Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Exactly.` We' may not have the answer to over population effects (if any) on either the supply side, or the downstream effects of the waste products.
I don't believe there is a `humane' way of controlling the global human population. The Earth however is likely to find a way, but nature, by its very nature means it probably wont be humane.
Did you not look at any of the link I threw in your path, or did you not believe it? Economic development slows population growth, the numbers bear this out; the sooner the developing world can be developed the better it will be for everyone.I don't believe there is a `humane' way of controlling the global human population. The Earth however is likely to find a way, but nature, by its very nature means it probably wont be humane.
Edited for speelung.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 20th April 19:32
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/20/bbc-sta...
watched it live, they really are all barking.
My only beef is Roger needs to push more, he was in danger of being on the quiet sidelines with the shouty shrill from Labour....
watched it live, they really are all barking.
My only beef is Roger needs to push more, he was in danger of being on the quiet sidelines with the shouty shrill from Labour....
hidetheelephants said:
Did you not look at any of the link I threw in your path, or did you not believe it? Economic development slows population growth, the numbers bear this out; the sooner the developing world can be developed the better it will be for everyone.
Edited for speelung.
This is a good documentary, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7K4cgrjngEdited for speelung.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 20th April 19:32
hidetheelephants said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Exactly.` We' may not have the answer to over population effects (if any) on either the supply side, or the downstream effects of the waste products.
I don't believe there is a `humane' way of controlling the global human population. The Earth however is likely to find a way, but nature, by its very nature means it probably wont be humane.
Did you not look at any of the link I threw in your path, or did you not believe it? Economic development slows population growth, the numbers bear this out; the sooner the developing world can be developed the better it will be for everyone.I don't believe there is a `humane' way of controlling the global human population. The Earth however is likely to find a way, but nature, by its very nature means it probably wont be humane.
Edited for speelung.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 20th April 19:32
To be honest I don't really give a monkeys what we do, as I will be long gone by the time all this happens, But hearing ecomentalists whingeing on about climate change caused by humans, whilst at the same time ignoring the effects of human population levels which is likely to be the root cause of everything they tell us we must worry about, is irritating to say the least.
Unique species being endangered by human habitat encroachment NOW. Why is that happening?
Square miles of rain forest being cut down every day NOW. Why is that happening?
Square miles of forest being lost to hydro power pen stock lakes NOW. Why is that happening?
Oil and other minerals (all finite) being extracted at increasing, not decreasing rates NOW. Why is that happening?
Global, (not Europe centric) fish stocks declining NOW. Why is that happening?
If the UK and its roads for example are considered to be crowded now, as the saying goes
wait a bit, because you have`nt seen nothing yet.
P.s whilst economic development `may' have a slowing effect on population growth (except in reality it doesn't seem to be working here, or in the US and many other so called developed countries) It tends to INCREASE the take up of resources, as so called developed countries tend to want more oil / coal / living space / electricity / houses / flats / shops /schools / hospitals /roads/ water / cars/ planes- airports / trains /ships / TV`s / computers / entertainment / and of course food.
The Supreme Court has recently heard (last week iirc) a case against the UK Government over its failure to meet legal limits for air pollution. The case was brought by ClientEarth and relates to 16 areas of the country where the Government failed to apply to the EU/European Commission for a time extension to achieve target values for NOx.
A European Court of Justice previous ruling said that where a member EU State has not applied for an extension, it was for the national courts to “take any necessary measure, such as an order” to ensure the Government established a plan which would restrict the period during which the limit values were exceeded to “as short a period as possible”.
The final judgment is expected in one to three months and any order issued by the Supreme Court will be binding on the Government of the day. It would be poetic justice if this landed in the lap of Labour but I'd prefer not all things being equal.
An interesting point is how the UK gov't will restrict NOx emissions from coniferous forests, lawns and from burning vegetation in gardens. Emissions from these taken together exceed totals from transport and industrial sources. This matters because targets are exceeded by a wide margin, being 40% to 50% on the high side in places, but less than half of those levels is likely to be amenable to policy - unless we concrete over all lawns, keep gardeners indoors and chop down our own coniferous forests.
If they go for something similar on PM10s it'll be interesting to see how an Order and the subsequent Plan will prevent weather systems bringing dense trans-boundary pollution clouds up from the south i.e. europe, not all of which (in continental rather than political terms) is subject to the omnipotence of eurocrats.
A European Court of Justice previous ruling said that where a member EU State has not applied for an extension, it was for the national courts to “take any necessary measure, such as an order” to ensure the Government established a plan which would restrict the period during which the limit values were exceeded to “as short a period as possible”.
The final judgment is expected in one to three months and any order issued by the Supreme Court will be binding on the Government of the day. It would be poetic justice if this landed in the lap of Labour but I'd prefer not all things being equal.
An interesting point is how the UK gov't will restrict NOx emissions from coniferous forests, lawns and from burning vegetation in gardens. Emissions from these taken together exceed totals from transport and industrial sources. This matters because targets are exceeded by a wide margin, being 40% to 50% on the high side in places, but less than half of those levels is likely to be amenable to policy - unless we concrete over all lawns, keep gardeners indoors and chop down our own coniferous forests.
If they go for something similar on PM10s it'll be interesting to see how an Order and the subsequent Plan will prevent weather systems bringing dense trans-boundary pollution clouds up from the south i.e. europe, not all of which (in continental rather than political terms) is subject to the omnipotence of eurocrats.
Pan Pan Pan said:
But hearing ecomentalists whingeing on about climate change caused by humans, whilst at the same time ignoring the effects of human population levels which is likely to be the root cause of everything they tell us we must worry about, is irritating to say the least.
That's one thing I can certainly agree with.However the most committed of them are aware of the contradictions.
As I recall there is a chap in Colorado (naturally) who believes that the sustainable human population for the planet is about 300k people (or it may have been 3million but whatever it was a remarkably tiny number compared to current levels). Didnt stop him having 3 kids though.
In the UK we have the organisation that used to be known as the Optimum Population Trust (now rebranded as to the rather tired Population Matters http://www.populationmatters.org/about/) who also believe that world population needs to be cut and quickly. All sorts of popular luminaries on board with that one, starting with David Attenborough.
It would be interesting to ask them to list which of their relatives they would vote for to be eliminated first should their plans come to reality.
On a purely personal level I can think of plenty of people I would not miss. Most of them should, I would have thought, be keen to sacrifice themselves to save "the planet" based on their righteous outpourings. Associates of the Population Matters pressure group would, I would expect, be proud to join the front of the queue. The proposed Mars trip might be an option though too expensive and too slow to produce the desired results.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Global, (not Europe centric) fish stocks declining NOW. Why is that happening?
Well, if you read the report I linked to a page or so back there seem to be indicators that it isn't. In which case it's a bit dubious to keep repeating the mantra isn't it?Some interesting analysis here
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/wo...
you can see in the first graph that the rise is tailing off
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/wo...
you can see in the first graph that the rise is tailing off
Scuffers said:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/20/bbc-sta...
watched it live, they really are all barking.
My only beef is Roger needs to push more, he was in danger of being on the quiet sidelines with the shouty shrill from Labour....
How the hell was Roger Horror-bin allowed to be there as an implied neutral "expert" (hah!) commentator?watched it live, they really are all barking.
My only beef is Roger needs to push more, he was in danger of being on the quiet sidelines with the shouty shrill from Labour....
Aslo, I wonder how many of us knew, or rather didn't, that Labour - the party on the green side most likely to have real, major influence on policy - have as deluded a plan as the Greens, viz. the 'de-carbonsation' of UK energy?! Will see that when it happens... but I might not be able to see over the piled up bodies of frozen pensioners.
Religious extremists proclaim the end of days, again; it's almost certainly the last chance to save the earth from almost certain doom-laden doom, until the next one.
BAGWBC said:
The UN meeting in December is "the last chance" to avert dangerous climate change, according to the Earth League.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Wednesday 22 April 05:00
Pan Pan Pan said:
Except that the global population is growing at net rates of up between 247 and 346 thousand per DAY.
So what's your solution, do you think: Either bring the poor nations up to speed with education, cheap power and better lifestyle, or leave them in the Dark Ages and let them die?The more advanced country's get, the less children they breed?
It could be argued, with some degree of validity, that Green ideology is responsible for the deaths of thousands per day.
Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 22 April 15:43
LongQ said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
But hearing ecomentalists whingeing on about climate change caused by humans, whilst at the same time ignoring the effects of human population levels which is likely to be the root cause of everything they tell us we must worry about, is irritating to say the least.
That's one thing I can certainly agree with.However the most committed of them are aware of the contradictions.
As I recall there is a chap in Colorado (naturally) who believes that the sustainable human population for the planet is about 300k people (or it may have been 3million but whatever it was a remarkably tiny number compared to current levels). Didnt stop him having 3 kids though.
In the UK we have the organisation that used to be known as the Optimum Population Trust (now rebranded as to the rather tired Population Matters http://www.populationmatters.org/about/) who also believe that world population needs to be cut and quickly. All sorts of popular luminaries on board with that one, starting with David Attenborough.
It would be interesting to ask them to list which of their relatives they would vote for to be eliminated first should their plans come to reality.
On a purely personal level I can think of plenty of people I would not miss. Most of them should, I would have thought, be keen to sacrifice themselves to save "the planet" based on their righteous outpourings. Associates of the Population Matters pressure group would, I would expect, be proud to join the front of the queue. The proposed Mars trip might be an option though too expensive and too slow to produce the desired results.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Global, (not Europe centric) fish stocks declining NOW. Why is that happening?
Well, if you read the report I linked to a page or so back there seem to be indicators that it isn't. In which case it's a bit dubious to keep repeating the mantra isn't it?Even on the incidental viewing of a program about the Mekong river, the native Cambodians were stating that the fish they depend on, were getting scarcer and harder to find, so who is to be believed?
Additionally, how will adding another 3 to 4 billion people to the existing 7 billion on the planet (in just the next 30 to 40 years) who will want fish protein (and just about everything else one could think of) improve the situation?
Pan Pan Pan said:
Blib said:
Our population is growing due to nett immigration. So, just the same number of folk moving about the planet.
Except that the global population is growing at net rates of up between 247 and 346 thousand per DAY.chris watton said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Except that the global population is growing at net rates of up between 247 and 346 thousand per DAY.
So what's your solution, do you think: Either bring the poor nations up to speed with education, cheap power and better lifestyle, or leave them in the Dark Ages and let them die?The more advanced country's get, the less children they breed?
It could be argues, with some degree of validity, that Green ideology is responsible for the deaths of thousands per day.
We have no control whatsoever over global population levels, so like many species do, we will grow our numbers to take advantage of, and absorb whatever resources are available as quickly as possible, Once these are gone, what will happen would be anyone's guess.
Also once a country becomes `advanced' its population increase `may' slow down, but its take up of resources increases per capita. This why we are told that people in `advanced' countries use many times the resources per capita than those in undeveloped countries.
Until we learn how to produce children who don't want to eat or drink, wear clothes, who don't want a house to live in, don't want transport of any kind. don't want schools, universities, hospitals, who don't want to be warm in winter and cool in summer, children who don't want entertainment, computers, Ipads, pop festivals, cinemas, etc, etc, then each new human produced will be a resource consuming, emissions producing entity, which we are increasing globally at net rates up 346 thousand per DAY.
Personally it wont effect me, I will be long gone by the time things start to get `difficult' But increasing the take up of finite elements, which include the Earth itself
can it seems, only end up one way.
Blib said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Blib said:
Our population is growing due to nett immigration. So, just the same number of folk moving about the planet.
Except that the global population is growing at net rates of up between 247 and 346 thousand per DAY.When you mentioned the word planet, I assumed you were referring to overall population.
But in the UK It really does not whether the population growth is from the indigenous population, or immigration. the bottom line, is that the UK`s population has soared to over 64 million from circa 35 million since WW2, with 10 million added since 1964 and is now well on its way to 70 million. So the trend here, is the same as all around the globe.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I do not believe there is a solution. Ochone, ochone.
As you're repeating yourself I'll join in; economic growth slows and eventually stops population growth. As pithily presented by Hans Rosling the point at which this occurs is around the point of widespread affordability of electric washing machines and a reliable electricity and water supply to run them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff