A little truth for a change.

[RobinBHM]

Climate change and our finite resources means at some point there will have to be an end to economic growth….will that mean and end to capitalism?

 

[Cobbs]

Climate change and our finite resources means at some point there will have to be an end to economic growth….will that mean and end to capitalism?

...And would that be a bad thing?

 

[Jacob]

Climate change and our finite resources means at some point there will have to be an end to economic growth….will that mean and end to capitalism?

End to "economic growth" means "capitalism" having to be constrained in various ways.
But already is and always has been, so it's not a radical idea but it does mean much more state control, but coupled with investment in economic growth of green technology and infrastructure.
Swings and roundabouts and much better than economic collapse under climate change.
Is de-growth the future? https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/degrowth

 

[artie]

What do you think 15 minute cities mean?

According to Copilot,
A 15-minute city is an urban planning concept that envisions a city where most daily necessities and services—such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure—are easily accessible within a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city

How is this different from living in a small town of 20 years ago?

 

[John Brown]

According to Copilot,
A 15-minute city is an urban planning concept that envisions a city where most daily necessities and services—such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure—are easily accessible within a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city

How is this different from living in a small town of 20 years ago?

I don't think it is all that different. I suppose the point is that with our of town shopping malls and superstores, the consolidation of healthcare facilities etc., most people don't live that way these days.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

@John Brown Not really, it’s just an insulator, but, what gets forgotten all gases in the atmosphere are also insulators. CO2 is at a level of circa 0.04% so no much, and we have increased that level throughout the last century by (round numbers) 0.01% since 1960. Lets put it into context, the wired has been up at over 3% are flurushedm was far greener with a greater diversity of life. Increase in CO2 are not catastrophic. Dropping CO2 levels dish to c0.02% which is where we were heading is catastrophic.

It's quite possible that methane - fugitive emissions of which are associated with all kinds of fossil fuel extraction - is playing a larger part than previously thought in creating a 'greenhouse effect'.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Personally I believe the planet is getting warmer. It is clear that the increase in CO2 is probably the main driver for rapid rate of average increase we have seen since the Industrial Revolution. However, the continuing increase in CO2 does not explain or can it indeed cause the continued rise in temperature. @RobinBHM I agree with the paper you posted, but what it does not state or look at is what is causing the continued temperature rise.
I suspect urbanisation probably has now a far greater effect than any increase in CO2. Cities trap heat and prevent the earth cooling.
We also know that the tilt of the earth and the orbit around the sun are now both in the warming phase and will remain so for about the next 10,000 years. We are moving out of an ice age, as this is defined by the earths tilt / orbit which is why they occur cyclic and are predictable.

Again, personally I believe it’s caused by a combination of many things that are coming together all at once.

The real question is whether the increase in global temperatures will be sufficient to place the world at a level that is incompatible with human life. The problem is nobody knows.

We have really changed the way water moves across the face of the earth - damming rivers, chopping down forests etc - I'm sure that is one of the drivers.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Nowt, as they say, wrong with the idea of a 15 minute city, if that is how you want to live.

Not everyone wants to live that way.

I don't think anyone's suggesting forcing people to live in any particular way. Gentle persuasion, through illustrating the benefits (like, for example, not needing to spend money/time on owning/driving cars etc) might be on the agenda though.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Not sure about the population increase figure quoted, I read that it’s downhill all the way and it’s already started.
I believe the reason western governments don’t appear able to deal with immigration is that they don’t want to as they know the people are needed to replace the shrinking home populations, the demographic timebomb has already started to fizz!

It's hard to believe that the global poulation has more than doubled in my lifetime. Yes, demographics in the post-industrial 'west' means we've got too many of the wrong sort of people in the wrong places, and too few in others. If climate change really gets going (I see that temperatures were close to 60C in Rio recently - proteins start to denature faster at those sorts of temperature) the current levels of (primarily economic, however it's dressed up) migratation will get significantly greater.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Are you suggesting that 70 odd percent of the voting population turned out because they thought their vote was effectively meaningless, and the government might ignore the result anyway?

