Scary and Shocking Environmental Report

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,544
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#41
We don't have necessarily to invent. We can start with reasoning.

I'm not sure if it's that difficult to find a solution to importing pavement stone from India and China in Germany when there's a source of pavement stone at 20 km. For example.

Or You can think that the school's swimming pool needs being heating, and school's servers needs cooling, make the logical deduction: use the pool for cooling the servers. Another example.
I appreciate the whole “act locally” thing. That would be great if folks wasted less.
Does that address exponential population growth? How do these worthy acts make us carbon neutral, as a planet, within a few years?
 
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#42
I appreciate the whole “act locally” thing. That would be great if folks wasted less.
Does that address exponential population growth? How do these worthy acts make us carbon neutral, as a planet, within a few years?
Listen, I have a question: what is Your answer, what are Your solutions?

What should be done, in Your oppinion?
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,544
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#43
Listen, I have a question: what is Your answer, what are Your solutions?

What should be done, in Your oppinion?
Fair question, though I've already answered it. There is no solution, or at least no realistic solution. No one linked the actual paper, merely a HuffPo article, because the paper hasn't been released yet. Instead, we are reacting to...nothing at all, really. No facts are known. The one "fact" presented wasn't a fact at all, just a misreading, yet it was discussed regardless.

From the article:
The global assessment report, which will not be published in full until later this year (only the conclusions have been released), is unique among governmental biodiversity studies because it identifies both the direct drivers of nature’s losses ― such as climate change, agricultural expansion, pollution and the exploitation of oceans and forests ― and the underlying causes.
These indirect drivers are more controversial and include world population, which has doubled since 1970 (from 3.7 billion to 7.6 billion people), the tenfold increase in global trade over the last five decades, the sheer amount of goods that people now buy in rich countries, as well as supply chains, the endless pursuit of economic growth, damaging subsidies and the sharp growth of new technologies, all of which put demands on natural resources.


I'll say they're controversial. What does "underlying cause" mean to you? To me it means, well, the cause of the problem. Again, what's your solution for overpopulation? Forced sterilization? That's really the only humane way to get population growth under control in the ridiculously short timeframe claimed by alarmists. Guess where this population growth is occurring? We expect a world population of 10 billion by 2050. That's 3 billion more than we have now. No, I don't have a solution for it, and neither does anyone else.

The other "underlying causes" can probably wait until we solve this one, as I think if solve this one many of the others will melt away. If we are still talking about biodiversity and habitat loss, rather than conflating this with climate change, as some here have done.
 
Likes: macon
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#44
Fair question, though I've already answered it. There is no solution, or at least no realistic solution. No one linked the actual paper, merely a HuffPo article, because the paper hasn't been released yet. Instead, we are reacting to...nothing at all, really. No facts are known. The one "fact" presented wasn't a fact at all, just a misreading, yet it was discussed regardless.

From the article:
The global assessment report, which will not be published in full until later this year (only the conclusions have been released), is unique among governmental biodiversity studies because it identifies both the direct drivers of nature’s losses ― such as climate change, agricultural expansion, pollution and the exploitation of oceans and forests ― and the underlying causes.
These indirect drivers are more controversial and include world population, which has doubled since 1970 (from 3.7 billion to 7.6 billion people), the tenfold increase in global trade over the last five decades, the sheer amount of goods that people now buy in rich countries, as well as supply chains, the endless pursuit of economic growth, damaging subsidies and the sharp growth of new technologies, all of which put demands on natural resources.


I'll say they're controversial. What does "underlying cause" mean to you? To me it means, well, the cause of the problem. Again, what's your solution for overpopulation? Forced sterilization? That's really the only humane way to get population growth under control in the ridiculously short timeframe claimed by alarmists. Guess where this population growth is occurring? We expect a world population of 10 billion by 2050. That's 3 billion more than we have now. No, I don't have a solution for it, and neither does anyone else.

The other "underlying causes" can probably wait until we solve this one, as I think if solve this one many of the others will melt away. If we are still talking about biodiversity and habitat loss, rather than conflating this with climate change, as some here have done.
In other words, there's no solution, so nothing to be done, so we can continue.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
#45
Human species is particular ...

Romans destroyed the great European forests and nobody is still claiming about this.

We caused the extinction of Neanderthals and with a good certainty of other human like species ... but we don't care: are you going to mourn Neanderthals? I don't think so.

The human species is expensive for the biosphere of the planet, no way. We are going to cause some further mass extinctions. Just using internet ... do you want to save, let's say, 1,000 species? Stop using internet. Facebook web firms obtain energy from carbon power plants [imagine how is Facebook polluting!]. Are we going to renounce to Facebook? Are we sure that Historum doesn't enjoy the same source of energy?

This was to say ... let's not be idealists ... reality exists.

Good Lord---is anywhere HERE actually stupid enough to ever have had a facebook account????
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,544
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#46
In other words, there's no solution, so nothing to be done, so we can continue.
You tell me. I’ll ask again: Give any realistic solution for population and global trade. One that actually has a chance of working.
The article says that the authors call for large scale sweeping planet wide changes. I’ll bet anything at all they don’t offer any actual answers, merely what you say: “We need to do something!”
Ok, great. What do we do? How do we start? I had a vasectomy in 1992, so I did my part. What have you done for overpopulation?
 
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#47
You tell me. I’ll ask again: Give any realistic solution for population and global trade.
Before I bought the dozen of pavement stones for extending my terrace I looked where they came from. I've put 2 euros more and bought those coming from "here" instead of "there".

I contribute 25 euros every year to the financement of an NGO having a family planing project in Mali.

I look throughly at the programs and the policies proposed before casting my vote.
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,519
#48
When I was a kid, there were less than 1 billion people on the planet. How many now? How many in 20 years? 50? What’s the solution for the exponential population growth? How do we reconcile the needs of, say, 20 billion people with the problem of urban growth and expanding agriculture?
.
You were a kid in 1800 ?

This said you have a good point.... Any whining about ecology, climate etc.. that includes no points at all about the total population is just plain BS...
 
Likes: macon

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,519
#50
In ancient times there was a whole business of apocalyptic prophecies..... Things would get worse , and the end of the world is near, most of them would say....because humans had dome something to displease god(s)......This then went on.... Now it seems environmentalists have taken over that business.... In the 70s they claimed Oil would disappear within 20 years....

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia

remember this one, no ?

During and before 1999 there was widespread predictions of a Y2K computer bug that would crash many computers on midnight of January 1, 2000 and cause malfunctions leading to major catastrophes worldwide, and that society would cease to function.

When you see reports predicting doom and gloom you should always take them sceptically......

In the environmental case they typically ignore stuff like this (not catastrophic so not interesting) to focus on gory stuff

Extensive reforestation in China makes Earth greener - Global Times

A new study using data from NASA satellites shows that China and India, the two most populous countries in the world, are leading the increase in greening on land and concludes that the "effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries." The study was published on Monday in the journal Nature Sustainability.

The researchers found that the global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China.
 

Similar History Discussions