Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 116

Thread: Climate change strikes

  1. #41

    Default

    There is a brilliant article written about this subject in this weeks. John o Groat Journal,by John Campbell, Scarfskerry.
    HEADWARK

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aqua View Post
    How would you do it?
    Firstly, by education - Equal or greater prominence to be given to the population emergency as to the climate emergency, and underlining how the former is largely responsible for the latter. OFCOM to ensure that any documentary broadcast in the UK about climate change always points out the underlying reason for it.

    Secondly, by renaming any conferences or other gatherings on supposed Climate Change to somethkng like the Population and Climate Conference

    Thirdly, any striking schoolkids to give an undertaking that they will not have any more than 1 child. Having none would help bring the climate emergency under control.

    Fourth(ly?). Any person who has had more than 1 child to be banned from attending any sort of climate change protest, or even complaining about it. They are the problem. So thats Emma Thomson and the founders of Extinction Rebellion silenced then. By their excessive procreation, they are adding to the planets problems.

    That should go some way to sorting it.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aqua View Post
    How would you do it?

    I'd get some scientists together to create a virus that will kill 50% of the population in a totally random manner for fairness.
    ďWe're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine....
    And the machine is bleeding to death."


  4. #44

    Default

    The one child proposal is not sustainable.

    Does anyone have a sustainable suggestion?
    Last edited by aqua; 21-Dec-19 at 23:15.

  5. #45

    Default

    In previous generations we had world wars to cull the population....time for another one?

    Sustainable enough?...I'm sure Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping would go for it.

    To reduce world population properly, it needs to be a drastic measure. I can't see the problem with limiting children to one. Sterilize both male and female at the birth of first child...not exactly difficult. Why would anyone object when you want to bring your child into a better world that isn't going to fry them? Even better, have zero children and enjoy YOUR time on this Earth, not worrying about the future.

  6. #46

    Default

    Do you have children Goodfellers?

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aqua View Post
    The one child proposal is not sustainable.

    Does anyone have a sustainable suggestion?
    1 child per couple is not sustainable indefinitely. But its about the only measure that will create a reduction. 2 children per couple will create a very slow decline, with the rate of infant/child/young adult mortality then determining the rate of population reduction.

    1 child per couple is sustainable if you change from it once the population is down to a sustainable level.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    Is anyone aware of 1 single climate change protester, especially a school striker who has renounced any, let alone all of the above?

    I suspect that all our school strikers are excitedly looking forward to getting the latest tech on Wednesday, made from plastic and rare earth elements in China, then shipped halfway round the world on a fuel oil burning container ship, or maybe even flown. And then, I guess they will be at the Boxing day sales, stocking up on more consumer goods, before getting ready for strikes in the new school term, telling us oldies how we are so bad to the planet.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    Do you have children Goodfellers?
    None of my own, but do have two step sons who I've encouraged not to have children. Working so far

  10. #50

    Default

    Drastic reduction of CO2 emissions would be much quicker than reducing the population by restricting the size of families.

  11. #51

    Default

    Agreed, but no government seems willing to do this on any scale. Reading the reports from the climate change conference, just about every country argued for an exemption as they needed to produce co2 to boost their economy and each country only produced a small % of the global co2. There are 195 countries on this planet, so you can see why they all claim to only produce a small %, but when they all think the same, nothing will change.

    If the entire world looked at reducing population somehow, then demand for everything falls off.....it sounds so simple. Big business would use their influence to stop it somehow, as we all know this world runs on money and power, less consumers, less money.

    Did anyone see 'The day the Earth stood still' last night?......Quite relevant at the moment. We need Keanu Reeves to save us!

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aqua View Post
    Drastic reduction of CO2 emissions would be much quicker than reducing the population by restricting the size of families.
    But don't forget, those extra 225,000 people on earth every day, exhale 1 kg of CO2 each, daily. So every day, and extra 225 tonnes of CO2 is hitting the atmosphere, caused my nothing more than breathing.

    So say you take 1st January 2019 as your datum, on the 1st of January, an extra 225 tonnes is in the atmosphere, on the 2nd of January, an extra 450 tonnes goes up there. By the 31st of December, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, solely from respiration of all the new people on the planet is 82,125 tonnes. Add all that lot up, and the total extra CO2 arising from respiration alone in 2019 is just over 15 million tonnes.

    And just for some perspective, the 8 billion people in total on the planet exhale 8 million tonnes of CO2 per day = almost 3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

    And that's before any of them do anything other than exhaling.

