climate change

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

And the fact that you can find people who agree with you does not change the fact that poor people  are not only disproportionately affected by climate change, but also bu efforts to mitigate climate change.

I have never said climate change is not real and efforts to combat it shouldn't have started years ago; I am making an observation as to who will suffer most due to these efforts.

I think no one is disputing that rich nations should shoulder more of the burden (especially as they still the benefits) and this is the argument that many low-income countries are making.

Rather, I was disputing your earlier comment:

On 3/23/2023 at 9:54 AM, MigL said:

Given the choice between feeding their family, keeping them in good health, and raising them out of poverty, over 1 Billion Chinese people ( interesting story about Xi Jinping ) and another 1 Billion Indian people, will do whatever they need to do, even if it means spewing CO² into the atmosphere 24/7. 
Climate change is the least of their concerns; number 1 would be "where is the next meal coming from?"

This I understood as meaning that most folks around the world would not see climate change as a priority. The data from surveys suggest that it does not seem to be the case. Likewise, policies of exactly those two countries demonstrate that while there might be prioritization of economic well-being, there are massive mitigation efforts, rather than the 24/7 CO2 production as done by the industrialized nations in the past.

 

[MigL]

And I'm still not convinced that poor individuals prioritize climate change over their, and their families', well being.
Their Governments certainly might, because foreign aid will be tied to mitigation efforts, but for some poor people, survival is a day to day effort.

Just my opinion; I guess we'll see how it turns out, but judging by the last 30 years, where most affluent nations promised the sky, but delivered a hole in the ground, I don't have favorable expectations.

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

for some poor people, survival is a day to day effort.

True. You can't have long term survival without short term survival. That doesn't make the situation any less urgent, since a great many people are already dying in climate-related events. 

Quote

From 1970 to 2019, weather, climate and water hazards accounted for 50% of all disasters, 45% of all reported deaths and 74% of all reported economic losses.

More than 91% of these deaths occurred in developing countries (using the United Nations Country Classification).

Of the top 10 disasters, the hazards that led to the largest human losses during the period have been droughts (650 000 deaths), storms (577 232 deaths), floods (58 700 deaths) and extreme temperature (55 736 deaths)

The only up-side is that, due to more accurate forecasting and warning, the death toll per event is reduced. But the economic consequences are not.  

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

And I'm still not convinced that poor individuals prioritize climate change over their, and their families', well being.

That is not what they are doing, though. This assertion is based on the fact that folks do not understand their vulnerability to climate change. As you noted yourself, many low-income communities are more vulnerable. There are for example many African organizations and summit focusing on their specific struggles with the effects of climate change and I think you are really underestimating them.

I had the privilege with working with students from different African countries and it is part of their regular school curriculum, for example. Quite a few of them want to study ways to better implement policies in their home countries and so on. Again, the extremely poor might not care as much, but it is part of general awareness as well as policy. And the latter is important as this is what makes meaningful changes.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Their Governments certainly might, because foreign aid will be tied to mitigation efforts, but for some poor people, survival is a day to day effort.

And here you are again underestimating those countries. Many (again, island countries are leading the way here) are acutely aware how much climate change is going to impact them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/26/african-countries-spending-billions-to-cope-with-climate-crisis

They are not doing mitigation because rich nations force them to. Rather, they need to. And which is why they highlight the injustice and require industrialized nations to do more, not less. Again, they are ignorant of the issue, they feel it more than we do and they are trying to pressure rich notions to fulfil the commitment they promised, but not delivered. For them, it is not a theoretical and not doing mitigation is just not an option for them.

Quote

The study examined national adaptation plans submitted to the UN by seven African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan and Togo. South Sudan, which is the world’s second poorest country, was hit by floods last year that displaced 850,000 people, and led to outbreaks of water-borne diseases. The country is to spend $376m a year on adaptation, about 3.1% of its GDP.

Chukwumerije Okereke, director of the centre for climate change and development at the Alex Ekwueme Federal University in Nigeria, said rich countries must respond to the findings, and to the IPCC report.

