'Untold human suffering' is in the near future as U.N. warns climate change is pushing Earth closer to extreme warming

[Hanaguma]

Taken to its logical end, the "stop having kids" crowd would have us commit slow social suicide. It is the logical end of such a policy- the slow end of humanity as a species in 80 years or so. Not to mention you can see the rather disastrous results of such thinking in places with seriously low birth rates, like Japan or Greece or South Korea. Tax shortfalls, shortages of care/health workers to see to the needs of seniors, dropping productivity, etc.  

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Top 15 Countries with the Highest CO2 Emissions per Capita (t) - EU JRC 2020

Palau — 55.29

Qatar — 35.64

Trinidad and Tobago — 21.97

Bahrain — 21.60

Kuwait — 20.91

United Arab Emirates — 20.70

Brunei Darussalam — 17.95

Saudi Arabia — 16.96

Oman — 16.9

Australia — 15.22

Canada — 14.43

Kazakhstan — 14.22

United States — 13.68

Turkmenistan — 13.37

Luxembourg — 13.24

By this measure, the U.S. has the thirteenth-highest per capita emissions at 13.68 tons, while Russia is 20th (11.64), Japan is 26th (8.39), China is 28th (8.20), and India is 110th with a mere 1.74 tons per capita. Meanwhile, a number of developing nations occupy the top spots, largely due to less-regulated energy, industry, and transportation industries.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country

 

 

That kind of list by itself t really isn't very useful. It takes no account of the population of these countries. Of the top 10 countries listed, only Saudi Arabia and Austral have a population of over 10 million and most of them a lot fewer than that. The number 1 country, Palau has less than 20,000 people. #2 Qatar has about 3 million

Here's another  list from that page organized by total emissions

1. China — 11680.42
2. United States — 4535.30
3. India — 2411.73
4. Russia — 1674.23
5. Japan — 1061.77
6. Iran — 690.24
7. Germany — 636.88
8. South Korea — 621.47
9. Saudi Arabia — 588.81
10. Indonesia — 568.27

Both numbers have to be factored in. 

[placeholder]

 

36 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Taken to its logical end, the "stop having kids" crowd would have us commit slow social suicide. It is the logical end of such a policy- the slow end of humanity as a species in 80 years or so. Not to mention you can see the rather disastrous results of such thinking in places with seriously low birth rates, like Japan or Greece or South Korea. Tax shortfalls, shortages of care/health workers to see to the needs of seniors, dropping productivity, etc.  

Cheer up. Sub-Saharan Africa is still growing rapidly in population. Europe, at least, can benefit from its proximity and surplus population.

[placeholder]

What I've noticed isn't discussed here is the unequal consumption of resources. The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population generates twice as much carbon emissions as does the bottom 50%. 

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

 

Cheer up. Sub-Saharan Africa is still growing rapidly in population. Europe, at least, can benefit from its proximity and surplus population.

Then shouldn't the "stop having kids" crowd focus their efforts THERE?  Or does it only apply to wealthy countries... 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What I've noticed isn't discussed here is the unequal consumption of resources. The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population generates twice as much carbon emissions as does the bottom 50%. 

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

So what?  The bottom 50% would still be mired in poverty and suffering to a far greater extent without the top 1% making progress in fields like agriculture and industry. Extreme poverty is at the lowest level in history.  

 

 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Then shouldn't the "stop having kids" crowd focus their efforts THERE?  Or does it only apply to wealthy countries... 

You're seriously blaming the efforts of something called the "stop having kids" crowd? Really? you think it's a bad thing that unmarried teenagers aren't having children they can't support? As for the rest, whose arm is being twisted? What evidence do you have that this has anything to do with anything other than people rationally choosing not to have so many children? You think in fully developed nations one income is enough for people to enjoy a standard of living they aspire to? Those days are long gone. And the fact that the means to make that choice i.e. birth control is readily available? 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

So what?  The bottom 50% would still be mired in poverty and suffering to a far greater extent without the top 1% making progress in fields like agriculture and industry. Extreme poverty is at the lowest level in history.  

 

 

A very tendentious assumption that takes no account of the power of the wealthy to alter tax policies and other laws to favor themselves. There is this notion among the right, that empirical evidence doesn't support, that the lower the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce. Empirical evidence shows otherwise.  Right now, extreme poverty may be at the lowest level in history. But how long is that going to continue? Already some densely populated areas of the world are being threatened by bouts of extreme heat that already is approaching the limits of human toleration. And it's not just the urban heat island effect. Rural India is already experiencing heat waves so extreme that it's dangerous to work during the daytime. And further increases are already baked in, so to speak. And not just heat. Thanks to anthropogenic climate change, the atmosphere holds more water. Combine that with the rapid rate of glacial melting, and you get Pakistan 2022 where a third of the country was underwater. And climactic conditions are only going to get more severe. As climatologists point out, there is a huge difference between the world at 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer and 2.0. And the former already looks to be out of reach. 

[Celsius]

I honestly don't care.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Then shouldn't the "stop having kids" crowd focus their efforts THERE?  Or does it only apply to wealthy countries... 

When Malthusians are ranting, they are not talking about themselves, Sub-Sahara Africa is a good example of precisely who they are referring to.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

So what?  The bottom 50% would still be mired in poverty and suffering to a far greater extent without the top 1% making progress in fields like agriculture and industry. Extreme poverty is at the lowest level in history.  

 

 

The top 1% don’t make progress in anything other than amassing more wealth.

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

9 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Then shouldn't the "stop having kids" crowd focus their efforts THERE?  Or does it only apply to wealthy countries... 

That effort is a long process of changing cultural attitudes to having 4 or sometimes many more children each. Its not like you can force them to stop in rural Africa. It will take time through education, human resources, physical infrastructure, family planning clinics etc. Of course also a lot of money.

 

There is one very well respected foundation working on this that spends $2 billion a year on Africa alone. Yes Bill Gates. What does he get in return from the extreme right wing loons? Accusations like this:

 

Bill Gates never said ‘3 billion people need to die’

CLAIM: Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates wants to eliminate at least 3 billion people in the world, starting in Africa, in a plot involving vaccines.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Gates never said this. The billionaire philanthropist has spoken about the benefits of slowing the rate of population growth, but he has not advocated killing people.

[Eleftheros]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The top 1% don’t make progress in anything other than amassing more wealth.

Quite so.

 

And prominent among that 1% are the elites of international and national organizations who are doing extremely well on the runaway climate gravy train, and have no intention of allowing those of lesser status to derail them.

 

They would perhaps gain greater credibility if they would stop jetting off, in their tens of thousands, to places like Sharm El Sheikh to discuss climate matters in between enjoying the excellent snorkeling to be had (in the sea, I mean).

 

None of the climate get-togethers since the "historic" COP21 of 2015 have achieved anything lasting or binding, but as you rightly point out, that is of no concern to the 1%.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Quite so.

 

And prominent among that 1% are the elites of international and national organizations who are doing extremely well on the runaway climate gravy train, and have no intention of allowing those of lesser status to derail them.

 

They would perhaps gain greater credibility if they would stop jetting off, in their tens of thousands, to places like Sharm El Sheikh to discuss climate matters in between enjoying the excellent snorkeling to be had (in the sea, I mean).

 

None of the climate get-togethers since the "historic" COP21 of 2015 have achieved anything lasting or binding, but as you rightly point out, that is of no concern to the 1%.

‘Elites’.

 

It kind of gives your game away.

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Quite so.

 

And prominent among that 1% are the elites of international and national organizations who are doing extremely well on the runaway climate gravy train, and have no intention of allowing those of lesser status to derail them.

 

They would perhaps gain greater credibility if they would stop jetting off, in their tens of thousands, to places like Sharm El Sheikh to discuss climate matters in between enjoying the excellent snorkeling to be had (in the sea, I mean).