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    Is anyone aware of 1 single climate change protester, especially a school striker who has renounced any, let alone all of the above?
    No? Me neither. Not heard of 1 single youngster / school striker who has come forward and said they have renounced consumerism over Christmas. Maybe they are saving it for a new years resolution? Trouble is, that's a bit late for all the tech deliveries they have just taken.

    Nope, I expect they are all still lying in their pits at 0820 on a Monday morning, burnt out from being up till 0300 last night, burning energy playing with their tech, whilst connected to the Internet. They can sleep easy today, knowing that their contributions last night are helping push the Internets energy demand up from 10% of world energy consumption now to 20% in 2025. Awww, the little darlings!

    Aside from that, anyone hear the boffins (buffoons) on Radio Scotland this morning about quarter past 7 wittering on about how all the changes pledged at the Paris Climate Summit in 2015 don't seem to be working? Not once did they mention population, either retrospectively ("We should have addressed population back in 2015") or in the present / future. Instead, they express dismay that temperatures continue to rise, despite all these summits. Don't worry boffins, since the Paris summit in 2015, you have an extra 600 million people on the planet who can share your concerns. Hmmm, hang on a minute....... I think I can see the problem.....

  14. #54

    Default

    From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor. Also, that global fertility rates are in fact falling and globally the rate has slowed. Also, that it is where the children are born that counts and each child in a developed country is responsible for far more emissions contributing to climate change. Also, that it is people living longer than they did previously (particularly in developed countries) that is a problem- emitting CO2 for much longer than in former times.
    Happy New Year one and all.

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor.
    I would beg to differ. Herewith the words of Sir David Attenborough;

    “All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”
    – Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron

    From his words, too many people and you cannot solve the environmental problems.
    Last edited by orkneycadian; 31-Dec-19 at 19:10. Reason: Square bracket missing out of HTML

  16. #56

    Default

    David Attenborough’s claim isn’t in conflict with fulmar’s summary!

  17. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor. Also, that global fertility rates are in fact falling and globally the rate has slowed. Also, that it is where the children are born that counts and each child in a developed country is responsible for far more emissions contributing to climate change. Also, that it is people living longer than they did previously (particularly in developed countries) that is a problem- emitting CO2 for much longer than in former times.
    Happy New Year one and all.
    Thatís pretty much the situation as I understand it. Iíve started trying to write a similar summary several times, but I didnít have the patience to reply to the inevitable one-dimensional backlash.

  18. #58

    Default

    Much as I revere and love Sir David Attenborough (and I certainly do), well when I consider his carbon footprint over his 90 odd years, then I think that maybe he should also consider his own personal contribution to the problem. He has continued to (presumably) fly to all quarters of the globe to make the programmes, continuing to do so even when he has known of the impact on the climate of such actions. He has 2 children (as do I) and I do not know how many grandchildren or great grandchildren. So what are we saying then? That it's alright for people like him or me to have had kids but not now for other young adults. Same goes for Prince William with whom Sir D is closely involved although I admire the setting up of the prizes to reward those who come up with innovative ways of tackling climate change.

  19. #59

    Default

    Here is a link to an interesting unbiased assesment of the Chinese 'one child' policy https://www.centreforpublicimpact.or...hoC_L8QAvD_BwE

    Before anyone says it 'NO' I am not suggesting adopting Chinese policy. The report shows the pros and cons of limiting child birth rates.

    The basic idea is sound. Reward couples who only have one child and apply disincentives to having two or more. That could be for future policy makers to decide.

    A reduced population would quickly solve any shortage of homes. Developed countries could encourage immigration from third world countries. I would love to see an 'empty' Africa left to return to nature (maybe several centuries on from now) where the population have voluntarily moved to Europe (that would stop migrants risking their lives in inflatables crossing the Med)

    I would like to believe that with the mounting evidence for humans slowly destroying this planet, that people would start to consider how much impact they personally have on Earth. If children could be taught about their individual impact, then they themselves may consider how many children they would want.

    If you could persuade the public to have less children along with all the other methods of reducing our carbon footprint, the world might survive. But if people continue as they are I'm afraid this planet is doomed, maybe not for a few hundred years, but doomed none the less. Why would you want children with that prospect? Unless of course, you think, 'everyone else can have less children and I'll change nothing'. This seems to be the policy of governments around the world, 'everyone else has to change their ways, but not us'.

    Just something to think about.

    We can't change what's been, but we can change what's to come.

  20. #60

    Default

    I agree and also think that change has to come and start with each person individually and personal responsibility. I accept that means me (have to say, have been trying to do the right thing in small ways for very many years) and the challenge is how to implement further changes in my life, possibly sacrificially, for the greater good.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •