Climate Change Thread

[Biffer]

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

The problem isn't even 'over-consumption', since we're actually producing far more with far fewer resources (something the Attenboroughs of this world are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend).

The real problem is scare-mongering.

Right, so the fires and flooding, and more particularly the numbers, intensities and frequency of the fires and flooding is just scaremongering is it?

Climate campaigners were accused of scaremongering 10-20 years ago when they said extreme weather events would become more common. Oh, look, they’re now more common.

You’re as wrong now as the critics were then.

[Torquemada 1420]

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

Mass extinctions would appear to contradict your stance but maybe you are in the camp whereby as long as the planet can accommodate humans, nothing else matters.

[Torquemada 1420]

OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.

Get a grip. My Frontline Greenpeace membership no is 0001. I'd hope you could extrapolate from that that what you are leaping to above in righteous indignation is bollox.

Well, that's obviously bollocks. Carry on pissing on your kids.

You probably should stop digging son.

[inactionman]

No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.

A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.

I meant apply a true cost at the point of purchase, and push that cost back through the entire supply and procurement chain.

Like we do for petrol and diesel, cigarettes etc. Would people seriously worry about car mpg if fuel duty wasn't so high?

This was in response to how we would enforce change, btw, as opposed to simply proscribing or rationing or otherwise trying to direct people into certain buying behaviours.

The equivalent but less difficult approach (noting that the above would require the buy-in of a global supply chain) is to reduce levies and duty on green - which we're doing, and really need to go further with.

Yeah.

If you do that it says cut the rainforest down.

Nope, because the true environmental cost would be horrific and I'm advocating actually applying that cost as levy - to make the raising of beef (more the end price when levies applied) uneconomical.

The point I'm making is that environmental cost isn't actually currently a cost, and despite most people preferring to buy things that don't damage the environment when push comes to shove they'll go with the cheapest. We need to make environmentally damaging not be the cheapest.

[Slick]

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.

The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

But there are some very good reasons why humans live there, mainly easy accessibility to resources and good land for food production. What's the cost of making other places habitable?

[Slick]

Energy production and transport are the 2 biggest contributors I believe.

Both of which can be largely improved with nuclear and green energy, and electric vehicles.

In truth though, I suspect the way we get out of this realistically, is through carbon capture technology, since it actively reduces the amounts, rather than just slowing output.

Changing how China etc operates, and the USA for that matter, is not going to be quick or easy, and they contribute about 43% between them.

Putting the brakes on that is not going to work. So we need to hope we can use other methods.

That's absolutely not to say we shouldn't continue to do our part, since every little definitely helps, but as a global problem, it needs a much larger solution.

What actually is carbon capture? Is it literally taking carbon dioxide (I presume) out the air?

[inactionman]

Energy production and transport are the 2 biggest contributors I believe.

Both of which can be largely improved with nuclear and green energy, and electric vehicles.

In truth though, I suspect the way we get out of this realistically, is through carbon capture technology, since it actively reduces the amounts, rather than just slowing output.

Changing how China etc operates, and the USA for that matter, is not going to be quick or easy, and they contribute about 43% between them.

Putting the brakes on that is not going to work. So we need to hope we can use other methods.

That's absolutely not to say we shouldn't continue to do our part, since every little definitely helps, but as a global problem, it needs a much larger solution.

What actually is carbon capture? Is it literally taking carbon dioxide (I presume) out the air?

Not really - it's about capturing the CO2 produced by (typically large - think power stations and factories) sources and sequestering it, sometimes in places where the underlying fossil fuel was extracted but there are other options. It doesn't 'scrub' air in the atmosphere.

It does allow us to look at CO2 sources such as cement factories, however, not just reducing CO2 at point of utility power generation.

eta: we do have things that do 'scrub' CO2 - plants, algae etc. Such as rainforest.

[Raggs]

Energy production and transport are the 2 biggest contributors I believe.

Both of which can be largely improved with nuclear and green energy, and electric vehicles.

In truth though, I suspect the way we get out of this realistically, is through carbon capture technology, since it actively reduces the amounts, rather than just slowing output.

Changing how China etc operates, and the USA for that matter, is not going to be quick or easy, and they contribute about 43% between them.

Putting the brakes on that is not going to work. So we need to hope we can use other methods.

That's absolutely not to say we shouldn't continue to do our part, since every little definitely helps, but as a global problem, it needs a much larger solution.

What actually is carbon capture? Is it literally taking carbon dioxide (I presume) out the air?