So when we talk about not caring, realistically it is about rich nations who are less impacted than the poor. I will also add that your last comment does not support your former assertions. Poor nations care increasingly about climate change, specifically because rich nations don't. 

On the sub-national level I will concede that folks with low educational background are less likely to be even aware of climate change issues, but that is an universal pattern. Similarly, folks with experience with droughts or other extreme weather patterns were more likely (internationally) to perceive global warming as a threat.

In the US for, for example, farmers have some of the highest percentage of folks thinking that climate change is real and an issue (>80%, well above national average). Yet depending on political leaning, the opinion diverge on whether it is human-made or not (forgot the split, but among GOP voters the majority does not think it is anthropogenic, from what I remember).

[iNow]

9 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What happens when you double the numbers of humans in the next century, as some projections predict?

They don’t. We’re at around 7B people today and forecasted to go to approximately 11B in the next hundred years. Any projections claiming doubling of current numbers are outliers and can safely be taken with a grain of salt.

https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, MigL said:

And I'm still not convinced that poor individuals prioritize climate change over their, and their families', well being.
Their Governments certainly might, because foreign aid will be tied to mitigation efforts, but for some poor people, survival is a day to day effort.

But it doesn't follow they're not as concerned about climate change, just because their focus is on today's survival, why would that mean their not concerned about tomorrow.

I'm very poor, my daily survival is a daily budget, but I'm lucky enough to live in a rich country, so I'm relatively wealthy in global term's; I spend that wealth on my carbon footprint, which is this computer and link, a microwave, the cheapest food I can find within walking distance of my very very secondhand caravan.

I think I have an argument that my carbon footprint is smaller than Greta's, so I'm with all the other poor, I've paid enough; you first, switch off all the streetlights and we'll talk about my internet connection. 

[npts2020]

On 3/25/2023 at 8:30 PM, iNow said:

They don’t. We’re at around 7B people today and forecasted to go to approximately 11B in the next hundred years. Any projections claiming doubling of current numbers are outliers and can safely be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Well, according to the UN, the world passed 8,000,000,000 in mid-November but quibbling about exact numbers kind of misses the whole point about the world being seriously overpopulated for the amount and type of resources being used by that population. It also avoids the question of what kind of lifestyle that number of humans can live sustainably.

[iNow]

I wasn’t quibbling. I was correcting an inaccurate claim. We’re in full agreement that the way we use resources matters far more than how many of us exist. 

[mistermack]

It's very possible that the number of people who have a major environmental impact will double or even treble, as more and more people demand and achieve things like cars, freezers, air conditioning and supermarket foods and packaging. Even with no increase in population, the problems get worse as more people are taken out of poverty.

To stand still on the environmental front, the human population would need to be falling rapidly, which isn't going to happen.

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Well, according to the UN, the world passed 8,000,000,000 in mid-November but quibbling about exact numbers kind of misses the whole point about the world being seriously overpopulated for the amount and type of resources being used by that population. It also avoids the question of what kind of lifestyle that number of humans can live sustainably.

Without knowing the likely maximum population, how would one ascertain what is sustainable at which lifestyle?

That being said, most estimates suggest that the the world population is likely to flatten off at around 11 billion people. The next is what factors one would consider. I remember vaguely data suggesting that even with the capacity we got today, estimates suggest that can produce the necessary calories to sustain that number, but distribution would need to be more efficient. But high consumption lifestyles (like in many industrialized nations), technical changes would be necessary, including reduced use of fossil fuels, for example. 

Pretty much for these reasons, the resistance to sustainable industries is going to hurt folks down the road. It is not as if we couldn't have started decades ago.

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

To stand still on the environmental front, the human population would need to be falling rapidly, which isn't going to happen.

Sure it is, once climate change really gets going - remember it's not linear or steady over time  -  the sea level rises, the climate refugees crowd into a dwindling habitable zone, more frequent famines, pandemics and wars break out, including, sooner rather than later, maybe the big one with all the nukes. Population of every kind will fall rapidly indeed.

