Good luck with that idea. The youngsters like to breed.
Printable View
Good luck with that idea. The youngsters like to breed.
Globally (and locally) the birthrate is declining. There might be some real life Children of Men / Handmaids Tale shit going on… could be good for planet earth.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It is always easy to blame population growth for all of our problems, and I agree it is a concern. But the bigger problem is resource use. The vast majority of people on this planet have very small impacts. We, the wealthy, on the other hand, have huge impacts.
While this 2020 Oxfam report (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-relea...-half-humanity) only looks at carbon footprint, it could also be used to show ecological footprint:
"The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth.
"The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. "
The report goes on to say that the poorest 1/2 of the world's population account for only 7% of emissions.
So yes, we need to control population growth. But more crucially, we, the wealthy of the world, need to learn how to live more sustainably. We are the ones fucking things up, not those "other" people in the developing world.
fuck right off with your cei spam jong. oh, an organization that doesn't believe climate change exists has a blog post about cc not existing - wow.
Anyone predicting a future climate apocalypse is wrong--it's here now. Just ask the (ex)citizens of Greenville CA or Evia, Greece, or the families of those who died in the floods in Germany.
This is Malthusian nonsense. Globally, fertility has fallen substantially and it continues to fall. In large parts of the world, fertility is already at or below replacement level. All things being equal, population pressure isn't a big concern over the coming century, at least from a global perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Furthermore, we do have the necessary wealth and technology to decarbonize our economy pretty quickly.
What we have is a total failure of political will and an abdication of leadership from the world's richest countries. The US could have easily steered the world towards a lower-carbon future starting 25 or so years ago. But we didn't and now Denver has worse air quality than Calcutta and it pisses rain at Alta in January.
Within our lifetimes, we are realistically now choosing how much worse it will get. So far, we are making shitty choices.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
This is where we will make the most progress, IMO. It is impressive how much the Aspen billionaires "consume". Even the liberal ones lol. Limousine liberals is what they are called in DC.Quote:
Originally Posted by WMD
We cant get countries to agree on anything. We pass feel good bills, and china opens another coal mine to help replace demand that never went away. Good work!
Bravo!!!!!Quote:
What we have is a total failure of political will and an abdication of leadership from the world's richest countries. The US could have easily steered the world towards a lower-carbon future starting 25 or so years ago. But we didn't and now Denver has worse air quality than Calcutta and it pisses rain at Alta in January.
Within our lifetimes, we are realistically now choosing how much worse it will get. So far, we are making shitty choices.
Guess this has already been posted, but it's an interesting perspective to consider:
What if We Stopped Pretending the Climate Apocalypse Can Be Stopped? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cu...ped-pretending
Is Jong slaughter blurred?
how do you suggest we change China's policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Asspen
Climate scientists were furious when this article came out. They called bullshit big time and were frustrated that because he has a big name his opinions were published, even though they were not based in actual science. They were pissed that their actual fact-based opinions weren't published because America loves fame more than facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by NWFlow
China is changing their policies, just not fast enough (ours aren't changing fast enough either).Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
But a recently proposed bill in the senate would tax imports from China and other countries not doing enough on climate to encourage them to cut emissions to avoid the tax: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/c...arbon-tax.html
"Democrats Propose a Border Tax Based on Countries’ Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
"Senators introduced a plan on Monday to tax iron, steel and other imports from countries without ambitious climate laws."
Attachment 382003Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
lmao/ its easy to blame big business...but they are selling their stuff to you!
Wanna stop their war on Earth ...stop buying iphones ,and gasoline ,and plastics n stuff. Don't spend your money where your mouth is.
I could give a fuck; humans are on their way to extinction -just like the dinosaurs ,they died from burning coal too. :)
EARTH’S GONNA GET RAPEDQuote:
Originally Posted by JONG SLAUGHTER
Would be funnier
What happened to you man?
This is total bullshit spread by industry to shift blame from them to us. It is a well-documented strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by baron
Have you ever tried to buy an EV in Montana or Wyoming? Yeah, can't really do it. Your options are gas or diesel. Buy food not packaged in plastic? Not most places.
Consumers can only choose from options available to them and usually they are all bad for the planet.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...outputType=amp
.....Attachment 382025
Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app
Population growth has slowed or stopped in wealthier countries because of the advances in standard of living that make having children less desirable and less necessary. Meanwhile the poorer countries' populations continue to grow with people who want what we have. The US population continues to grow because of immigration (the census report is reportedly going to say that) as people with low carbon footprints become people with high carbon footprints. A big driver of migration is climate change and it's going to get worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirshredalot
Don't get me wrong--there is no question that carbon and methane production need to drastically decrease and essentially stop, but the problem is something we liberals don't understand but that the right does--that it's not just a matter of everybody putting solar panels on the roof. It's going to mean enormous changes in people's lives and that people aren't going to stand for it. If people won't wear a mask or get a simple shot, imagine what will happen when we tell them they can't fly across the country to see their families.
