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

[Lacessit]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are missing the efficiency gains.

 

Efficiency of electrical generation and electric cars v efficiency of internal combustion engine.

 

Sorry, not correct. EV's are no more efficient than ICE cars when they are refueled from a coal, oil or gas burning power station. It's only when they are recharged from nuclear or renewable power stations the claim of efficiency stacks up. In point of fact, the energy input into the manufacture of an EV is greater than that of of an ICE, those big batteries require a lot of carbon emissions to make.

 

The running COST of an EV is considerably less, however, that should not be confused with efficiency.

 

The car industry aspect has limited significance anyway. If I was to replace every ICE in Australia with an EV overnight, it would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a mere 8%. Fossil-fuelled generators are the real culprits.

 

It's irrelevant to me anyway. I'll be dead before the real <deleted> happens. It's just the stupidity and ignorance of climate deniers that would not know the laws of thermodynamics from a teapot cosy that depresses me.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Good for you. Sit back and relax nobody is forcing you to do anything else. I'll carry on doing what I am doing

That's fine. I just get PO at government using climate change to make my life worse.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nobody is being forced to do anything that could make a difference really.
 

As a species we have become reliant on a way of living that is destroying the climate and our unwillingness or inability to change is why targets are not being met. 

 

Farmers are going to be forced to pay stupid "fart tax" which will force some off the land, and good farm land is being bought to plant trees for stupid "carbon credits" which is a nonsense, because it won't make a difference really.

I agree that our way of life is not good for the planet, but the best thing to do is have less people, and that's not even being discussed.

 

I've said it before, but IMO a good start would be banning all air travel for holidays. However, that's not going to happen, is it?

Edited October 30, 2022 by thaibeachlovers

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's fine. I just get PO at government using climate change to make my life worse.

aaaah.....the trials and tribulations of living in the real world can be a drag I know

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

aaaah.....the trials and tribulations of living in the real world can be a drag I know

It's not the "real world". People in government have no idea how normal people live, IMO, so invent BS things that make our lives worse, while being insulated from being affected themselves because they give themselves very large wages.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours 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.  

So, carry on breeding then, and when humanity is becoming extinct because of overpopulation don't complain. Doesn't matter to me anyway as I won't be around to suffer.

 

That's nonsense anyway. The world functioned quite well with a population of 3 billion in the 50s.

 

shortages of care........................workers to see to the needs of seniors,

Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are millions of people that would just love to come and do that job if allowed.

It doesn't take a degree to do that.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours 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

I'll be very happy the day the government taxes the wealthy for any consumption over the average, but as the government is now full of the wealthy I doubt that's ever going to happen.

Edited October 30, 2022 by thaibeachlovers

[BritManToo]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've said it before, but IMO a good start would be banning all air travel for holidays. However, that's not going to happen, is it?

I would ban all recreational travel.

And ban the private ownership of motor vehicles.

Then force everyone to live within cycling/walking distance of where they work.

Also limit all housing to no more than 1 bedroom per person.

If you have more than that, you get assigned a homeless person or refugee to live with you.

This would also apply to National Trust, Royal and Church property.

 

Don't believe in Global Warming (Karl didn't write about it), but do believe in redistribution of land and wealth.

Edited October 30, 2022 by BritManToo

[JackGats]

14 hours 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.  

Every unborn life is a prey less for that suffering maximising machine we call "life". Time to say no to the tragedy of sentient life!

 

Climate is a red herring. The Earth is not an air-conditioner for the human animal, surprise surprise. It will at all times and everywhere be either too cold or too hot.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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

I understand there used to be an effort to reduce population in India, but it was attacked for being against the human right to breed without restraint and abandoned.

I saw a program about it on Al Jazeera. Back when Indira Ghandi was PM.

Even China no longer tries to control population growth.

 

Wealthy countries have reducing populations because women are educated and no longer want to have lots of, if any, children. There is probably no need for a program to reduce reproduction in wealthy countries.

[Bluespunk]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree that our way of life is not good for the planet, but the best thing to do is have less people, and that's not even being discussed.

I disagree.

 

We need to change the way we live.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

I disagree.

 

We need to change the way we live.

Good luck with that in a world where people in poor countries want to move to western countries so they can live the way we do now.

 

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wealthy countries have reducing populations because women are educated and no longer want to have lots of, if any, children. There is probably no need for a program to reduce reproduction in wealthy countries.

Would disagree,

Wealthy countries have reducing populations because of abortion, welfare and government make-work jobs for women. The end of every civilisation is caused by allowing women to make choices.

Edited October 30, 2022 by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Would disagree,

Wealthy countries have reducing populations because of welfare and government make-work jobs for women.

Disagree. Welfare encourages women to have babies, as they get money for them.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours 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 when the wealthy, such as a former POTUS, buys waterfront land it indicates to the rest of us that they don't actually believe in what they preach.

[Boomer6969]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:30 AM, Bluespunk said:

Too many promises not being met.

 

Even those promises are probably not enough to stop climate disasters becoming more frequent. 
 

