The environment - the political debate

[Esceptico]

I watched the David Attenborough film on Netflix yesterday (A Life on our Planet). Pretty depressing really. Within his lifetime he has seen the human population increase almost 300% from 2 billion to almost 8 billion and more worryingly a reduction in the wild from 65% to now just 35% of the planet. Some of the numbers were staggering - such as 96% of the mass of mammals on the planet equates to humans and our domesticated animals (mainly food) ie all the wild animals now only account for 4%. 70% of birds by weight are domesticated (mainly chickens). The oceans have been devastated with more than 90% of large fish having disappeared.

Humans are systematically destroying their home. There is nowhere else for us to go. As Attenborough put it very succinctly - saving the environment is not about saving nature, it is about saving us. That is an obvious truth yet the environment does not feature at the top of political agendas and people who fight for the environment are dismissed as idiots or idealists by many (certainly on here).

What is wrong with humans?

[loafer123]

For some bizarre reason, it is acceptable to talk about the deteriorating environment, driving electric cars, wind power and lots of other things which can be done to help, but it is not acceptable to talk about the real reason which is too many people.

[Vanden Saab]

Esceptico said:

I watched the David Attenborough film on Netflix yesterday (A Life on our Planet). Pretty depressing really. Within his lifetime he has seen the human population increase almost 300% from 2 billion to almost 8 billion and more worryingly a reduction in the wild from 65% to now just 35% of the planet. Some of the numbers were staggering - such as 96% of the mass of mammals on the planet equates to humans and our domesticated animals (mainly food) ie all the wild animals now only account for 4%. 70% of birds by weight are domesticated (mainly chickens). The oceans have been devastated with more than 90% of large fish having disappeared.

Humans are systematically destroying their home. There is nowhere else for us to go. As Attenborough put it very succinctly - saving the environment is not about saving nature, it is about saving us. That is an obvious truth yet the environment does not feature at the top of political agendas and people who fight for the environment are dismissed as idiots or idealists by many (certainly on here).

What is wrong with humans?

Using statistics strangely, that is what is wrong... A few questions if I may
what is the definition of 'the wild'?
what percentage of the 96% is made up of humans and how many voles do you get to a cow?
How many goldfinches do you get per turkey?
I hope your 90% claim is not from the totally discredited Meyers et.al. 2003... please tell me it isn't from that... if it is you really should read this... https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/63/8/1373...

[Fittster]

loafer123 said:

For some bizarre reason, it is acceptable to talk about the deteriorating environment, driving electric cars, wind power and lots of other things which can be done to help, but it is not acceptable to talk about the real reason which is too many people.

Because the birth rate is massively declining.

However few people won't do less damage to the planet if they all have a life style similar to what those in the west enjoy today.

[Kawasicki]

Most environmental groups are political tools, sadly.

CO2 is the best lever ever for certain politically motivated people to gain advantage. It has been given centre stage and other environmental concerns have suffered as a result.

Do you really think that if a transparent fund was set up to visibly provide protected habitat for wildlife that it would come up with much resistance here on PH?

Remove 1% CO2 taxation and replace it with a 1% habitat provision tax. Not complicated.

[vonuber]

Vanden Saab said:

Using statistics strangely, that is what is wrong... A few questions if I may
what is the definition of 'the wild'?
what percentage of the 96% is made up of humans and how many voles do you get to a cow?
How many goldfinches do you get per turkey?
I hope your 90% claim is not from the totally discredited Meyers et.al. 2003... please tell me it isn't from that... if it is you really should read this... https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/63/8/1373...

Gosh, only took the third post.

[Esceptico]

loafer123 said:

For some bizarre reason, it is acceptable to talk about the deteriorating environment, driving electric cars, wind power and lots of other things which can be done to help, but it is not acceptable to talk about the real reason which is too many people.

That isn’t the real reason. It is one factor. We could reverse the damage with the same or larger human population. However it would mean making significant changes to the way we live.

[Esceptico]

Vanden Saab said:

Using statistics strangely, that is what is wrong... A few questions if I may
what is the definition of 'the wild'?
what percentage of the 96% is made up of humans and how many voles do you get to a cow?
How many goldfinches do you get per turkey?
I hope your 90% claim is not from the totally discredited Meyers et.al. 2003... please tell me it isn't from that... if it is you really should read this... https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/63/8/1373...

I am going to take a stab and say “wild” means not inhabited by humans, built up or under agriculture. Surely not too difficult a concept: pristine rainforest - wild, Slough - not wild (at least for this definition).

Humans make up about 33% of the 96% (if I recall the numbers correctly).

Your other questions are clearly facetious.

Clearly the best approach when faced with environmental collapse is to quibble about definitions and make stupid comments rather than deal with the issue. That is the NP&E way.

[nikaiyo2]

I am not sure comparing wild birds to domestic birds by mass is that meaningful.

Surely the production of poultry meat skews this massively and an increase in meat production would alter that ratio massively and not really show anything about the state of wild bird populations.

[BrassMan]

Kawasicki said:

Do you really think that if a transparent fund was set up to visibly provide protected habitat for wildlife that it would come up with much resistance here on PH?

Have another one.


I don't know about "much" but the opposition would be vocal.

[grumbledoak]

Beyond the useful idiots this is all about money and power.

From the UN to Wind Power to the Great Reset to the proposed "Eat Lancet" diet. More profit and power for the Davos class. Grinding poverty for the masses.

[Dont Panic]

Esceptico said:

Clearly the best approach when faced with environmental collapse is to quibble about definitions and make stupid comments rather than deal with the issue. That is the NP&E way.

What environmental collapse?

[cavey76]

Esceptico said:

I watched the David Attenborough film on Netflix yesterday (A Life on our Planet). Pretty depressing really. Within his lifetime he has seen the human population increase almost 300% from 2 billion to almost 8 billion and more worryingly a reduction in the wild from 65% to now just 35% of the planet. Some of the numbers were staggering - such as 96% of the mass of mammals on the planet equates to humans and our domesticated animals (mainly food) ie all the wild animals now only account for 4%. 70% of birds by weight are domesticated (mainly chickens). The oceans have been devastated with more than 90% of large fish having disappeared.

Humans are systematically destroying their home. There is nowhere else for us to go. As Attenborough put it very succinctly - saving the environment is not about saving nature, it is about saving us. That is an obvious truth yet the environment does not feature at the top of political agendas and people who fight for the environment are dismissed as idiots or idealists by many (certainly on here).

What is wrong with humans?

This isnt an attack but to pick out one of your points

People who fight for the environment are dismissed as idiots or idealists - in the main because they are at best hugely misguided but possibly are idiots. To one of the other posters comments the environment has become a political topic where the campaigners misuse the data in the same way our common or garden politicians do. Then when there incorrect assertion of fact is picked up by mainstream politicians it becomes considered fact and the motivation of anyone who questions is used as a means to attack their position. Effectively both sides wont even entertain the others position.


appropos to nothing but insights gained from recent reading on the subject.

The majority of the campaigners opinions come with the basal assumption that humans(or animals) dont adapt. So for instance we hear stories of mass flooding and hundreds of millions displaced or drowned by sea level rises. This assumes humanity sits on its hoop an waits to be drowned rather than thinking, "oi oi, here comes the sea, lets build a bigger sea wall, put our houses on stilts or move further up a hill". When you take that into account the %age of humanity impacted is greatly reduced.

Similarly - animal adaption. The plight of the polar bear often used to tug at the heart strings. They survived the last intra ice age when temps were higher than now and their numbers are acknowledged as being higher than they have ever been. Apologies i dont have quotes to hand but you have to question a lot of the message that is presented as fact.

Think the objective of carbon neutral. Its simply unachievable but making a promise that will never need to be stood up to allows Jactina Arden or Obama to look a hero in the moment. Kyota, Paris, Rio have never done anything but set unsustainble ambition. NZs commitment to carbon neutrality will, if acted upon cost a country the size of Ireland trillions. It will be quietly dropped in the coming years or someone will be forced to publicly drop it and they'll be the baddie versus the current administrations hero.

Think organisations like Greenpeace, they tried to get some small Indian villages to run on solar but its bks. Greenpeace trumped a victory for microgrids and sustainable energy...within a few weeks the villagers rebelled said this is all bks and can we have real electricity please as the solar couldnt power a fraction of their needs.

A lot of the environmental activism is western organisations with a romantic ideal that Pablo in the jungle should stay an organic small holding farmer but Pablo thinks f**k that. I've three daughters and i want them to go to school, i am gonna use some of them thar pesticides to ensure i get a good crop and increase my yield.

[Vanden Saab]

Esceptico said:

Vanden Saab said:

Using statistics strangely, that is what is wrong... A few questions if I may
what is the definition of 'the wild'?
what percentage of the 96% is made up of humans and how many voles do you get to a cow?
How many goldfinches do you get per turkey?
I hope your 90% claim is not from the totally discredited Meyers et.al. 2003... please tell me it isn't from that... if it is you really should read this... https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/63/8/1373...

I am going to take a stab and say “wild” means not inhabited by humans, built up or under agriculture. Surely not too difficult a concept: pristine rainforest - wild, Slough - not wild (at least for this definition).

Humans make up about 33% of the 96% (if I recall the numbers correctly).

Your other questions are clearly facetious.

Clearly the best approach when faced with environmental collapse is to quibble about definitions and make stupid comments rather than deal with the issue. That is the NP&E way.

Not at all. Personally MrsVS and myself spend a lot of time in the environment, it is everywhere, we take pictures of Buzzards and red kites birds that were all but extinct and have been re-introduced by the humans you are so dismissive of, along with the myriad of smaller birds and other animals that thrive in our countryside.
As a civilisation matures it has the time and money to properly look after the environment it lives in. What you and your heroes are trying to do is to stop other countries reaching our stage of development and therefore having the time and money to properly look after the world around them. That they do this by filling peoples heads with bullst facts and figures which make no sense to anyone with a brain and are roundly dis-believed is no help at all.
The only way forward is to tell the truth, that we are already good at looking after the world around us but we can still do better by helping developing countries to a higher standard of living so that they can also reap the benefits of their part of the world. Telling people that they have already destroyed the world beyond the point of no return is not an incentive to do better. Neither is pretending that evolution is a static thing to be preserved at all costs.

[GroundZero]

As mentioned already, the root problem with the environment (and society to an extent) is too many humans and no politician is brave enough to go anywhere near the issue.
Instead politicians/activists approach the issue by trying to target resultant issues of over-population, of which there are many to target but all will only become a pointless case of a circle of diminishing returns.

So the problems of over-population will continue to compound until politicians around the world have no other choice but to face the issue head on.

But what can humanity possibly do that would be humaine, moral and internationally accepted? I suppose as the balance tips due to ever increasing population and the strain on food, water, minerals etc. passes breaking point then will it be too late, or will that be the point the international community acts? (Or maybe way before that there would be enough pressure for nations to go to war to the point they wipe out a sizeable portion of the problem with nukes?)

[cavey76]

GroundZero said:

As mentioned already, the root problem with the environment (and society to an extent) is too many humans and no politician is brave enough to go anywhere near the issue.
Instead politicians/activists approach the issue by trying to target resultant issues of over-population, of which there are many to target but all will only become a pointless case of a circle of diminishing returns.

So the problems of over-population will continue to compound until politicians around the world have no other choice but to face the issue head on.

But what can humanity possibly do that would be humaine, moral and internationally accepted? I suppose as the balance tips due to ever increasing population and the strain on food, water, minerals etc. passes breaking point then will it be too late, or will that be the point the international community acts? (Or maybe way before that there would be enough pressure for nations to go to war to the point they wipe out a sizeable portion of the problem with nukes?)

Population growth is slowing..

...what should a brave politician suggest, a cull? Who first? Gingers, greenpeace members or pistonheaders?

Another poster points out we are hand wringing from a position of comfort and advancement because we are (typically) at the income pinnacle in the West.

[Esceptico]

Dont Panic said:

What environmental collapse?

The one currently under way. It doesn’t happen overnight. But then you are an AGW denier and a Trump supporter so dealing with reality or recognising truths not really one of your strengths.

[Vanden Saab]

Esceptico said:

Dont Panic said:

What environmental collapse?

The one currently under way. It doesn’t happen overnight. But then you are an AGW denier and a Trump supporter so dealing with reality or recognising truths not really one of your strengths.

You were doing so well...

[GroundZero]

cavey76 said:

...what should a brave politician suggest, a cull? Who first? Gingers, greenpeace members or pistonheaders?

If you think that is what a politician would end up doing then I wouldn't like to be around when it happens.
But I guess if the issue is approached then legislation around birth limits may arise? (I really don't know, the issue is complex and requires a common moralistic and sustainable approach).

[cavey76]

GroundZero said:

cavey76 said:

...what should a brave politician suggest, a cull? Who first? Gingers, greenpeace members or pistonheaders?

If you think that is what a politician would end up doing then I wouldn't like to be around when it happens.
But I guess if the issue is approached then legislation around birth limits may arise? (I really don't know, the issue is complex and requires a common moralistic and sustainable approach).

I was being flippant 😀

Mostly agreed the issue is complex but population isnt. It is widely acknowledged that population growth is in dramatic decline.

Yes its still going up but not as fast as it once was.