The great liberal lie--that we have the technology and all we need to do is pass some laws and we'll all be living in a carbon free world with no pain. And the idea that technology can solve the problem--that's how we got into this mess in the first place. I am not completely nihilistic. We have to try. And while population growth itself is not the root of the problem it sure will be easier if we could limit that as a variable and at least work with a stable, or at least decreasing population.
That worked out well for the Chinese. You may want to think about changing our consumer based economy while you’re at it. People having babies spend money on houses, cars, and soft goods. Aging populations hoard capital. Look at Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Russia has like five more years of military aged men then they drop to half what they have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Anyone have any tips on not being depressed about this shit? Especially those 30 or younger?
I’m having a hard time with this lately.. what are we to do? I truly feel like mass global strikes or a pandemic that takes out 25% of the world population is the only answer.. I don’t want to be negative, but how can we change the infrastructure for everyone in the next 10 years without pumping out a shit more carbon?
What gives me hope is seeing what happened to Kathmandu during “global quarantine”.. shit cleared up. I went to Nepal when I was in high school and that valley can get fucked with nasty air, but in a just a few weeks when the world was shut down things were clearing up.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
And i think their anger and frustration was justified. I'm not saying Franzen is 100% correct -- and i dont get the the vibe he's presenting his opinions as facts -- but i do think it's an interesting perspective. I work academically in a field closely related to "climate science" so it's easy to get depressed about the situation, and i find myself returning to the article for.a small amount of hope for a future even if we end up in a worst case scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by WMD
You can always hope for a volcanic event or some previously unresolved negative feedback mechanism to kick in, reverse warming, and stabilize the climate back to the late-Holocene conditions under which civilization flourished. Or hope a populous that spent the last year "debating" whether masks are effective against an airborne virus will accept rapid lifestyle alterations for the greater good of humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcub69
I would normally say focus especially on behavioral modifications to reduce your personal footprint, but I just got super bummed out after calculating that the international flight to see my family for which i just bought tickets will erase most of the footprint decreases I attempted to realize in the last year. So I don't really know. It's a tough situation.
The problem with major societal behavior change (which I’ve been saying is the only real solution for years) is there will never come a day when everyone jumps aboard on that plan. When your sacrifices are offset by those not bought into the plan it becomes somewhat of a worthless endeavor.
Trying to come to terms with the possibility that there might not be skiing in the lower 48 when I’m in my sixties.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
That makes me nauseous.Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
Earth day started in the seventiesQuote:
Originally Posted by bearcub69
Lots of news about rainforest destruction and the end of the earth. I had a similar depression.
At some point you say fuck it, here I am, I might as well live. Or you decrease the population by one.
We are parasites. And our self interest results in resource consumption and depletion
Not sure it will ever change.
Try to enjoy the ride.
This….Quote:
Originally Posted by NWFlow
Current front page on this forum has threads on Costa Rica, Switzerland, Morzine, and Chile.
We are all hypocrites.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
There has also been a massive decline in fertility in the developing world that has accompanied a huge reduction in poverty. We don't have the high YoY population growth that we saw in the middle of the 20th century any more, and I don't think there is a reason to believe that it will return.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
We are 100 percent in agreement that as people get richer, they consume more crap. Most of this pressure isn't from immigration to rich countries (which isn't a big number in terms of the world). It's from poor, populous countries rapidly becoming richer. Poverty sucks! That's a good thing!
We have the technology to go full zero-emissions in power generation and cars right now. That's already where all the growth is in those sectors. BEV cars are blindingly fast and utility scale renewable power is clean and cheap. And there are commercially-viable battery electric plane startups already running and going into production - they're targeting small plane short haul routes initially. My understanding is that cement and steel manufacturing technology needs a lot of help, and I also think we need breakthroughs in carbon sequestration. But I do not see any theoretical reason why these technical problems can't be solved. We have the greatest engineering capacity in human history, we already have power generation solved, etc.
I agree with you that it is necessary to gore someone's ox, though. We need to heavily tax carbon emissions broadly and use that money to do two things. 1. Refund it to American consumers to compensate them. 2. You can heavily subsidize basic r&d at research universities, NREL, etc. I don't think the average American consumer would be worse off if we did this.
The real problem - in my view - is that the American oil and gas sector has outsized political influence. They've been subsidized heavily for many decades. To the extent that we have been failing the challenge in front of our country - and the world - it has been a classic political economy question. The oil and gas industry has concentrated benefits that they use to buy off the politicians. The costs are diffuse - every American and every person on Earth is made worse off by the pollution.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
What about habitat destruction? Even if we are all driving and flying around in EVs, every year there is less and less habitat available for non-humans on earth. I don't see how humans can symbiotically live on this planet while mowing down forests and wetlands for homes, driveways, roads, chairlifts, trails, ect. Even if population is shrinking, that just means we will all have longer driveways in the future.
This is how you stay sane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Humans will survive and flourish in a warmer climate, so will more plants which love CO2.
Not worried about us parasites as much as a geologic cataclysm. Miss one growing season due to ash in the sky, and it will get Mad Max out there...quickly.
I remember watching an executive from Anadarko on C-SPAN back in college (2001) and he said "if you ignore the long term environmental impacts fossil fuels are still the cheapest, most efficient fuels we have in the short term, and 99% of consumers think in the short term. Until you make fossil fuels economically unviable or undesirable people will keep burning them until we run out." There's talk every summer of high gas prices changing some peoples travel habits. If we had $8-$9-a-gallon gas I bet lots of habits would be changing very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirshredalot
dont procreateQuote:
Originally Posted by bearcub69
keep hustlin for nickles and dimes
and turn it up to 11
Habitat destruction is a related problem, but it's not the same problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
But we can fit many more people in less space if we build cities like Copenhagen instead of Phoenix. A bonus is that people in Copenhagen enjoy a better quality of life and use less energy for housing and transportation.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
It's always easier to blame some bogeyman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirshredalot
The fact remains that what you promise--technological solutions that will let people in the wealthy countries go on living their lives like before--is a pipe dream. Even if all the technology can be scaled up enough to replace carbon fuels without causing even more environmental damage in the process, which I think unlikely, doing so will consume all of people's disposable income and time; lives will have to revolve around coping with and stabilizing global warming to the exclusion of all else. Think of the scene in Black Mirror where most people spend their days pedaling stationary bikes to generate electricity.
Things were going along swimmingly for a few hundred thousand years (maybe not so swimmingly if the eruption of a supervolcano reduced the population of Homo sapiens to 1000 couples or so about 70,000 years ago) until someone got the bright idea to start planting seeds and it's been downhill ever since. Population exploded but instead of the natural mechanism that keep populations in check working, ever increasing technology has staved off disaster--temporarily. The technology has allowed the elites of the planet to live increasingly rich and comfortable lives while the great majority of people have lived in ever increasing misery. And all of that has happened in a blink of an eye in the time-span of life on the planet.
My wife finally woke up to this issue this year with the heat in the PNW. (Which is totally emblematic of the issue. No one wants to change until it impacts them and then it is too late.)
I’ve been wanting to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, buy less shit, save energy, etc and she is finally on board. EV car in our future, talking about what locations are more climate change resilient than our current location, etc.
I’d say that on the existential dread front you can do one of two things:
Say fuck it like Core Shot, “live your life” and not give a single fuck about house size, car size, energy consumption, etc
Or, you can make small incremental changes in your life that are basically not painful. EV cars, energy efficiency, reduce consumption, etc. Those small incremental changes make bigger differences when aggregated with others doing the same and may help avoid the worst case scenarios.
Look at the plans and goals of various agreements and implement those in your life.
I’m concerned about the ramifications for my kids of doing nothing, so I can’t just have this laid back “it will all shake itself out” attitude.
This is just not true. Right now, under existing policies and with current technologies, it is cheaper to build utility-scale wind and solar than it is to build coal or natural gas power plants. Electric cars and trucks that run off this cleaner power grid are rapidly taking over the industry. We have already decoupled GDP growth from emissions growth in this country. This isn't speculative: this is right now. And the technology is only getting cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
You're vastly underestimating how wealthy our society is and how good our corporate sector is at technological refinement and finding efficiency. Simultaneously, I think you're underestimating the degree to which the pollution impoverishes us. Tearing the fruit trees out in California's central valley because there is no water is wildly expensive and wasteful. So is treating people in the hospital for heat stroke, hardening levees against floods, accommodating refugees from near the equator, etc. Obviously, we have crossed the threshold where we are already paying for some of these costs. We will pay for more of them going forward if we don't continue to make changes - and rapidly.
Certainly, our artificially cheap oil and gas subsidizes all the cheap crap at WalMart and on Amazon. Making the producers of these goods pay a stiff fee for the emissions they produce will make things more expensive for consumers. That's why the serious proposals to do so refund the money to consumers via a rebate.
But this isn't a Black Mirror episode we are discussing - we are talking about paying somewhat more for consumer goods and then getting a check from the IRS to make us whole, at least for a while. Yes, international airfares would go up in the near-term, but that's simply not a dystopian sci-fi nightmare. In the medium to long term, we obviously end up much better off.
To be clear, I am not pointing the finger at a bogeyman. Our fucked up politics are our fault and we need to fix them.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Saul Griffith is one of the foremost experts on US energy use in the world. He disagrees with you:Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
https://youtu.be/Qg-p4ZbQ1HU
The IPCC also thinks we can address climate change without having major impacts on people's lives. That is why in all scenarios int their modeling for the recently released AR6, emissions increase for at least the next 3 decades. Cutting emissions faster than that is possible and would stop warming sooner, and the report states very clearly that whenever net zero is reached, temperatures will stop increasing. But cutting emissions faster would require sacrifices, and the IPCC economists and social scientists don't think people are willing to sacrifice anything to avoid increasing climate disasters.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...climate-changeQuote:
Over the past few years, an international team of climate scientists, economists and energy systems modellers have built a range of new “pathways” that examine how global society, demographics and economics might change over the next century. They are collectively known as the “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” (SSPs).
The SSPs are based on five narratives describing broad socioeconomic trends that could shape future society. These are intended to span the range of plausible futures.
They include: a world of sustainability-focused growth and equality (SSP1); a “middle of the road” world where trends broadly follow their historical patterns (SSP2); a fragmented world of “resurgent nationalism” (SSP3); a world of ever-increasing inequality (SSP4); and a world of rapid and unconstrained growth in economic output and energy use (SSP5).
The narrative for each is described in detail below:
SSP narratives
Narratives for each Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, from Riahi et al 2017.
SSP1 Sustainability – Taking the Green Road (Low challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
The world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate the demographic transition, and the emphasis on economic growth shifts toward a broader emphasis on human well-being. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower resource and energy intensity.SSP2 Middle of the Road (Medium challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
The world follows a path in which social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. Development and income growth proceeds unevenly, with some countries making relatively good progress while others fall short of expectations. Global and national institutions work toward but make slow progress in achieving sustainable development goals. Environmental systems experience degradation, although there are some improvements and overall the intensity of resource and energy use declines. Global population growth is moderate and levels off in the second half of the century. Income inequality persists or improves only slowly and challenges to reducing vulnerability to societal and environmental changes remain.SSP3 Regional Rivalry – A Rocky Road (High challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
A resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts push countries to increasingly focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues. Policies shift over time to become increasingly oriented toward national and regional security issues. Countries focus on achieving energy and food security goals within their own regions at the expense of broader-based development. Investments in education and technological development decline. Economic development is slow, consumption is material-intensive, and inequalities persist or worsen over time. Population growth is low in industrialized and high in developing countries. A low international priority for addressing environmental concerns leads to strong environmental degradation in some regions.SSP4 Inequality – A Road Divided (Low challenges to mitigation, high challenges to adaptation)
Highly unequal investments in human capital, combined with increasing disparities in economic opportunity and political power, lead to increasing inequalities and stratification both across and within countries. Over time, a gap widens between an internationally-connected society that contributes to knowledge- and capital-intensive sectors of the global economy, and a fragmented collection of lower-income, poorly educated societies that work in a labor intensive, low-tech economy. Social cohesion degrades and conflict and unrest become increasingly common. Technology development is high in the high-tech economy and sectors. The globally connected energy sector diversifies, with investments in both carbon-intensive fuels like coal and unconventional oil, but also low-carbon energy sources. Environmental policies focus on local issues around middle and high income areas.SSP5 Fossil-fueled Development – Taking the Highway (High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation)
This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.
If you care about climate change, make your home all-electric. It saves just as much carbon as electrifying your vehicle...more in the high country...and is cheaper (especially if you have AC.)
- If you're replacing or adding an air conditioner, make it a heat pump. Keep the furnace as backup if you're scared.
- If you're replacing your furnace, make it a heat pump and enjoy some air conditioning on smoke days
- If you're replacing your water heater, go with a heat pump water heater
- If you're replacing your cooktop, go induction
- If you're replacing your dryer, go with a low amp combo unit; or an electric dryer. Add a booster fan on the vent if you're scared.
On the vehicle side, I know you don't want to hear it, consider a unibody and enjoy the extra 10 mpg.