Getting to the point of no return.  

Honestly I don't get @jaideedave's LOL emoticon. A bit thick IMHO.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

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

The real question- exactly right.

Too often, the real question is overlooked by those wanting to make money from the situation. Are electric cars a better option than cars run on hydrogen? Probably not, but I doubt it makes much difference when billions can be made from electric cars.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, 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?

IMO meaningless because whatever the cause, what can we do that would actually make a difference? Even if we stopped using any fossil fuel yesterday, it would take decades, if not centuries to make an iota of difference IMO. Of course it wouldn't matter to many as millions/ ?billions would die from lack of food, given agriculture is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuel to grow, process and transport to where food is eaten.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've said it before, but IMO a good start would be banning all air travel for holidays. However, that's not going to happen, is it?

I forgot to add that all non perishable cargo could be transported by sailing ship. New technology means that they don't need large crews.

They would have engines, but only used in the event of no wind.

Ships put massive amounts of pollution into the air.

[userabcd]

Worlds baby boom never stopped.

 

 

Every new initiative implemented by govt and private industry contributes additionally to global warming.

 

There are just too many consumers the world over all wanting global warming stuff (making more babies, controlling and restricting wildlife, housing, land, travel, cars, phones, jobs, water, electricity holidays, offices, farms, etc..)

 

Deforestation in SE Asia

 

Similar is happening in South America.

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by userabcd

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours 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? 

Climatologists are not telling him what he’s been told to listen to.

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Good luck with that in a world where people in poor countries want to move to western countries so they can live the way we do now.

 

Then let's change the way we live to a more sustainable model.

 

All welcome to take part as far as I'm concerned.

[JackGats]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Disagree. Welfare encourages women to have babies, as they get money for them.

Funny nobody ever asks "Isn't it men who don't want to marry and/or have children anymore?.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

@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.

 

But you will be hard put to find a serious scientific study which says "the world is gonna end in 12 years" due to climate change, which is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks, or any of the other apocalyptic predictions which gleefully fill the pages of the world's press. 

You're not going to play Credibility Bingo? Like you've got an expert opinion on the science? There are thousands of fact-checkers called reviewers. And the leading scientific journals uphold what the IPCC reports say.

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, userabcd said:

Worlds baby boom never stopped.

 

 

Every new initiative implemented by govt and private industry contributes additionally to global warming.

 

There are just too many consumers the world over all wanting global warming stuff (making more babies, controlling and restricting wildlife, housing, land, travel, cars, phones, jobs, water, electricity holidays, offices, farms, etc..)

 

Deforestation in SE Asia

 

Similar is happening in South America.

 

 

 

Except consumers in the developed world obviously consume a lot more than those in the developing world. Sub Saharan Africa's share of world GDP is 3.13%

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I forgot to add that all non perishable cargo could be transported by sailing ship. New technology means that they don't need large crews.

They would have engines, but only used in the event of no wind.

Ships put massive amounts of pollution into the air.

Actually, they are beginning to put advanced sails on ships to cut fuel consumption.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Sorry, not correct. EV's are no more efficient than ICE cars when they are refueled from a coal, oil or gas burning power station. It's only when they are recharged from nuclear or renewable power stations the claim of efficiency stacks up. In point of fact, the energy input into the manufacture of an EV is greater than that of of an ICE, those big batteries require a lot of carbon emissions to make.

 

The running COST of an EV is considerably less, however, that should not be confused with efficiency.

 

The car industry aspect has limited significance anyway. If I was to replace every ICE in Australia with an EV overnight, it would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a mere 8%. Fossil-fuelled generators are the real culprits.

 

It's irrelevant to me anyway. I'll be dead before the real <deleted> happens. It's just the stupidity and ignorance of climate deniers that would not know the laws of thermodynamics from a teapot cosy that depresses me.

Yes, Electric Cars Are Cleaner, Even When The Power Comes From Coal

Under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional petrol cars in 95% of the world, the study finds.

The only exceptions are countries such as Poland, where the electricity network is still mostly based on coal-fired power generation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/?sh=1bca7ab2320b

[DezLez]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I would ban all recreational travel.

And ban the private ownership of motor vehicles.

Then force everyone to live within cycling/walking distance of where they work.

Also limit all housing to no more than 1 bedroom per person.

If you have more than that, you get assigned a homeless person or refugee to live with you.

This would also apply to National Trust, Royal and Church property.

 

Don't believe in Global Warming (Karl didn't write about it), but do believe in redistribution of land and wealth.

That is basically what was introduced in Russia as a result of the "Great October Socialist Revolution" and look how many deaths that caused!

[DezLez]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I would ban all recreational travel.

And ban the private ownership of motor vehicles.

Then force everyone to live within cycling/walking distance of where they work.

Also limit all housing to no more than 1 bedroom per person.

And of course that is how you and your family live now and have always lived!

????

[onthedarkside]

A post with a misleading characterization of a news report has been removed, along with several ensuing replies.