Not really - it's about capturing the CO2 produced by (typically large - think power stations and factories) sources and sequestering it, sometimes in places where the underlying fossil fuel was extracted but there are other options. It doesn't 'scrub' air in the atmosphere.

It does allow us to look at CO2 sources such as cement factories, however, not just reducing CO2 at point of utility power generation.

eta: we do have things that do 'scrub' CO2 - plants, algae etc. Such as rainforest.

Actually really really. Taking it straight out the air. I'm sure I'd read about a Canadian company doing it, but here's a link to a UK facility that at least was planned in 2019 (date of the article) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57588248

EDIT - Reading more of the article they talk aobut the Canadian company already doing it.

[JM2K6]

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

Mass extinctions would appear to contradict your stance but maybe you are in the camp whereby as long as the planet can accommodate humans, nothing else matters.

Which mass extinctions have been caused by human overcrowding?

[JM2K6]

Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.

The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

But there are some very good reasons why humans live there, mainly easy accessibility to resources and good land for food production. What's the cost of making other places habitable?

Those are mostly good reasons why humans settled there. London is a gigantic city because of its location, particularly the river, but we don't need the river any more. Modern human civilisation has largely moved beyond subsistence farming.

[Slick]

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

But there are some very good reasons why humans live there, mainly easy accessibility to resources and good land for food production. What's the cost of making other places habitable?

Those are mostly good reasons why humans settled there. London is a gigantic city because of its location, particularly the river, but we don't need the river any more. Modern human civilisation has largely moved beyond subsistence farming.

Yes, but just because we can now build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should. About 25% of the world population still lives on subsistance farming, that's a fairly hefty amount.

[inactionman]

What actually is carbon capture? Is it literally taking carbon dioxide (I presume) out the air?

Not really - it's about capturing the CO2 produced by (typically large - think power stations and factories) sources and sequestering it, sometimes in places where the underlying fossil fuel was extracted but there are other options. It doesn't 'scrub' air in the atmosphere.

It does allow us to look at CO2 sources such as cement factories, however, not just reducing CO2 at point of utility power generation.

eta: we do have things that do 'scrub' CO2 - plants, algae etc. Such as rainforest.

Actually really really. Taking it straight out the air. I'm sure I'd read about a Canadian company doing it, but here's a link to a UK facility that at least was planned in 2019 (date of the article) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57588248

EDIT - Reading more of the article they talk aobut the Canadian company already doing it.

They're trying it, my understanding is that it's not really there yet - whereas there are many source capture plants in operation.

I'm just glad there are many technologies/approaches in the pipeline, I'd say it's unlikely any one thing is going to do enough to dig us out the hole.

[Raggs]

Not really - it's about capturing the CO2 produced by (typically large - think power stations and factories) sources and sequestering it, sometimes in places where the underlying fossil fuel was extracted but there are other options. It doesn't 'scrub' air in the atmosphere.

It does allow us to look at CO2 sources such as cement factories, however, not just reducing CO2 at point of utility power generation.

eta: we do have things that do 'scrub' CO2 - plants, algae etc. Such as rainforest.

Actually really really. Taking it straight out the air. I'm sure I'd read about a Canadian company doing it, but here's a link to a UK facility that at least was planned in 2019 (date of the article) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57588248

EDIT - Reading more of the article they talk aobut the Canadian company already doing it.

They're trying it, my understanding is that it's not really there yet - whereas there are many source capture plants in operation.

I'm just glad there are many technologies/approaches in the pipeline, I'd say it's unlikely any one thing is going to do enough to dig us out the hole.

Well yes, sticking effectively one of these on an exhaust pipe is going to work better, but the tech in general is out there and proven. However source capture is only possible for large scale static producers. Which leaves all transport etc freely spewing. As it states in the article, the one they've had running as a tester, pulls about a tonne out of the atmosphere every day. Which isn't amazing, but at the same time, it's effectively a prototype.

EDIT- And getting China and the USA to stick these things on their power plants is difficult, whereas absorbing their CO2 in other countries is easier. Perhaps not "fair" but it won't just be them screwed over with their co2 emissions.

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

Mass extinctions would appear to contradict your stance but maybe you are in the camp whereby as long as the planet can accommodate humans, nothing else matters.

Which mass extinctions have been caused by human overcrowding?

Mother of god. Nearly every species extinction over the last 3 centuries and currently threatened species extinction is down to humanity (unfortunate word). If you think the rest of the planet can sustain 7 billion + humans without irreversibly dire consequences, you should sign up to the Fat Albert Collective.

There are too many humans, end of. Wayyyy too many. 1900 = 1.6bn. Today = 7bn+

Who was it earlier who said humans weren't breeding like flies?

[JM2K6]

But there are some very good reasons why humans live there, mainly easy accessibility to resources and good land for food production. What's the cost of making other places habitable?

Those are mostly good reasons why humans settled there. London is a gigantic city because of its location, particularly the river, but we don't need the river any more. Modern human civilisation has largely moved beyond subsistence farming.

Yes, but just because we can now build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should. About 25% of the world population still lives on subsistance farming, that's a fairly hefty amount.

There's quite a lot of the planet that isn't desert! We've shown we can comfortably sustain human life in great comfort away from the centuries-old reliance on specific terrain and requirements. Let's not act like everything outside of current settlements is uninhabitable.

[JM2K6]

Mass extinctions would appear to contradict your stance but maybe you are in the camp whereby as long as the planet can accommodate humans, nothing else matters.

Which mass extinctions have been caused by human overcrowding?

Mother of god. Nearly every species extinction over the last 3 centuries and currently threatened species extinction is down to humanity (unfortunate word). If you think the rest of the planet can sustain 7 billion + humans without irreversibly dire consequences, you should sign up to the Fat Albert Collective.

There are too many humans, end of. Wayyyy too many. 1900 = 1.6bn. Today = 7bn+

Who was it earlier who said humans weren't breeding like flies?

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

What mass extinctions have been caused by human OVERCROWDING? Not caused by humanity in general, or by over consumption, or by man-made climate change: caused by the thing you're railing against, human overcrowding. It's a specific thing you raised as being a big problem, so I assume you do have some facts on this?

There's plenty of room on this planet for plenty more people. The negative impact on the planet is not down to the sheer number of people - it's down to very specific things we're doing as a species. That can (and should) change.

edit: Remember, you started this by claiming space was a problem. Prove it.

[Slick]

Those are mostly good reasons why humans settled there. London is a gigantic city because of its location, particularly the river, but we don't need the river any more. Modern human civilisation has largely moved beyond subsistence farming.

Yes, but just because we can now build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should. About 25% of the world population still lives on subsistance farming, that's a fairly hefty amount.

There's quite a lot of the planet that isn't desert! We've shown we can comfortably sustain human life in great comfort away from the centuries-old reliance on specific terrain and requirements. Let's not act like everything outside of current settlements is uninhabitable.

You are being very silly.

[Brazil]

The assumption that humanity will continue to grow exponentially is being challenged, and some models predict that after a peak it'll settle back down to the level it is now in 100-150 years time. This isn't that alarming a proposal, since we know from the developed world that once a population reaches a level of education and technological development the environmental pressures to breed like rabbits drop substantially because a) you know where babies come from and how to stop it, and b) the odds of your babies dying are significantly reduced, thus reducing your need to breed to ensure your genes are passed on.

Similarly, JM2K6 is right that even if it were to occur there's plenty of space for a significant increase in the human population, though environmental pressure will be a factor in that. The principle problem with increased human numbers is the encroachment on wild spaces, particularly in the tropics. This very obviously increases pressure on wildlife, but also exposes humans to trans-species diseases like COVID. The solution to managing population is thus to urbanise further, ensuring that humanity is concentrated in places where the environmental impact can be mitigated, rather than spread out all over the place. Again, there are studies that suggest that this model, along with more widespread but balanced agriculture would be a long term sustainable model, though selling it to people will be a challenge, particularly where agrararian idylls are a social aspiration.

The trick will be to wean society off hydrocarbons in a relatively short amount of time to avoid long term detrimental climate impacts. This is already underway, but it's unclear whether it will be fast enough to hit the <1.5c target.

[JM2K6]

Yes, but just because we can now build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should. About 25% of the world population still lives on subsistance farming, that's a fairly hefty amount.

There's quite a lot of the planet that isn't desert! We've shown we can comfortably sustain human life in great comfort away from the centuries-old reliance on specific terrain and requirements. Let's not act like everything outside of current settlements is uninhabitable.

You are being very silly.

I'm really not. You took my comments about where humans have traditionally settled (and why) and responded with "just because we can build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should". Which is also pretty fucking silly, because it's really not a choice between "where we have large population centres now" and "desert city". There's plenty of good, livable land that isn't a desert that isn't where humans have traditionally settled in large numbers because it lacks some of the benefits of those areas, benefits which in the modern world are much less important (or totally irrelevant in a lot of cases). Plus there's plenty more we can do with the space we already occupy.

Now, if we all wanted to get into a conversation about how damaging capitalism is for the planet and how much it has to blame for climate change and mass extinctions, I'm here for it.

[Slick]

There's quite a lot of the planet that isn't desert! We've shown we can comfortably sustain human life in great comfort away from the centuries-old reliance on specific terrain and requirements. Let's not act like everything outside of current settlements is uninhabitable.

You are being very silly.

I'm really not. You took my comments about where humans have traditionally settled (and why) and responded with "just because we can build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should". Which is also pretty fucking silly, because it's really not a choice between "where we have large population centres now" and "desert city". There's plenty of good, livable land that isn't a desert that isn't where humans have traditionally settled in large numbers because it lacks some of the benefits of those areas, benefits which in the modern world are much less important (or totally irrelevant in a lot of cases). Plus there's plenty more we can do with the space we already occupy.

Now, if we all wanted to get into a conversation about how damaging capitalism is for the planet and how much it has to blame for climate change and mass extinctions, I'm here for it.

You must be the only person who would take "just because we can build a city in the middle of the desert doesn't mean we should" to mean I only meant deserts, it was an example, I didn't realise I'd have to name ever type of terrain to get that across. Of course there are plenty of places we can build, but on a thread about climate change the question is why would we consider using the extra resources needed to build in a less hospitible part of the planet.

[Torquemada 1420]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

What mass extinctions have been caused by human OVERCROWDING? Not caused by humanity in general, or by over consumption, or by man-made climate change: caused by the thing you're railing against, human overcrowding. It's a specific thing you raised as being a big problem, so I assume you do have some facts on this?

There's plenty of room on this planet for plenty more people. The negative impact on the planet is not down to the sheer number of people - it's down to very specific things we're doing as a species. That can (and should) change.

edit: Remember, you started this by claiming space was a problem. Prove it.

Looks like I might have been the one not being clear! Human's overcrowding the planet. Probably not the same thing I think you are postulating i.e. humans overcrowding themselves. Whilst the 2 will ultimately converge, we long passed the planet's tolerance limit for the former measure.

I still think you are arguing some position that it's okay to f**k off every other species on the planet as long as humans can open a bedroom window without it hitting a neighbour's wall. If so, well then we are never going to agree.

[JM2K6]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

What mass extinctions have been caused by human OVERCROWDING? Not caused by humanity in general, or by over consumption, or by man-made climate change: caused by the thing you're railing against, human overcrowding. It's a specific thing you raised as being a big problem, so I assume you do have some facts on this?

There's plenty of room on this planet for plenty more people. The negative impact on the planet is not down to the sheer number of people - it's down to very specific things we're doing as a species. That can (and should) change.

edit: Remember, you started this by claiming space was a problem. Prove it.

Looks like I might have been the one not being clear! Human's overcrowding the planet. Probably not the same thing I think you are postulating i.e. humans overcrowding themselves. Whilst the 2 will ultimately converge, we long passed the planet's tolerance limit for the former measure.

I still think you are arguing some position that it's okay to f**k off every other species on the planet as long as humans can open a bedroom window without it hitting a neighbour's wall. If so, well then we are never going to agree.

No, I'm saying the threat to other species doesn't come from our increasing population (or indeed the current size of it). Capitalism is the biggest threat, manifesting in a number of ways (plastic pollution, air pollution, fossil fuels, devestation of natural areas for commercial benefit / profits, etc). I think we can find a much more equitable way to exist in nature at our current numbers or even higher, without it being so destructive to the planet - but money rules everything, and if there's profits to be made (or losses that would be incurred) then humanity as a whole will continue to be massively self-destructive, led by corporations and short-sighted greedy governments.

At no point am I saying "fuck the other species" - I'm saying you're looking in the wrong place for the threat to them.

[Torquemada 1420]

The assumption that humanity will continue to grow exponentially is being challenged, and some models predict that after a peak it'll settle back down to the level it is now in 100-150 years time. This isn't that alarming a proposal, since we know from the developed world that once a population reaches a level of education and technological development the environmental pressures to breed like rabbits drop substantially because a) you know where babies come from and how to stop it, and b) the odds of your babies dying are significantly reduced, thus reducing your need to breed to ensure your genes are passed on.

Similarly, JM2K6 is right that even if it were to occur there's plenty of space for a significant increase in the human population, though environmental pressure will be a factor in that. The principle problem with increased human numbers is the encroachment on wild spaces, particularly in the tropics. This very obviously increases pressure on wildlife, but also exposes humans to trans-species diseases like COVID. The solution to managing population is thus to urbanise further, ensuring that humanity is concentrated in places where the environmental impact can be mitigated, rather than spread out all over the place. Again, there are studies that suggest that this model, along with more widespread but balanced agriculture would be a long term sustainable model, though selling it to people will be a challenge, particularly where agrararian idylls are a social aspiration.

The trick will be to wean society off hydrocarbons in a relatively short amount of time to avoid long term detrimental climate impacts. This is already underway, but it's unclear whether it will be fast enough to hit the <1.5c target.

1) Someone needs to tell the Catholics and Islamic fundamentalists about the baby problem. And hard to see them changing tack when they have a vested interest in more little miracles in the corner swelling the collection plates on future Sundays/Fridays.
2) All the bit in red plus what happens to flora too. Someone needs to explain to JMK that no bees or no fungi or no beetles or no trees pretty much resolves the problem anyway.

[JM2K6]

Encroaching on wild spaces is not going to mean the end of bees or fungi. Bees in particular have been impacted by changes to farming and urban development that can be rectified without losing the benefits of those should anyone be willing to do so, pesticides (driven by a need to make more money), climate change (same), diseases spread by by commercially managed bees (same), and habitat loss (which indeed partly due to urban sprawl - but a lot of habitats are lost for commercial reasons rather that living space).

I'm painfully aware of how the ecosystem works, thanks. I'm not the one with the bee in my bonnet (hurrr) about a particular pet theory and clinging to that regardless.

[Torquemada 1420]

No, I'm saying the threat to other species doesn't come from our increasing population (or indeed the current size of it). Capitalism is the biggest threat, manifesting in a number of ways (plastic pollution, air pollution, fossil fuels, devestation of natural areas for commercial benefit / profits, etc). I think we can find a much more equitable way to exist in nature at our current numbers or even higher, without it being so destructive to the planet - but money rules everything, and if there's profits to be made (or losses that would be incurred) then humanity as a whole will continue to be massively self-destructive, led by corporations and short-sighted greedy governments.

At no point am I saying "fuck the other species" - I'm saying you're looking in the wrong place for the threat to them.

Well then you are tragically, naively incorrect because you are theorising the impossible. I already pointed out and dismissed this solution earlier ("everyone living in teepees in Wales").

I agree entirely with you that Capitalism is a failed system (for humans too: except for the few at the helm) but it's never going away. The masses have religion and social media controlling their lives and they are happy with that so a revolution seems
an unlikely outcome (I don't dismiss the possibility of significant social unrest: just that it will be quashed). And the masses are all aspiring to climb the capitalist ladder. And hence the masses (even the poor disenfranchised ones) are and will remain part of the problem.

It's game over really.

PS the qualifier "without it being so destructive" really doesn't cut it, does it? It needs to be non destructive. Destruction in 50 years or 500 years is still destruction.

[JM2K6]

No, I'm saying the threat to other species doesn't come from our increasing population (or indeed the current size of it). Capitalism is the biggest threat, manifesting in a number of ways (plastic pollution, air pollution, fossil fuels, devestation of natural areas for commercial benefit / profits, etc). I think we can find a much more equitable way to exist in nature at our current numbers or even higher, without it being so destructive to the planet - but money rules everything, and if there's profits to be made (or losses that would be incurred) then humanity as a whole will continue to be massively self-destructive, led by corporations and short-sighted greedy governments.

At no point am I saying "fuck the other species" - I'm saying you're looking in the wrong place for the threat to them.

Well then you are tragically, naively incorrect because you are theorising the impossible. I already pointed out and dismissed this solution earlier ("everyone living in teepees in Wales").

I agree entirely with you that Capitalism is a failed system (for humans too: except for the few at the helm) but it's never going away. The masses have religion and social media controlling their lives and they are happy with that so a revolution seems
an unlikely outcome (I don't dismiss the possibility of significant social unrest: just that it will be quashed). And the masses are all aspiring to climb the capitalist ladder. And hence the masses (even the poor disenfranchised ones) are and will remain part of the problem.

It's game over really.

There is a fuckload of stuff we can do with regards to how we develop and maintain land for living and for farming & other enterprises that does not boil down to "everyone living in teepees in Wales". I'm talking about realistic proposals that have already been trialled on a smaller scale, but with little commercial benefit / appetite behind it so is unlikely to happen. To give just one example, even the somewhat controversial shift away from fossil fuels is one of these methods - is that impossible naivety?

And talking of naive, you're asking for a) a large reduction in population (how? You gonna shoot them yourself?) and b) essentially going against one of the core biological impulses of the human species. Meanwhile, there's a fair amount of evidence suggesting this is something that'll naturally slow and limit itself, and isn't the core problem. But you're convinced it is, so...

[JM2K6]

PS the qualifier "without it being so destructive" really doesn't cut it, does it? It needs to be non destructive. Destruction in 50 years or 500 years is still destruction.

No. "less destructive". Not "just as destructive, but taking longer". It's not all or nothing.

[Sandstorm]

Well this thread is going entirely as expected.

Anyway.........I'm switching to insect instead of beef in tonight's spag bol. Who's with me?

[inactionman]

Actually really really. Taking it straight out the air. I'm sure I'd read about a Canadian company doing it, but here's a link to a UK facility that at least was planned in 2019 (date of the article) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57588248

EDIT - Reading more of the article they talk aobut the Canadian company already doing it.

They're trying it, my understanding is that it's not really there yet - whereas there are many source capture plants in operation.

I'm just glad there are many technologies/approaches in the pipeline, I'd say it's unlikely any one thing is going to do enough to dig us out the hole.

Well yes, sticking effectively one of these on an exhaust pipe is going to work better, but the tech in general is out there and proven. However source capture is only possible for large scale static producers. Which leaves all transport etc freely spewing. As it states in the article, the one they've had running as a tester, pulls about a tonne out of the atmosphere every day. Which isn't amazing, but at the same time, it's effectively a prototype.

EDIT- And getting China and the USA to stick these things on their power plants is difficult, whereas absorbing their CO2 in other countries is easier. Perhaps not "fair" but it won't just be them screwed over with their co2 emissions.

It's a promising technology but still in relative infancy, the carbon capture for exhaust stack is relatively mature.

You could imagine just setting up banks of these in relatively unproductive land and powering through solar/wind and just leaving them to it, so it's an attractive idea, although I'm not that informed about any specific fuels, catalyst or other 'ingredients' that might be required.

I'd be interested to see where the air scrubbing ultimately ends up, the engineer in me has a few doubts about ability to scale, not least as it's trying to extract relatively low concentrations of C02 (atmospheric is around 0.04% by volume) in a massive, massive catchment compared to combustion exhaust streams of around 12-14%, fuel depending, held in a single gas flow.

As you point out, the benefit is clear - it doesn't strictly depend upon goodwill of various nations and we can continue to run them once the main carbon emitters are defunct, so we're not just stopping CO2 production but actively reducing what we've already belched out there. Fingers crossed, and fingers crossed not too late.

We should also really be looking at gases like methane as well, aside from livestock farms capturing methane emissions and burning to generate power I'm well behind the curve on what we're doing about that.

[Brazil]

The assumption that humanity will continue to grow exponentially is being challenged, and some models predict that after a peak it'll settle back down to the level it is now in 100-150 years time. This isn't that alarming a proposal, since we know from the developed world that once a population reaches a level of education and technological development the environmental pressures to breed like rabbits drop substantially because a) you know where babies come from and how to stop it, and b) the odds of your babies dying are significantly reduced, thus reducing your need to breed to ensure your genes are passed on.

Similarly, JM2K6 is right that even if it were to occur there's plenty of space for a significant increase in the human population, though environmental pressure will be a factor in that. The principle problem with increased human numbers is the encroachment on wild spaces, particularly in the tropics. This very obviously increases pressure on wildlife, but also exposes humans to trans-species diseases like COVID. The solution to managing population is thus to urbanise further, ensuring that humanity is concentrated in places where the environmental impact can be mitigated, rather than spread out all over the place. Again, there are studies that suggest that this model, along with more widespread but balanced agriculture would be a long term sustainable model, though selling it to people will be a challenge, particularly where agrararian idylls are a social aspiration.

The trick will be to wean society off hydrocarbons in a relatively short amount of time to avoid long term detrimental climate impacts. This is already underway, but it's unclear whether it will be fast enough to hit the <1.5c target.

1) Someone needs to tell the Catholics and Islamic fundamentalists about the baby problem. And hard to see them changing tack when they have a vested interest in more little miracles in the corner swelling the collection plates on future Sundays/Fridays.
2) All the bit in red plus what happens to flora too. Someone needs to explain to JMK that no bees or no fungi or no beetles or no trees pretty much resolves the problem anyway.

You can overplay the importance of religion. The most catholic nations in Europe have stagnating or falling birthrates, and the same can be predicted for Islamic States (Iran's birthrate is in decline, after all, and not from a high start point). The main driver in excess population is always poverty.

I was using wildlife generically, since we're talking about the ecosystem as a whole. The destruction of pollinator populations (and interestingly I read the other week that bees aren't in anywhere near the trouble we've assumed, other pollinators less so), is more due to the use of neonicotinoids and monocultural farming. In the west at least people are finally twigging that these practices are not good things, and are changing their ways. Persuading third world farmers who are eking out a living through subsistence farming is likely to be more difficult.

[sockwithaticket]

The assumption that humanity will continue to grow exponentially is being challenged, and some models predict that after a peak it'll settle back down to the level it is now in 100-150 years time. This isn't that alarming a proposal, since we know from the developed world that once a population reaches a level of education and technological development the environmental pressures to breed like rabbits drop substantially because a) you know where babies come from and how to stop it, and b) the odds of your babies dying are significantly reduced, thus reducing your need to breed to ensure your genes are passed on.

Similarly, JM2K6 is right that even if it were to occur there's plenty of space for a significant increase in the human population, though environmental pressure will be a factor in that. The principle problem with increased human numbers is the encroachment on wild spaces, particularly in the tropics. This very obviously increases pressure on wildlife, but also exposes humans to trans-species diseases like COVID. The solution to managing population is thus to urbanise further, ensuring that humanity is concentrated in places where the environmental impact can be mitigated, rather than spread out all over the place. Again, there are studies that suggest that this model, along with more widespread but balanced agriculture would be a long term sustainable model, though selling it to people will be a challenge, particularly where agrararian idylls are a social aspiration.

The trick will be to wean society off hydrocarbons in a relatively short amount of time to avoid long term detrimental climate impacts. This is already underway, but it's unclear whether it will be fast enough to hit the <1.5c target.

1) Someone needs to tell the Catholics and Islamic fundamentalists about the baby problem. And hard to see them changing tack when they have a vested interest in more little miracles in the corner swelling the collection plates on future Sundays/Fridays.
2) All the bit in red plus what happens to flora too. Someone needs to explain to JMK that no bees or no fungi or no beetles or no trees pretty much resolves the problem anyway.

You can overplay the importance of religion. The most catholic nations in Europe have stagnating or falling birthrates, and the same can be predicted for Islamic States (Iran's birthrate is in decline, after all, and not from a high start point). The main driver in excess population is always poverty.

I was using wildlife generically, since we're talking about the ecosystem as a whole. The destruction of pollinator populations (and interestingly I read the other week that bees aren't in anywhere near the trouble we've assumed, other pollinators less so), is more due to the use of neonicotinoids and monocultural farming. In the west at least people are finally twigging that these practices are not good things, and are changing their ways. Persuading third world farmers who are eking out a living through subsistence farming is likely to be more difficult.

Got a link? I'd love to read some positive news about bees.

[Torquemada 1420]

There is a fuckload of stuff we can do with regards to how we develop and maintain land for living and for farming & other enterprises that does not boil down to "everyone living in teepees in Wales". I'm talking about realistic proposals that have already been trialled on a smaller scale, but with little commercial benefit / appetite behind it so is unlikely to happen. To give just one example, even the somewhat controversial shift away from fossil fuels is one of these methods - is that impossible naivety?

And talking of naive, you're asking for a) a large reduction in population (how? You gonna shoot them yourself?) and b) essentially going against one of the core biological impulses of the human species. Meanwhile, there's a fair amount of evidence suggesting this is something that'll naturally slow and limit itself, and isn't the core problem. But you're convinced it is, so...

No. There isn't. Again: what is theoretically possible and what will happen are poles apart with capitalism's greed being the primary driver. And you've acknowledged that in red above. Your proposals are not realistic.

I wasn't suggesting a large reduction in population was ever going to happen voluntarily but a war might help! Neutron bombs anyone? Oh. I forgot. A bomb that kills people but doesn't destroy property is immoral

BTW, the whole change for good argument goes against TWO core biological impulses of the human species: screwing and accumulation through greed at anyone and everyone else's/thing's expense. Good luck changing either of those through reasoned debate.

[Brazil]

SWAT - I think it was in the Times, sorry, so I don't have a link. Gist of it was "stop putting up beehives in cities, the bees are fine, worry about other pollinators".

[sockwithaticket]

SWAT - I think it was in the Times, sorry, so I don't have a link. Gist of it was "stop putting up beehives in cities, the bees are fine, worry about other pollinators".

Ta. I have read some stuff stating that efforts to boost bee populations by enthusiastic amateurs do skew a bit too far in the direction of them acquiring and setting up honey bee hives when those aren't the bees in trouble. They're also not particularly efficient pollinators. I seem to remember reading that the average bumblebee is vastly more effective on a 1:1 comparison. Cities would certainly be the wrong environment too, lack of wild meadows is what really hurts wild pollinator populations afaik.

[Torquemada 1420]

You can overplay the importance of religion. The most catholic nations in Europe have stagnating or falling birthrates, and the same can be predicted for Islamic States (Iran's birthrate is in decline, after all, and not from a high start point). The main driver in excess population is always poverty.

I was using wildlife generically, since we're talking about the ecosystem as a whole. The destruction of pollinator populations (and interestingly I read the other week that bees aren't in anywhere near the trouble we've assumed, other pollinators less so), is more due to the use of neonicotinoids and monocultural farming. In the west at least people are finally twigging that these practices are not good things, and are changing their ways. Persuading third world farmers who are eking out a living through subsistence farming is likely to be more difficult.

Religion feeds on poverty and helps drive poverty. Hard to see that cycle breaking quickly enough. Hell, the whole of christianity is founded on the notion of the will to power of the slave i.e. being poor is a virtuous thing.

The bee thing is very complex and neonicotinoids is definitely a big problem (monocultrual bee farming too!). I know I am a fair bit older than you but think what the front of your car would have looked like after a Summer's day drive when you started driving and compare to now. I barely have to clean a dead insect of mine and I drive country roads every day. That's what I am experiencing real world just as I am experiencing severe changes to weather patterns.

If you are bored
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2023989118
is worth a read. It acknowledges that measuring and interpreting the data is complex but also that time is no longer on our side.

Kinda as an aside, one of my pet hates is gardeners. It seems f**king obvious that introducing non native and potentially invasive species anywhere is a bad idea and so no-one imports rabbits to the Antarctic. Yet gardeners happily do the reverse despite all the continuous warnings: Japanese knot weed etc

[Biffer]

So can anyone who is banging on about overpopulation tell me what action they want taken about it and how that will have an effect on the current climate crisis in the next twenty or thirty years.?

[Torquemada 1420]

SWAT - I think it was in the Times, sorry, so I don't have a link. Gist of it was "stop putting up beehives in cities, the bees are fine, worry about other pollinators".

Ta. I have read some stuff stating that efforts to boost bee populations by enthusiastic amateurs do skew a bit too far in the direction of them acquiring and setting up honey bee hives when those aren't the bees in trouble. They're also not particularly efficient pollinators. I seem to remember reading that the average bumblebee is vastly more effective on a 1:1 comparison. Cities would certainly be the wrong environment too, lack of wild meadows is what really hurts wild pollinator populations afaik.

It's also mis-targeted. The majority of pollinating bees by a mile are not colonising ones. Solitary bees are 90%+ of the bee population. FWIW, I've kept masons and leaf cutters for many years now but would only consider honey bees (land permitting) if I were more rural than I am.

[Torquemada 1420]

So can anyone who is banging on about overpopulation tell me what action they want taken about it and how that will have an effect on the current climate crisis in the next twenty or thirty years.?

?

[Biffer]

So can anyone who is banging on about overpopulation tell me what action they want taken about it and how that will have an effect on the current climate crisis in the next twenty or thirty years.?

?

You're hilarious.

Go on, you were banging on about it, how will it address climate change?

[inactionman]

SWAT - I think it was in the Times, sorry, so I don't have a link. Gist of it was "stop putting up beehives in cities, the bees are fine, worry about other pollinators".

Ta. I have read some stuff stating that efforts to boost bee populations by enthusiastic amateurs do skew a bit too far in the direction of them acquiring and setting up honey bee hives when those aren't the bees in trouble. They're also not particularly efficient pollinators. I seem to remember reading that the average bumblebee is vastly more effective on a 1:1 comparison. Cities would certainly be the wrong environment too, lack of wild meadows is what really hurts wild pollinator populations afaik.

It's also mis-targeted. The majority of pollinating bees by a mile are not colonising ones. Solitary bees are 90%+ of the bee population. FWIW, I've kept masons and leaf cutters for many years now but would only consider honey bees (land permitting) if I were more rural than I am.

We've just left a part of our garden to be taken over by wildflowers, which is no way connected to me being a lazy bastard who hates weeding every second Sunday. They're about stomach high in places now, and look glorious when they flower.

We see quite a few varieties of bee, for the first time in ages we had some fat bumblebees bouncing around.