pricing wasn't the disaster he had predicted, and in fact had coincided with an economic upswing.

 

So what did he do when he was elected in 2014?  He repealed it or course.  Why?  Because he had campaigned on repealing it even before it had gone into effect.  Politics over country.

  

 

1 minute ago, utalkin2me said:

Water delivery in the five gallon reusable containers should be mandatory.

 

 

Those should be outlawed.  Potable water comes to homes in pipes, and if it doesn't, it should.

[RickBradford]

49 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

There is a GREAT video of the president of the Phillipines telling Canada he is sending back their plastic and that they can "eat it if they want". I loved it.

Science magazine recently outed the 3 biggest oceanic plastic polluters worldwide as China, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

 

https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Calendar_2011_03_AMERICANA/Science-2015-Jambeck-768-71__2_.pdf

 

And perhaps you wouldn't "love" it so much if you saw the equivalent of the president of Canada telling the Philippines he is not sending this year's allocation of $23 million of foreign aid to the Philippines and they can "not eat it even if they want to".

Edited May 9, 2019 by RickBradford
Grammar

[geoffbezoz]

58 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Because manufacturers, empowered by a conservative, market-driven mindset, want whatever is cheapest at the point of sale.  On the other hand we have the liberal/progressive answer, which is to...  

 

 

 

A politician who votes for this will likely not be reelected.  Exhibit A is the short-lived carbon pricing plan in Australia that came into effect in 2012, which the opposition leader Tony Abbott said would "swing through the Australian economy like a wrecking ball".  What actually ended up happening is that companies facing a potential liability for having a large carbon footprint made themselves more energy efficient - which is exactly what we want to happen.  Within a few days of carbon pricing being introduced, supermarkets put up transparent curtains in front of their open refrigerators.  This cut their energy bill, resulting in reduced CO₂ emissions and a reduced carbon pricing liability - which was the goal from the very start.

 

Here's an archived article about A.J. Bush & Sons, a company that was initially against carbon pricing but was forced to modernize and become more efficient, had a change of heart and said it was able to make improvements that cut its coal usage by half and made the company more competitive, resulting in a net positive impact on the business. Furthermore, carbon "tax" money collected by the government was rebated back to consumers to offset somewhat higher energy prices and subsidize the purchase of new, energy-saving devices that cut energy usage even further.

 

Abbott later admitted that carbon pricing wasn't the disaster he had predicted, and in fact had coincided with an economic upswing.

 

So what did he do when he was elected in 2014?  He repealed it or course.  Why?  Because he had campaigned on repealing it even before it had gone into effect.  Politics over country.

  

 

 

Those should be outlawed.  Potable water comes to homes in pipes, and if it doesn't, it should.

Plastic pipes arn't they ????

[Scott]

Posts removed.  

 

[elliss]

On 5/7/2019 at 7:33 AM, BritManToo said:

Who cares, I'll be dead long before most of those species.

 

       Being a long term sexpat ,  the type of species , who will survive .

         Supply and natural demand.. 555

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by elliss

[arithai12]

On 5/7/2019 at 8:59 PM, ivor bigun said:

When i was born there were 3 billion of us,now 5 billion,by 2050 they reckon 12 billion,, the exodus of the have nots has started ,soon it will get far far worse,and thats only the start,i fear my grandchildren will live in a terrible world,but nature has a way of getting rid of species and thats all we are .
Its not going to be nice,but most of us will never see it, Wonder what the next species will be like after we are gone.?
 

Actually, at the latest count we are 7.7 billion already.

We are too many. Today's wars are for oil, tomorrow they will be for water.

The beautiful nature we were lucky enough to see with our eyes, will be available to the next generations only as a virtual reality show but that's ok as already now they are glued to their phones anyway. 

[the guest]

It's inevitable that our species will become extinct by our own hand (not that we have anything to contribute to this Planet) so we won't be missed !

[mike787]

Yep! Uh- huh! Now what?  Who wants to be the big guy and start the gofund to save everything?

[Isaanbiker]

   The Great Bavarian Wolpertinger who once used to call the Bavarian forests his home became extinct in the 80ies.

 

It was easily foreseeable and predictable, but the politicians didn't do anything to protect the endangered animals.

 

   

 

     

[Isaanbiker]

2 hours ago, arithai12 said:

Actually, at the latest count we are 7.7 billion already.

We are too many. Today's wars are for oil, tomorrow they will be for water.

The beautiful nature we were lucky enough to see with our eyes, will be available to the next generations only as a virtual reality show but that's ok as already now they are glued to their phones anyway. 

Our children's kids might have to see a real forest on a phone application with a particular smell. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Isaanbiker
Changing the attitude

[ivor bigun]

Actually, at the latest count we are 7.7 billion already.
We are too many. Today's wars are for oil, tomorrow they will be for water.
The beautiful nature we were lucky enough to see with our eyes, will be available to the next generations only as a virtual reality show but that's ok as already now they are glued to their phones anyway. 

Yes your right ,sorry i wrote the wrong amount, but your right, water will become far more precious than oil, i cannot see mankind surviving as we are now, especially the west, you can already see the trickle coming ,eventually it will be tsunami,i fear for my grandchildren ,we were lucky to be born when we were, and indeed where we were,

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 6:30 PM, Dek Somboon said:

Trying to solve environmental problems simply by reducing population size is as foolish as trying to stop climate changing by reducing CO2 emissions.

Perhaps, but would you want to live in a world where the only significant organism is mankind? I don't.

Reducing population solves almost all the environmental problems, and if you think the rich parts of the world are going to pay to sort the poor overpopulated part's problems you must be dreaming.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 2:55 PM, VincentRJ said:

Good question. First we must clearly identify the specific impacts on specific populations, in specific locations, that could be attributed to climate change and which are of great concern. I would suggest that such impacts are of the nature of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves in summer, and unusual cold spells in winter.

 

As I understand, even climate-alarmist scientists admit that we cannot attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event to human-caused climate change. Why is this? Because the historical records clearly show that extreme weather events have been a normal occurrence on our planet, whatever the fluctuations in temperatures and whatever the gradual change in levels of atmospheric CO2. 

 

These are the facts which we can be confident are true and undeniable. The claim that the small increases in CO2 levels, from 0.028% to 0.04% of the atmosphere during the past 150 years, has caused extreme weather events to become more frequent and/or more extreme, are not facts. They are projections and hypotheses. There is no sound, empirical evidence that supports the claim that extreme weather events are becoming worse on a global scale. The AR5 IPCC technical report admits this. They use the phrase 'low confidence'. There is 'low confidence' that floods, droughts and hurricanes have increased on a global scale during the past 50 years (as at 2013 when the report was released).

 

So, it is clear to me that the issues to be addressed are:
(1) The relative certainty that extreme weather events will continue into the future and be as bad as they have been in the past.
(2) The uncertainty that such extreme weather events might get worse as a result of mankind's emissions of CO2.

 

Which of these two issues should be given priority? We have the technology and the energy supplies to build houses that are resistant to hurricanes, and/or that can be raised above previous flood levels. We have the technology to build dams, desalination plants, and long water pipes to transfer water from wet regions to dry regions, and so on. Problem solved. The next question is, why aren't we doing this?
 

The next question is, why aren't we doing this?

LOL. We also have the technology to live on the moon, so why are we not doing so?

 

Short answer- money, and who pays.

[Dek Somboon]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps, but would you want to live in a world where the only significant organism is mankind? I don't.

Reducing population solves almost all the environmental problems, and if you think the rich parts of the world are going to pay to sort the poor overpopulated part's problems you must be dreaming.

Oh gosh, I quoted that by mistake and am absolutely 100% in favor of getting our numbers down to a sustainable level - as we're currently breeding ourselves to extinction!...????????????

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The next question is, why aren't we doing this?

LOL. We also have the technology to live on the moon, so why are we not doing so?

 

Short answer- money, and who pays.

The same people who pay for the billions of dollars worth of damage whenever there's a devastating flood, drought or hurricane.

 

However, attempting to populate the moon with a significant number of people would be even more foolish than trying to make the climate calm and benign by reducing CO2 emissions. ????

[VincentRJ]

The main reason for overpopulation is the perceived need of the poor to have many children in order to support them in their old age and provide cheap labor to farm the land, if they have any, in the hope they can raise their living standards above the poverty line.

 

In developed societies, such needs are taken care of, so the problem becomes one of increasing numbers of old-age pensioners. When I used to travel to poor countries such as Nepal, to do some trekking, the locals would often ask me how many children I had. When I replied 'none', they were very surprised and asked, 'Who is going to take care of you when you are old?'