 

None of the climate get-togethers since the "historic" COP21 of 2015 have achieved anything lasting or binding, but as you rightly point out, that is of no concern to the 1%.

Very true, that.

 

When they climate hysterics start to actually LIVE as though they believed their cant, I would begin to take them seriously. When they stop issuing dire warnings about the rise in the sea levels while simultanously buying expensive seaside villas, for example. 

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Very true, that.

 

When they climate hysterics start to actually LIVE as though they believed their cant, I would begin to take them seriously. When they stop issuing dire warnings about the rise in the sea levels while simultanously buying expensive seaside villas, for example. 

Another nonsensical deflection. Why do you think what the wealthy and influential and selfish do has any bearing on the facts of the threats posed by climate change? Why pay any attention to anyone but actual climatologists? 

[Eleftheros]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Another nonsensical deflection. Why do you think what the wealthy and influential and selfish do has any bearing on the facts of the threats posed by climate change? Why pay any attention to anyone but actual climatologists? 

Because it is only the wealthy and particularly the influential who make actual policy which affect how everybody is supposed to live - green taxes, no new petrol cars after 2030, and suchlike money-making schemes.

 

The scientists do nothing except produce reports. If it happens that those reports are in line with what the influential want to hear, they are acted upon. Apart from that, the scientists are irrelevant.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Because it is only the wealthy and particularly the influential who make actual policy which affect how everybody is supposed to live - green taxes, no new petrol cars after 2030, and suchlike money-making schemes.

 

The scientists do nothing except produce reports. If it happens that those reports are in line with what the influential want to hear, they are acted upon. Apart from that, the scientists are irrelevant.

Really? You got some kind of economic analysis for that? You think fossil fuel companies agree with your contention? Fact, there are huge economic developments in line with what climatologists are reporting. Just not huge enough. 

You offer nothing but conspiratorial assertions unbacked by an kind of factual analysis. You've got nothing.

[Eleftheros]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? You got some kind of economic analysis for that? You think fossil fuel companies agree with your contention? Fact, there are huge economic developments in line with what climatologists are reporting. Just not huge enough. 

You offer nothing but conspiratorial assertions unbacked by an kind of factual analysis. You've got nothing.

I have never mentioned the word "conspiracy" in any of my posts. For what it's worth, I don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy any more than the Mafia is a conspiracy. 

 

It is the wealthy and influential who run this world and decide matters pertaining to everyone's lives, not some guy doing linear regression on tree-ring data in his office.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I have never mentioned the word "conspiracy" in any of my posts. For what it's worth, I don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy any more than the Mafia is a conspiracy. 

 

It is the wealthy and influential who run this world and decide matters pertaining to everyone's lives, not some guy doing linear regression on tree-ring data in his office.

So the wealthy and influential are responsible for this but are acting individually?

And you don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy even though 99.9% of climatological research supports human caused global warming? So those 99.9% have independently arrived at their false conclusions? Really?

[Iamfalang]

"Untold human suffering"

 

Have they read these threads??????????????????????????????

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So the wealthy and influential are responsible for this but are acting individually?

And you don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy even though 99.9% of climatological research supports human caused global warming? So those 99.9% have independently arrived at their false conclusions? Really?

I didn't say they were acting independently, any more than members of the Mafia work independently.

 

It's more a question of working out where your best interests lie, on which side your bread is buttered, and most people don't have any difficulty making that decision for themselves.

 

And if we have to go back to the tiresome 99.9% figure, let me add that I am among the group that "supports human caused global warming". The question is so broad as to be meaningless.

 

The real question is how dangerous is it, can we do something about it, and how much will that cost?

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Very true, that.

 

When they climate hysterics start to actually LIVE as though they believed their cant, I would begin to take them seriously. When they stop issuing dire warnings about the rise in the sea levels while simultanously buying expensive seaside villas, for example. 

Regardless of your hysterics, Which policy maker was doing this simultaneously?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I didn't say they were acting independently, any more than members of the Mafia work independently.

 

It's more a question of working out where your best interests lie, on which side your bread is buttered, and most people don't have any difficulty making that decision for themselves.

So you have say, 50,000 climatologists who are not doing research because they are motivated to do actual science but because of the big bucks that everyone knows climatologists earn? And instead of challenging others' false research they contrive their results to support it? Do you have any idea of how bonkers your claim is? How much lockstep would be required for the scientific review process to function as you claim?

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

And if we have to go back to the tiresome 99.9% figure, let me add that I am among the group that "supports human caused global warming". The question is so broad as to be meaningless.

Why does a question being broad make it meaningless?  The rise in greenhouse gases due to human activity is warming the oceans and atmosphere at a far faster and increasingly fast pace than before the Industrial Revolution. What exactly is meaningless about that?

[Eleftheros]

Just now, placeholder said:

Why does a question being broad make it meaningless?  The rise in greenhouse gases due to human activity is warming the oceans and atmosphere at a far faster and increasingly fast pace than before the Industrial Revolution. What exactly is meaningless about that?

Because "human caused global warming" is a statement which almost everybody can agree with. 

 

Because it predicts nothing specific, supplies no information about suitable modes of action or their costs.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Because "human caused global warming" is a statement which almost everybody can agree with. 

 

Because it predicts nothing specific, supplies no information about suitable modes of action or their costs.

Feel free to dig in:

 

SPECIAL REPORT: GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 ºC

CH00

Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Because "human caused global warming" is a statement which almost everybody can agree with. 

 

Because it predicts nothing specific, supplies no information about suitable modes of action or their costs.

What are you on about? That Japanese scientist who got the Nobel Prize for his climate change research created an algorith that predicts the rise in global temperatures very accurately. In fact, climate models, even early ones, have mostly been very accurate in predicting the level of global warming. A few that weren't only got it wrong because they overestimated the quantity of greenhouse gases would be emitted into the atmosphere. They didn't foresee environmental laws requiring greater fuel efficiency and similar effects

Even 50 Years Ago, Climate Models Were Way More Accurate Than Deniers Claim

t's a common refrain from those who question mainstream climate science findings: The computer models scientists use to project future global warming are inaccurate and shouldn't be trusted to help policymakers decide whether to take potentially expensive steps to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

A new study effectively snuffs out that argument by looking at how climate models published between 1970 - before such models were the supercomputer-dependent behemoths of physical equations covering glaciers, ocean pH and vegetation, as they are today - and 2007.

https://www.sciencealert.com/decades-old-climate-models-did-make-accurate-predictions

 

As for prescribing suitable modes of action, again, you are just dead dead wrong.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

[internationalism]

as the same system remains, namely production for profit, and not for use, capitalists will be maximising profits at cost of environment, disregarding pollution and natural degradation they cause.

Because of energy crisis more dirty fuels are being used now. Nobody talks about pollution since war started.

 

But what worries me more than greenhouse warming is nuclear winter  - that one caused by politicians, generals and heavy industry capitalists doing armaments.

That would lower global temperature by 20C and wipe out the majority of population within just a few months. North of globe will perish, some of South will barely survive. Nature's "great adjustment" - as it will be known for future generations.

Even the present war is already causing famine across africa.

 

I think urging now about climate change is burring head in sand - present war, which can roll out to III world war, nuclear attacks of all sorts, should be on the UN topic.

[Eleftheros]

@placeholder

I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point, but I am discussing the phrase "human caused global warming" which is the entity which garners the fabled "99.9% consensus".

 

Of course it gets 99.9%. There's nothing to disagree with there. But it says nothing more substantive than that.

 

When it comes to more detailed analyses and so on, I am not going to play Credibility Bingo about this scientific study or that one, or this fact-checker versus that one,  because it is an endless game with no winner.