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 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 116

Thread: Climate change strikes

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Another big cause of the problem, is the animals raised for human consumption. The normal wee family farms are small fry, and in many cases are being put out of business, but the growing Industrial farming trend is a big, big contributor to climate change, as well as appalling animal cruelty. This industry needs lots of land for the animals to live on, and even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss. The crop production itself results in excess nitrous oxide being released from the soil into the atmosphere, from the use of fertilisers and manures. The extra transport required for both the food and the animals notches things up even further. Then there is the vast emissions from the animals themselves.


    This all adds up to a really big problem in relation to climate change. I don't suggest that everyone should go vegan overnight, but we really need to look at what we eat, and how we view food,

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    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.
    Feel free to read some of the statements from other patrons then;

    https://populationmatters.org/our-patrons

    As far as Mr Attenboroughs children - They were born in the 1960's or earlier (can only find a report that says they were in their 50's in 2017). So their births predate both the Limits to Growth report of 1972, and the first coalescing of thoughts on climate change in 1988. He had his children before these issues became apparent.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodfellers View Post
    A reduced population would quickly solve any shortage of homes.
    With the daily increase in the worlds population of 225,000, then you need to think of all the homes in Aberdeen being required each day just to house all the new the new arrivals. Thats either an awful lot of concrete, bricks, mortar, mud or whatever. By having a few folk in the developed world take their paper to the recycling centre, or swapping to LED light bulbs, is never going to counter the effects of building a new Aberdeen every day.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shabbychic View Post
    Another big cause of the problem, is the animals raised for human consumption. The normal wee family farms are small fry, and in many cases are being put out of business, but the growing Industrial farming trend is a big, big contributor to climate change, as well as appalling animal cruelty. This industry needs lots of land for the animals to live on, and even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss. The crop production itself results in excess nitrous oxide being released from the soil into the atmosphere, from the use of fertilisers and manures. The extra transport required for both the food and the animals notches things up even further. Then there is the vast emissions from the animals themselves.


    This all adds up to a really big problem in relation to climate change. I don't suggest that everyone should go vegan overnight, but we really need to look at what we eat, and how we view food,
    If only that were true. Global cattle population has remained steady at about 1 billion since 2012;

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-1990/

    In the same period, the number of humans on the planet have increased by over half a billion.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    If only that were true. Global cattle population has remained steady at about 1 billion since 2012;

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-1990/

    In the same period, the number of humans on the planet have increased by over half a billion.
    Actually it is true. I didn't mention an increase in animals per head, I didn't look into those figures. The issue is about the misuse of land, the increase in industrial farming and it's contribution to atmospheric pollution and climate change.


    You raise one question though, if farming animal production has remained steady, why the increasing need for all these new horrendous facilities, especially as they obviously can't be feeding all these extra people? Is it something to do with making more money?


    Either way, it is a big issue in climate change. Or is this an area that some people don't want to acknowledge because they like eating meat too much? Folks can't really pick and choose climate issues on whether they fit into their lifestyle choices. They either exist or they don't.
    Last edited by Shabbychic; 01-Jan-20 at 14:16.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,692

    Default

    If we are going to fail in cutting the human population then maybe the next best thing is to stop obsessing over saving wild animals & start culling them. They also produce greenhouse gasses & consume CO2 absorbing plants (I wonder how many antelope would be needed to be culled to offset 1 human?).
    “We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine....
    And the machine is bleeding to death."


  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shabbychic View Post
    Actually it is true. I didn't mention an increase in animals per head, I didn't look into those figures. The issue is about the misuse of land, the increase in industrial farming and it's contribution to atmospheric pollution and climate change.


    You raise one question though, if farming animal production has remained steady, why the increasing need for all these new horrendous facilities, especially as they obviously can't be feeding all these extra people? Is it something to do with making more money?


    Either way, it is a big issue in climate change. Or is this an area that some people don't want to acknowledge because they like eating meat too much? Folks can't really pick and choose climate issues on whether they fit into their lifestyle choices. They either exist or they don't.
    That's true, you didn't mention an increase in cattle. So if the increased population aren't eating beef, then what are they eating? Looks like non meat products may be partly involved;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...ion_statistics

    Taking the last 7 years production (2010 to 2017) in the above link to try and have parity with the cattle statistics, world wheat production has risen from 640 to 770 million tonnes. An increase of 20%. In the same period, the worlds population increased by 8.5% (source = https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/) So, the population has risen by 8.5%, and the wheat production has risen by 20%. Wheres the rest of the wheat gone you ask? According to Shabbychic, to more industrial methods of meat production. You can't make a cow eat more grass to get it to market quicker, but you can bring it on faster by feeding it cereals. So, stands to reason, the extra wheat has gone to make the static population of cattle ready for the plate faster. Doesn't it?

    Alas no. The worlds beef production has been about as static as the head of cattle population over 7 years.



    (source = https://beef2live.com/story-world-be...-year-0-106778)

    With 59.25 million tonnes of beef produced in 2010 and 61.5 million tonnes produced in 2017, a rise of just 3.8%

    So all this "the world is being ravaged to farm food for the carnivores" is mostly nonsense. Its all the wheat being grown for the vegetarians, vegans and additional population that's claiming all the land!
    Last edited by orkneycadian; 01-Jan-20 at 15:19.

  8. #68

    Default

    As far as Mr Attenboroughs children - They were born in the 1960's or earlier (can only find a report that says they were in their 50's in 2017). So their births predate both the Limits to Growth report of 1972, and the first coalescing of thoughts on climate change in 1988. He had his children before these issues became apparent.

    ​You have missed my point but never mind.

  9. #69

    Default

    This is where there has to be a much larger masterplan.

    We all (well mostly all) want cheap nutritious food. We currently get it.

    Switch to less intensive production....cost goes up. Poorer members of society will then struggle.

    This is where less population would be beneficial. Less people, less food consumed, less resources (land) used up.

    I know it's not a popular suggestion (I've made it before) All governments should announce that in 20 years time(?) ALL benifits relating to childbirth will cease. This may help people consider whether to have children or not. We need to come up with ways to discourage childbirth (along with any other ideas to reduce emissions that harm the planet).

  10. #70

    Default

    Great plan Goodfellers. But to turn this thread right back to the beginning, and keeping it on topic to keep Shabbychic happy.....

    Your plan means that people need to make significant changes. Not token gestures. The original poster posted about striking schoolkids. But yet, we have not been able to find any evidence of any striking school child that has undertaken any of the measures I posted in a picture further up the thread. In fact, I suspect that our striking schoolkids are still wallowing in all the new tech they got at Christmas.

    So they are not willing to change. They are willing to make some noise, and take some days of school. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they are just as bad as everyone else. All talk, and no action.

    Then there are those on here that abhor any kind of population control. Those that think that be recycling tin cans or elastic bands or whatever that that's their bit done. And that somehow, that will magically counter act the effects of all the new people on the plant.

    Nope Goodfellers, you were right a few posts ago. But its not the planet that will die off due to all our people. It will be ourselves. If there are any of us left in a few hundred years, they will look back to the Limits to Growth chart in another thread and wonder how on earth (pun intended), that we saw the issue coming back in 1972, but did absolutely diddly squat about it. Instead, we just let all the graphs play out, as so accurately predicted almost 50 years ago.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    That's true, you didn't mention an increase in cattle. So if the increased population aren't eating beef, then what are they eating? Looks like non meat products may be partly involved;

    With 59.25 million tonnes of beef produced in 2010 and 61.5 million tonnes produced in 2017, a rise of just 3.8%

    So all this "the world is being ravaged to farm food for the carnivores" is mostly nonsense. Its all the wheat being grown for the vegetarians, vegans and additional population that's claiming all the land!

    Oh dear, google's getting laldy today eh? No matter how much you google away to try to prove me wrong, as usual, factory farming is a large contributor to climate change, whether you like it or not.. If you want to prove vegans are actually to blame, then discuss that. I totally agree with you that all foodstuff grown is partly involved, but I don't believe your average vegan is pumping out anything up to 120 kg of methane each year though, no matter how many beans they eat. Did you know that the largest percentage of soy grown is fed to animals?


    It was just pointed out to me that you have mentioned me personally in 2 comments in a row.....Aw Shucks......Mwah.


    Anyway, I thinks it's time for me to go and stuff my face wie some wheat.

  12. #72

    Default

    OK, but the point you raised was all the land clearing and such for additional production;

    "even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss"

    The stats show that head of cattle population is largely stable, and beef production is only marginally up. But wheat production is up by 20%. So no-one would appear to be clearing forests for beef production, either directly (letting cattle graze on the land) or indirectly (growing cereal on the land to feed to cattle). Well, no more than a few percent anyway. So the increase in land clearing seems to be more closely tied to the increasein wheat production, and in parallel, we have an increase in world population.

    I would welcome your counter argument and explanation as to how not increasing the number of head of cattle, and not increasing beef production by more than 4% over 7 years is the cause of all this forest clearing and burning. I would also welcome your suggestions as to where all that extra 20% of wheat is grown?

  13. #73

    Default

    My hope is that in a few hundred years, someone looks back on these boards and thinks 'wow' at least two people understood the importance of reducing the population, shame no one acted on it as I'm one of the last humans left.

    Happy New Year.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    OK, but the point you raised was all the land clearing and such for additional production;

    "even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss"

    The stats show that head of cattle population is largely stable, and beef production is only marginally up. But wheat production is up by 20%. So no-one would appear to be clearing forests for beef production, either directly (letting cattle graze on the land) or indirectly (growing cereal on the land to feed to cattle). Well, no more than a few percent anyway. So the increase in land clearing seems to be more closely tied to the increasein wheat production, and in parallel, we have an increase in world population.

    I would welcome your counter argument and explanation as to how not increasing the number of head of cattle, and not increasing beef production by more than 4% over 7 years is the cause of all this forest clearing and burning. I would also welcome your suggestions as to where all that extra 20% of wheat is grown?
    I'll be the first to admit I am no expert on the intricacies of factory farming, deforestation and land clearances in general, so I really don't have all the answers. I'm only going on the things I have read from various sources. We must be careful with where this information comes from though. If we look at a site promoting the meat industry for example, things will be twisted in their favour. The same is true for the tobacco industry, vegetarian sites, and alcohol promotion, to name but a few. They often pay for research to be done, where the results always favour their views. We really must look beyond that, which can be difficult at times, and always keep in mind the words of the well know saying, "There are 3 kinds of lies....lies, damn lies and statistics."


    With regards to the animals raised in these facilities, they are not all cattle though, are they? They also consist of pigs, sheep, goats, and all types of poultry and fish, and probably more, which all need fed. I don't know what the figures are for these animals but as I stated earlier, if there is no increase in their populations, why the need for these industrial farming methods? I think there is nothing nicer than seeing the local farms with the animals, mothers and babies, free to roam in large green fields. I don't like what happens to them afterwards, but at least they have some sort of life, instead of being crammed into large concrete buildings from the day they are born, with no room to move, and never even seeing daylight. (sorry, I'm off on a tangent here)


    With regards to all the land clearances, it appears to be mainly to create extra spaces for crop growing. Now I know veganism is on the rise, (although it is mainly vegetarianism really, but it is trendy to call it veganism) but I really don't believe all this is being done for extra veggie burgers.


    So, no, I don't have all the answers, i just know it is all adding to a vast carbon footprint and must be taken into the equation when defining global warming.

    Last edited by Shabbychic; 02-Jan-20 at 05:22.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodfellers View Post
    My hope is that in a few hundred years, someone looks back on these boards and thinks 'wow' at least two people understood the importance of reducing the population, shame no one acted on it as I'm one of the last humans left.

    Happy New Year.
    Happy New Year to you too.


    I think a lot of people on here, and elsewhere, agree with you that the world population is out of control. There is no disputing that, but I don't think we, on here, can actually change this. We can come up with solutions till we are blue in the face, but in the end it is world governments who must act in resolving this problem.


    Personally, I believe that free education, free family planning and assistance in obtaining some form of income, will be a great step forward. I really believe in human rights and hate anything that is compulsorily forced on people. When I say education, I don't just mean sex education, but education in general, including what is happening to the planet and the consequences of our actions. (which would help in future employment prospects, and in improving their lives) Many people throughout the world who are poor, and live in squalid conditions, are not as stupid as some believe, they just don't have access to proper information, and sadly must just concentrate on surviving another day.


    I think another reason, as others have already mentioned, that the population size is so large, is due to people living longer. So restricting new births could end up with an increased, aging population and less new blood to carry on. Don't know what the answer is there.


    Some religious people should also consider this problem as well, like Jacob Reece-Mogg for example. I think at the last count he is up to 6 children now. In the words of Oor Wullie, "Jings, crivens and help ma boab"

  16. #76

    Default

    My hope is that in a few hundred years, someone looks back on these boards and thinks 'wow' at least two people understood the importance of reducing the population, shame no one acted on it as I'm one of the last humans left
    Hate to say it, but a tad arrogant! Also, we don't actually know what will happen in the future as none of us has a crystal ball nor do we, on here, have the solutions to this incredibly complex issue. Reducing population is one of them but it's by no means the only one. It could also be argued that maybe the unproductive oldies should do the decent thing and volunteer to take a happy pill. Or maybe governments should withdraw all support and healthcare from the old rather than the young. You going to sign up for that- no, thought not! And yes, I am joking. Climate change is already wiping thousands of the poorest people out through starvation and the weakest (the children) are dying first. Personally I find that hateful, wrong and unacceptable and will continue to do all I can to prevent it through charitable giving.

  17. #77

    Default

    Terrible situation down in Australia..........

    Does this sound familiar?
    But opposition Labor leader Anthony Albanese said the government was not doing enough."Here's the contradiction in the government's position - they say, 'Oh, well, we're just 1.3% of [global] emissions, therefore we don't have a responsibility to act, it won't really make a difference'," he said."But the truth is that, if everyone says that, of course, no-one will act."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50973232

  18. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    Climate change is already wiping thousands of the poorest people out through starvation and the weakest (the children) are dying first.
    Yup, all as predicted back in 1972 in Limits to Growth. From the 1972 prediction, the death rate will have started to rise. Lets have a closer look at that.....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate

    So according to the UN, the world death (mortality) rate is expected to bottom out and start going up again. Just like the Limits to Growth prediction. But I think the UN perhaps underestimate the rate of rise. From the same Wikipedia page;

    "Crude death rate – the total number of deaths per year per 1,000 people. As of 2017 the crude death rate for the whole world is 8.33 per 1,000 (up from 7.8 per 1,000 in 2016) according to the current CIA World Factbook."

    So the death rate is already higher in 2017 than was predicted by the UN for the 2020-2025 period. In fact, the 2017 death rate is (very marginally) higher than the UN predicted 2025-2030 rate. So it will be interesting to see how that pans out over the next few years.

    So what else did Limits to Growth say about 2020, and how accurate has it been?

    Well,
    Services per capita. Will have peaked and on the way downwards again. How often do the bins now get collected in Caithness? How are your hospital services going over there? Would you say that there has been a cutback in public services?

    Birth rate. Will have been declining globally to date. Yup, think that's correct

    Population. Rising quickly. Yup

    food per capita. Will be rapidly declining. Not sure that is totally accurate, though some would cite the proliferation of foodbanks as evidence to the contrary. May be skewed by all the land clearing for wheat production keeping up with demand, though Shabbychic doesn't like it.

    Resources - Dwindling fast - Check.

    Industrial Output per capita - Right, I have screwed my mind looking for data on this. With so many ways for it to be presented, its hard to interpret. But I think in general, aside from a few downward blips, "GDP per Capita percentage change" on a worldwide basis is running at about +2%. So that bucks the Limits to Growth trend, though Limits to Growth only predicted the peak, and subsequent fall to be around about 2010.

    Death rate. Will have been falling till a year or 2 ago, but now on the turn and going up again. - Yup

    Pollution - Increasing exponentially. Yup, and the whole basis of this thread.


    So, on the whole, Limits to Growth is fairly accurate. Not bad for a computer simulation carried out nearly 50 years ago. So accurate has it been, that in the wiki page for Limits to Growth, it says;


    In 2008, Graham Turner of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time." Turner also examined a number of reports, particularly by economists, which over the years have purported to discredit the limits-to-growth model. Turner says these reports are flawed, and reflect misunderstandings about the model. Turner reprised and expanded these observations in a 2014 opinion piece in collaboration with The Guardian.


    So on the whole, we are behaving exactly as the sheeple that Limits to Growth predicted. And to come back to Fulmars point, the predicted increase in pollution is causing the predicted increased death rate, which at this point, is unfortunately affecting mostly the poorest people. The predicted reduction is services per capita is already happening, and that is making more people poorer, and I expect that's what will kick off the predicted peak and subsequent fall in Industrial Production per Capita - Just a few years later than the prediction suggests.

  19. #79

    Default

    Encouraging front page of the Times today

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	100.8 KB 
ID:	35029

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    lyth
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Maybe someone should have a word with the pope, if he changed his mind on birth control it might help,

Page 4 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
  •