 

Instead of tackling population growth, we should tackle the problem of living standards, and provide health care and a livable wage for everyone. Population size will then gradually decrease, or at least remain constant.

[balo]

This is what you call evolution.

Some species will dissappear , others will start a new life. 

 

The dinosaurs would still be here if it wasn't for "catastrophic events" happening on this planet . 
My point is that planet Earth and life on it will always find a way to survive , we humans are only a part of it, in a bad way or a good way. 

 

 

[geoffbezoz]

1 minute ago, balo said:

This is what you call evolution.

Some species will dissappear , others will start a new life. 

 

The dinosaurs would still be here if it wasn't for "catastrophic events" happening on this planet . 
My point is that planet Earth and life on it will always find a way to survive , we humans are only a part of it, in a bad way or a good way. 

 

 

Exactly. But there again us humans could do much better then allowing our plastics to end up in the ocean.

[ThaiBunny]

An excellent analysis of the dodgy use of the statistics that resulted in this headline can be found in the columnist Toby Young's latest - https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/the-uns-extinction-warning-doesnt-add-up/

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The main reason for overpopulation is the perceived need of the poor to have many children in order to support them in their old age and provide cheap labor to farm the land, if they have any, in the hope they can raise their living standards above the poverty line.

 

In developed societies, such needs are taken care of, so the problem becomes one of increasing numbers of old-age pensioners. When I used to travel to poor countries such as Nepal, to do some trekking, the locals would often ask me how many children I had. When I replied 'none', they were very surprised and asked, 'Who is going to take care of you when you are old?'

 

Instead of tackling population growth, we should tackle the problem of living standards, and provide health care and a livable wage for everyone. Population size will then gradually decrease, or at least remain constant.

I'd really love to be able to agree with you, but even in my country which is has no real poor people ( only people that think they are poor ) the population has exceeded the ability of the country to give all a decent life and the fact that the taxpayer has to give money to people that have children means that the least good parents keep having children, which is causing all sorts of social problems.

If we can't keep population at a reasonable level, what hope is there for all the poor countries?

Don't say give them money, because money given to those countries never gets to where it should.

 

Personally, I see no hope for the future of mankind. We'll just keep on breeding till it all ends in a lot of tears.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Benroon said:

Hmmm given cancer rates are very firmly on the up (20% up in 2018 from 2012 alone according to Cancer Research UK) I would check your own 'facts' first.

 

You wrote "cancer rates", which means incidence.  I wrote "cancer mortality".  You should look into the difference between those two statistics.  Backing up my claim:

 

Facts & Figures 2019: US Cancer Death Rate has Dropped 27% in 25 Years

 

"The death rate from cancer in the US has declined steadily over the past 25 years, according to annual statistics reporting from the American Cancer Society. As of 2016, the cancer death rate for men and women combined had fallen 27% from its peak in 1991. This decline translates to about 1.5% per year and more than 2.6 million deaths avoided between 1991 and 2016."

 

 

Quote

People want food at the cheapest possible prices, so crops are sprayed with chemical <deleted> and animals are rammed full of more chemical <deleted> and humans get cancer. Who would have thought swallowing endless chemicals would be bad for us!

 

Your chemiphobia and ignorance of food science is duly noted.

 

 

Quote

Add to that there is not a profit making organisation in the world that wants to see a cure (because that turns off the money taps) its only going to continue going one way.

Cervical cancer could be eliminated globally by 2100

 

"The new research found that achieving widespread global coverage of both human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening, from 2020 onwards, could potentially prevent up to 13.4 million cases by 2070 and has potential to achieve world-wide elimination of cervical cancer in most countries by 2100."

 

The vaccine is manufactured by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a profit-making organization.

 

I am not going to go into further detail because you've already taken us off topic.  

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by attrayant

[BritManToo]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

'd really love to be able to agree with you, but even in my country which is has no real poor people ( only people that think they are poor ) the population has exceeded the ability of the country to give all a decent life

'Give' being the operative word, nobody wants to 'give' anyone a decent life.

But all those who are prepared to work can earn a decent life in your home country. 

[balo]

10 hours ago, Benroon said:

You are totally missing the point - there is no need for these species to be extinct, it is not evolutionary, it is down to the selfish me me me actions of humans

And that was not my point, we are all aware of the plastic problem and all the other environmental issues , but my point was this planet is in a constant change and has been for millions of years. 

Some species will die, others will start a new life, because of the climate changes. Humans will still be here, we can adapt easily. 

 

Humans in the western world can do many good things, but if China and Africa do nothing about it, nothing much will change, 

 

Stop producing plastic is the only solution. 
  

[VincentRJ]

We should also take into consideration the benefits of increased CO2 levels which help the remaining forests to flourish and withstand droughts better.

 

It's a well-established fact that most plants, which are the C3 variety, will increase growth by around 30-40% with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Under water-stressed conditions, such as droughts, that increased growth can be as high as 65%, compared to plants grown in the same conditions but with half the CO2 levels.

 

Whilst it's true that many species are under threat of extinction due to mankind's activities, such as deforestation, use of pesticides, introduction of foreign species of animals such as Cane Toads, feral cats, rabbits, foxes, and so on, this threat is at least partially offset by our CO2 emissions.

 

Oops! Forgot!  ???? We're trying to reduce our CO2 emissions. I guess the natural wildlife is stuffed. ????

[RickBradford]

^^^

You could also add that the planet has literally become much greener in the past 40 years, due to plants being able to access more of that lovely CO2, as well as enjoying warmer and wetter temperatures. 

 

Leaf cover, according to NASA (see above image) "represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

 

Nature is very bountiful just now.

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by RickBradford

[attrayant]

17 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Nature is very bountiful just now.

 

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

[VincentRJ]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

You could also add that the planet has literally become much greener in the past 40 years, due to plants being able to access more of that lovely CO2, as well as enjoying warmer and wetter temperatures. 

 

Leaf cover, according to NASA (see above image) "represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

 

Nature is very bountiful just now.

 

Yes. It's a real tragedy that so many people seem unable to distinguish between that clean, clear and odorless gas called CO2, which is essential for all life, and the harmful pollutants which can harm our health and the environment.

[attrayant]

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Yes. It's a real tragedy that so many people seem unable to distinguish between that clean, clear and odorless gas called CO2, which is essential for all life, and the harmful pollutants which can harm our health and the environment.

 

By what standard is CO₂ a "clean" gas?  CO₂ is more than 27% carbon by weight.  That's clean?

 

And why does it matter that it's odorless?  So is carbon monoxide.  I guess that's a "clean" gas too? 

 

And as for being "clear", it's opaque at infrared wavelengths.  You are basically saying that since humans can't see it, CO₂ must not be a big problem.

 

 

These are statements I would expect to hear from Senator Snowball.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by attrayant

[rabas]

51 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

By what standard is CO₂ a "clean" gas?  CO₂ is more than 27% carbon by weight.  That's clean?

 

And why does it matter that it's odorless?  So is carbon monoxide.  I guess that's a "clean" gas too? 

 

And as for being "clear", it's opaque at infrared wavelengths.  You are basically saying that since humans can't see it, CO₂ must not be a big problem.

 

These are statements I would expect to hear from Senator Snowball.

Chemically pure CO2 is ultra clean.

Carbon and oxygen are the most abundant atoms in the universe outside big bang H and He.

Carbon is uniquely able to form 4 covalent bonds, infinitely complex chemicals, and stereoscopic isomers required for life.

Carbon is thus the miracle of life itself and CO2 its food.

You eat carbon compounds every day.

Carbon is a girls best friend (man, not so much)

CO2 is  invisible to 99% of the infra-red spectrum except for 3 very narrow bands.

These 3 bands allow atmospheric CO2 (your friend) to prevent the Earth from freezing and killing off all life.

 

Don't fall for MSM CO2 hate speech.

[attrayant]

37 minutes ago, rabas said:

Chemically pure CO2 is ultra clean.

Carbon and oxygen are the most abundant atoms in the universe outside big bang H and He.

Carbon is uniquely able to form 4 covalent bonds, infinitely complex chemicals, and stereoscopic isomers required for life.

Carbon is thus the miracle of life itself and CO2 its food.

You eat carbon compounds every day.

Carbon is a girls best friend (man, not so much)

CO2 is  invisible to 99% of the infra-red spectrum except for 3 very narrow bands.

These 3 bands allow atmospheric CO2 (your friend) to prevent the Earth from freezing and killing off all life.

 

That reads like satire.  I honestly can't tell if you're trying to be slapstick-funny or make some point.  All of these statements can be answered with "so?" because you haven't used any of them to support a thesis.

 

Chemically pure water is ultra clean, so I guess we shouldn't mind that sea levels rise 1.5 meters, right?