And now there is another dimension of technological rivalry and territorial confrontations.  

Edited March 27, 2023 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

51 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Sure it is, once climate change really gets going - remember it's not linear or steady over time  -  the sea level rises, the climate refugees crowd into a dwindling habitable zone, more frequent famines, pandemics and wars break out, including, sooner rather than later, maybe the big one with all the nukes. Population of every kind will fall rapidly indeed.

And now there is another dimension of technological rivalry and territorial confrontations.  

Well, most things won't happen rapidly, though the largest magnifier are likely going to be armed conflicts. Well, that or another pandemic. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well, that or another pandemic

Not or; and.

[CharonY]

45 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not or; and.

Sure, why not? I I'll throw in antibiotics resistance for free.

[Intoscience]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:17 PM, iNow said:

Nobody disagrees that the impact is not homogenous, but you're presenting a false dichotomy. Everyone must do their part

I'm not arguing this, I'm in agreement that all should do their part. I'am arguing however that those who contribute the most to poisoning the planet should contribute the most to fixing the issue. 

If the big players reduced their emissions by 50% say, this will have a far greater impact than the small players doing 100%. I agree both should be aiming for 100%. But if the big players act fast, investing heavily in reduction now, then there will be less pressure on the smaller player and it may even bide a little time for those who currently haven't the resources to go all out. 

In my humble mind, if there is going to be finger pointing then it should be firstly aimed at those causing the most damage.   

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think I have an argument that my carbon footprint is smaller than Greta's, so I'm with all the other poor, I've paid enough; you first, switch off all the streetlights and we'll talk about my internet connection

I was thinking back to when I was a kid. I come from a relatively poor area, in fact its been pretty much one of the poorest areas, according to the stats, in my country for as long as I can remember.

I remember all things my parents did to save money, and most of this then would nowadays be points towards reducing carbon emissions. 

We had one B&W tv (which was a massive luxury), we had one bath a week the water shared by all. My mother repaired all our clothes and shoes, the majority of which were hand me downs from friends and family and then between siblings. My father grew most of the veg in the back garden or allotment. Milk was delivered by electric vehicle in glass bottles which were collected next time for wash & reuse. All tin cans, jars, and food containers were utilised for storage and/or other uses and if not would be set aside for the local rag-bone man to collect for scrap. In an evening we all sat in one room so not to use lights and heating in other rooms of the house, where we watched tv (what ever my father wanted on, though there were only 3 channels anyway). My mother walked to the shops, used her own bags, she walked to work and I was left to take care of my siblings. The refuse vehicles came only once a month for waste collection, not much was thrown away back then! Yes industry was booming, but we lived a simple life, where everything possible was recycled and nothing was excessively used or wasted, where our carbon footprint was far lower than it is these days.  

So when Greta Thunberg points a finger at previous generations she should take a look in the mirror and accept that we are all accountable to a degree, some more than others. There should also be a little respect towards the previous generations who fought wars, built modern society, for her to enjoy the luxuries that she takes for granted.      

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not arguing this, I'm in agreement that all should do their part. I'am arguing however that those who contribute the most to poisoning the planet should contribute the most to fixing the issue. 

If the big players reduced their emissions by 50% say, this will have a far greater impact than the small players doing 100%. I agree both should be aiming for 100%. But if the big players act fast, investing heavily in reduction now, then there will be less pressure on the smaller player and it may even bide a little time for those who currently haven't the resources to go all out. 

In my humble mind, if there is going to be finger pointing then it should be firstly aimed at those causing the most damage.   

I was thinking back to when I was a kid. I come from a relatively poor area, in fact its been pretty much one of the poorest areas, according to the stats, in my country for as long as I can remember.

I remember all things my parents did to save money, and most of this then would nowadays be points towards reducing carbon emissions. 

We had one B&W tv (which was a massive luxury), we had one bath a week the water shared by all. My mother repaired all our clothes and shoes, the majority of which were hand me downs from friends and family and then between siblings. My father grew most of the veg in the back garden or allotment. Milk was delivered by electric vehicle in glass bottles which were collected next time for wash & reuse. All tin cans, jars, and food containers were utilised for storage and/or other uses and if not would be set aside for the local rag-bone man to collect for scrap. In an evening we all sat in one room so not to use lights and heating in other rooms of the house, where we watched tv (what ever my father wanted on, though there were only 3 channels anyway). My mother walked to the shops, used her own bags, she walked to work and I was left to take care of my siblings. The refuse vehicles came only once a month for waste collection, not much was thrown away back then! Yes industry was booming, but we lived a simple life, where everything possible was recycled and nothing was excessively used or wasted, where our carbon footprint was far lower than it is these days.  

So when Greta Thunberg points a finger at previous generations she should take a look in the mirror and accept that we are all accountable to a degree, some more than others. There should also be a little respect towards the previous generations who fought wars, built modern society, for her to enjoy the luxuries that she takes for granted.      

Hard to disagree with these sentiments in general. There is undoubtedly a big element of 20:20 hindsight in a lot of criticism of previous generations. We simply knew much less then. This is normal: society learns as science advances. 

But to be fair to Thunberg (and to my 19yr old son) it is people one or two generations older than them who are today's decision-makers. There have been inexcusable levels of complacency, and blank refusal to face facts, from a lot of people of our generation, which the coming generation understandably finds very frustrating, especially as they are the ones who will be saddled with the consequences of dilatory action by our generation.

Finger-pointing is on the whole not a constructive exercise, as it makes the pointer angry and the pointee defensive. The thing to do is recognise the issue and cooperate in solving it. Thunberg has been great at raising the profile of the subject but, being autistic, is no diplomat. That should not be surprising.  

Edited March 27, 2023 by exchemist

[npts2020]

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

Without knowing the likely maximum population, how would one ascertain what is sustainable at which lifestyle?

That being said, most estimates suggest that the the world population is likely to flatten off at around 11 billion people. The next is what factors one would consider. I remember vaguely data suggesting that even with the capacity we got today, estimates suggest that can produce the necessary calories to sustain that number, but distribution would need to be more efficient. But high consumption lifestyles (like in many industrialized nations), technical changes would be necessary, including reduced use of fossil fuels, for example. 

Pretty much for these reasons, the resistance to sustainable industries is going to hurt folks down the road. It is not as if we couldn't have started decades ago.

If one figures out what a sustainable lifestyle is for the current population, those numbers can be extrapolated to any number of people as required. The problem in coming up with the initial estimate, mostly (IMO) is because many (if not most) people with the power to change things on the massive scale required don't like the answers and the figuring is complex enough to raise some doubts no matter how it is done, even if the answers are always basically the same.

Producing the basic necessities of life sustainably for everyone is relatively straightforward and *could* be done quickly, within a couple of years, with planning and cooperation. However, even those not caught up in the consumerist culture usually want a little more than just food and a place to sleep in their lives. Obviously, everyone in the world can't be flying around the world in a Lear jet or driving a Hummer but what about a small EV or motorcycle or will we all have to ride bicycles and walk? Will everyone have to become vegetarians and keep their thermostats above 24C in the summer and below 20C in the winter? What kinds of recreation are sustainable?

We did start a changeover decades ago. One of the great things Jimmy Carter did as President was to have a plan and start implementing it by putting solar panels on the White House but when Ronald Reagan was elected, one of his very first acts was to have those solar panels removed (some are still in operation at a small college in Maine) and abandon the Carter plan. 

[Genady]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

We had one B&W tv (which was a massive luxury), we had one bath a week the water shared by all. My mother repaired all our clothes and shoes, the majority of which were hand me downs from friends and family and then between siblings. My father grew most of the veg in the back garden or allotment. Milk was delivered by electric vehicle in glass bottles which were collected next time for wash & reuse. All tin cans, jars, and food containers were utilised for storage and/or other uses and if not would be set aside for the local rag-bone man to collect for scrap. In an evening we all sat in one room so not to use lights and heating in other rooms of the house, where we watched tv (what ever my father wanted on, though there were only 3 channels anyway). My mother walked to the shops, used her own bags, she walked to work and I was left to take care of my siblings. The refuse vehicles came only once a month for waste collection, not much was thrown away back then!

Sat in a room? Luxury:

 

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Hard to disagree with these sentiments in general. There is undoubtedly a big element of 20:20 hindsight in a lot of criticism of previous generations. We simply knew much less then. This is normal: society learns as science advances. 

But to be fair to Thunberg (and to my 19yr old son) it is people one or two generations older than them who are today's decision-makers. There have been inexcusable levels of complacency, and blank refusal to face facts, from a lot of people of our generation, which the coming generation understandably finds very frustrating, especially as they are the ones who will be saddled with the consequences of dilatory action by our generation.

Finger-pointing is on the whole not a constructive exercise, as it makes the pointer angry and the pointee defensive. The thing to do is recognise the issue and cooperate in solving it. Thunberg has been great at raising the profile of the subject but, being autistic, is no diplomat. That should not be surprising.  

+1 for the post.

I think you are correct, when I was younger I pointed the finger at my parents and grandparents for their failings that had consequences for my generation and my children... 

I'm not in disagreement with Greta's motivation,  the world does need to sit up and listen and take action if climate change is down to human intervention (I will conceded to this as fact since I'm not an authority on the science so will listen to those that are). I just feel that finger pointing tactics that have an almost bullying tone is not that constructive unless you are pointing in the right direction. 

For me to act more than I currently do I need to feel that my action is supported and at the very least equaled to by those that cause the most damage and those that have the resource to make a difference. For those that are much less fortunate than me who live cap in hand just to survive may feel they need a little more understanding and a lot more support. 

For the company I work for , they will not achieve carbon net zero unless they gain some financial help and able to implement innovative technology. The reality is that the company will go bust trying and 480 people will lose their jobs. This is a trend that is common among many companies I speak to within our sector. 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I was thinking back to when I was a kid. I come from a relatively poor area, in fact its been pretty much one of the poorest areas, according to the stats, in my country for as long as I can remember.

I remember all things my parents did to save money, and most of this then would nowadays be points towards reducing carbon emissions. 

We had one B&W tv (which was a massive luxury), we had one bath a week the water shared by all. My mother repaired all our clothes and shoes, the majority of which were hand me downs from friends and family and then between siblings. My father grew most of the veg in the back garden or allotment. Milk was delivered by electric vehicle in glass bottles which were collected next time for wash & reuse. All tin cans, jars, and food containers were utilised for storage and/or other uses and if not would be set aside for the local rag-bone man to collect for scrap. In an evening we all sat in one room so not to use lights and heating in other rooms of the house, where we watched tv (what ever my father wanted on, though there were only 3 channels anyway). My mother walked to the shops, used her own bags, she walked to work and I was left to take care of my siblings. The refuse vehicles came only once a month for waste collection, not much was thrown away back then! Yes industry was booming, but we lived a simple life, where everything possible was recycled and nothing was excessively used or wasted, where our carbon footprint was far lower than it is these days.  

So when Greta Thunberg points a finger at previous generations she should take a look in the mirror and accept that we are all accountable to a degree, some more than others. There should also be a little respect towards the previous generations who fought wars, built modern society, for her to enjoy the luxuries that she takes for granted.   

Every generation throw's at least one baby out with the bathwater in our persuit of... mostly leasure, which tends to be conflated with pleasure rather than boredom, for some reason; when I was a kid clothes washing, including nappy's, was a days work with a twin tub, sometimes that was the best day of the week.

And every generation think's it's smarter, because Dad doesn't know what google is... But he could fix the plug that feeds it, which begs the question of what's smarter...

Greta's not pointing the fingure at them or us, she's pointing the fingure at "the government" who can afford it.

My story wasn't about relative poverty, it's about what is affordable; and for me, turning off the streetlights is the starting point of affordable. 

IIRC shifting the clock's to suite our working hour's, saved millions of candles...

Edited March 27, 2023 by dimreepr

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

+1 for the post.

I think you are correct, when I was younger I pointed the finger at my parents and grandparents for their failings that had consequences for my generation and my children... 

I'm not in disagreement with Greta's motivation,  the world does need to sit up and listen and take action if climate change is down to human intervention (I will conceded to this as fact since I'm not an authority on the science so will listen to those that are). I just feel that finger pointing tactics that have an almost bullying tone is not that constructive unless you are pointing in the right direction. 

For me to act more than I currently do I need to feel that my action is supported and at the very least equaled to by those that cause the most damage and those that have the resource to make a difference. For those that are much less fortunate than me who live cap in hand just to survive may feel they need a little more understanding and a lot more support. 

For the company I work for , they will not achieve carbon net zero unless they gain some financial help and able to implement innovative technology. The reality is that the company will go bust trying and 480 people will lose their jobs. This is a trend that is common among many companies I speak to within our sector. 

 

I am not aware that there is any law requiring individual companies to be net zero by any deadline. What industry is this, in what country, and what pressure is there for it to achieve net zero unilaterally? 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Sat in a room? Luxury:

 

Yes that went through my mind too.

As did Spike Milligan's remonstration: "Look, I died in the war for people like you."  

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Sat in a room? Luxury:

 

LOL, beat me to it, but there's some lovely filth over here:

 

God damn it, now I've got to watch again, which is a sort of recycling...😇 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not in disagreement with Greta's motivation,  the world does need to sit up and listen and take action if climate change is down to human intervention (I will conceded to this as fact since I'm not an authority on the science so will listen to those that are). I just feel that finger pointing tactics that have an almost bullying tone is not that constructive unless you are pointing in the right direction. 

Why is everyone focusing on this one outspoken child?

Because she got attention - by pointing.

Quote

[In 1896 Svante] Arrhenius published his calculation in The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, which showed carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could increase the temperatures on Earth. His work was built on previous works of other 19th-century scientists that hypothesized the possible outcomes of trapped carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Quote

In 1957, Roger Revella led a study that showed the ocean will not absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from human activity and that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are significantly rising.

Quote

the 1960 research of Charles Keeling that detected the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere of the planet. Since then, the first alarm around how human activity could impact the planet's climate has been sounded and followed by more studies that trace the origins of climate change on the existence of humanity.

 

Quote

The first time that the scientific community convened with politicians to address climate change as a threat to the planet was during the Toronto Conference of the Changing Atmosphere in 1988. But as decades passed by, the concerns of climate change effects have only escalated.

 

They were reasonable. They laid out arguments backed by meticulous research, published scientific papers in respected journals, held conferences, advised governments, NGO's, international agencies and the UN. They were heard, nodded-at, and ignored. They didn't point fingers.  Or get arrested on mass media. They were not sufficiently desperate.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Peterkin
left out information

[TheVat]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why is everyone focusing on this one outspoken child?

Because she got attention - by pointing.

Plus one.  

Also worth noting that Greta doesn't seem to be taking her carbon civilization luxuries for granted.  I was impressed that she made her way to a conference in New York by sailboat.  She could easily have flown, and made the usual excuses.  Sure, it was a stunt of sorts, but she's made a couple of transatlantic crossings this way, at least one in a boat that has no toilet, fixed shower, cooking facilities or proper beds.  This sort of thing, if she keeps on with it, gets attention and requires no use of the pointy finger.

[mistermack]

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Sure it is, once climate change really gets going - remember it's not linear or steady over time  -  the sea level rises, the climate refugees crowd into a dwindling habitable zone, more frequent famines, pandemics and wars break out, including, sooner rather than later, maybe the big one with all the nukes.

All pure speculation. If it's open season for wild claims, then a warmer world will open up vast areas of Russia and Canada for use, completely cancelling out a little bit of flooded coast. And the Sahara will green again, with the extra rainfall a warmer world will bring.