It is pretty much incontrovertible that 50% (near as dammit) of the population has an IQ of less than 100. If 70% of the electorate turns out to vote - giving "an opinion" at some level or other....

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Climate change and our finite resources means at some point there will have to be an end to economic growth….will that mean and end to capitalism?

I think there's different 'flavours' of capitalism - "slash'n'burn, devil-take-the-hindmost" vs. a more enlightened and fairer equivalent.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I don't think it is all that different. I suppose the point is that with our of town shopping malls and superstores, the consolidation of healthcare facilities etc., most people don't live that way these days.

This suburbanisation - enabled by mass car ownership, refrigeration etc. etc. - is something that started in the USA post-war and has spread across the globe now e.g. UK, Australia etc. etc. Prior to that, the most practical (and eco-friendly, in terms of use of land and other resources) way for people to live was in towns and cities. There's no reason why the pendulum couldn't/shouldn't start to swing the other way.

 

[deema]

So far, there seems to be within the media a lot of back slapping and heart felt delight in the success of Space X to both launch larger and larger payloads as well as the frequency of flights. After all, the launching of satellites provides huge economic benefits as well as educational, humanitarian and all number of other benefits. BUT, the extimates are that last year it contributed 3% of all global warming last year and is going to keep growing exponentially. Although Methaox burns very cleanly and produces CO2, water and a bit of NO, the soot it leaves behind is the main culprit. Now 3% is a big number when that’s considered against Global warming…..no mention of CO2, it’s the soot.

So, is anyone sticking their hand up to say we should launching rockets? Perhaps Elon should look at say solar cells or wind energy and a few batteries to power his rockets?

 

[John Brown]

So far, there seems to be within the media a lot of back slapping and heart felt delight in the success of Space X to both launch larger and larger payloads as well as the frequency of flights. After all, the launching of satellites provides huge economic benefits as well as educational, humanitarian and all number of other benefits. BUT, the extimates are that last year it contributed 3% of all global warming last year and is going to keep growing exponentially. Although Methaox burns very cleanly and produces CO2, water and a bit of NO, the soot it leaves behind is the main culprit. Now 3% is a big number when that’s considered against Global warming…..no mention of CO2, it’s the soot.

So, is anyone sticking their hand up to say we should launching rockets? Perhaps Elon should look at say solar cells or wind energy and a few batteries to power his rockets?

Are solar or wind powered rockets a viable alternative? I'd say no. Are there alternatives to ICE cars and gas boilers? Yes, although they come with some of their own problems. So you're really presenting a false dichotomy situation, wherein we only have two options, stop everything that might accelerate climate change, or do nothing.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

This suburbanisation - enabled by mass car ownership, refrigeration etc. etc. - is something that started in the USA post-war and has spread across the globe now e.g. UK, Australia etc. etc. Prior to that, the most practical (and eco-friendly, in terms of use of land and other resources) way for people to live was in towns and cities. There's no reason why the pendulum couldn't/shouldn't start to swing the other way.

Suburbanisation happened largely due to mass car ownership changing behaviours:

• greater car ownership reduced the economic case for decent public transport
• traditional town and city centres could not cope with traffic or parking
• out of town centre shopping malls and retail development allowed easy access
• economic advantage made a case for larger centralised services - healthcare, education etc
• commuting became feasible where previously reliant on public transport
• social and family relationships were no longer constrained by adjacency

The carrot was the the planning process which encouraged investment in facilities to replace the old and tired, and philosophically promote individual freedoms.

I am not convinced that this will be easy or quick to reverse - the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. It may require major changes to - eg:

• planning and zoning to promote diversity of use rather than a silo mentality
• paying more than lip service to environment impacts instead of mainly financial outcomes
• dis-incentivising out of town with business rates and car parking charges
• increasing carbon/fuel taxation, reduce costs of house moves to reduce commuting
• smaller schools - teachers travel rather than the whole class
• smaller hospitals replacing monolithic regional hubs
• initially large subsidies for much better public transport.

Technological evolution could contribute - eg: autonomous EVs, online shopping - but IMHO it will not happen without material and probably unpopular sticks.

 

[Jacob]

So far, there seems to be within the media a lot of back slapping and heart felt delight in the success of Space X to both launch larger and larger payloads as well as the frequency of flights. After all, the launching of satellites provides huge economic benefits as well as educational, humanitarian and all number of other benefits. BUT, the extimates are that last year it contributed 3% of all global warming last year and is going to keep growing exponentially. Although Methaox burns very cleanly and produces CO2, water and a bit of NO, the soot it leaves behind is the main culprit. Now 3% is a big number when that’s considered against Global warming…..no mention of CO2, it’s the soot.

So, is anyone sticking their hand up to say we should launching rockets? Perhaps Elon should look at say solar cells or wind energy and a few batteries to power his rockets?

Where did you get the 3% figure from? It seems unlikely.
Yes space launches are incredibly CO2 generating, and soot, but they are relatively infrequent - a few hundred per annum as compared to e.g. air travel with many thousands of trips.

 

[Yorkieguy]

I've just read the book 'There is no Climate Crisis'.

Just about very page provides historical scientific factual evidence, of climate variations over thousands of years - long before industrial development, population growth, oil based economies and so on. What was initially referred to as 'climate change' is invariably called 'climate 'crisis'.

It's a mistake to say - as people so often do - that 'all scientists agree' etc, because any who don't agree are branded 'climate deniers', 'flat earthers' and any scientist who provides evidence-based alternative perspectives will not be published in scientific journals which are wedded to the view that there is not simply 'climate change' but an existential threat to the planet which has been created by humans and can be solved by human intervention.

Anyone wedded to that view will not entertain any other, and any debate will - as this one is doing - generate more heat than light.

"THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS":

What if there is no climate crisis? What if the Earth isn't overheating? What if sea levels aren't rising? What if the polar ice caps aren't melting? What if the polar bears are thriving? What if there is no need to reduce CO2 emissions as they have little to no effect on our planet's climate?

Using 150 years of newspaper reports, temperature charts which have been doctored or even deleted, CIA documents and letters to U.S. presidents, THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS reveals that, in a futile attempt to fight the non-existent threat of man-made global warming or climate change or climate emergency or climate crisis or whatever it's called this month, we are about to commit the most expensive and disastrous scientific blunder in human history.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/THERE-CLIMATE-CRISIS-David-Craig/dp/1872188176

And this:

While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis

• September 2022
• Journal of Sustainable Development 15(5):116

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Always_Will_Change_There_Is_no_Climate_Crisis

And this:

The Death of Science: The retreat from reason in the post-modern world
'SCIENCE IS ON ITS DEATH BED':

Lies, specious argument and fraud abound in a variety of scientific endeavours including the treatment and vaccines for Covid-19. Managers and politicians have taken over where previously the scientists were in charge. They have been able to utilise the bizarre language and contradictory processes of political correctness, making themselves into the high priests of a new religion, one which spawns more politically correct managers and despises experts, but there is hope and possible answers are proposed.

Remember the Covid-19 mantra: "We're following the science".? If those who foisted that onto us really and truly believed what they would have us believe, (and enforced that view with criminal penalties), they'd have behaved in quite a different way to that which they did:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Scie...a8-97db-0bf1bb43c732&pd_rd_i=1854571133&psc=1

Nothing will change.

 

[Jacob]

I've just read the book 'There is no Climate Crisis'.

Just about very page provides historical scientific factual evidence, of climate variations over thousands of years - long before industrial development, population growth, oil based economies and so on. What was initially referred to as 'climate change' is invariably called 'climate 'crisis'.

It's a mistake to say - as people so often do - that 'all scientists agree' etc, because any who don't agree are branded 'climate deniers', 'flat earthers' and any scientist who provides evidence-based alternative perspectives will not be published in scientific journals which are wedded to the view that there is not simply 'climate change' but an existential threat to the planet which has been created by humans and can be solved by human intervention.

Anyone wedded to that view will not entertain any other, and any debate will - as this one is doing - generate more heat than light.

"THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS":

What if there is no climate crisis? What if the Earth isn't overheating? What if sea levels aren't rising? What if the polar ice caps aren't melting? What if the polar bears are thriving? What if there is no need to reduce CO2 emissions as they have little to no effect on our planet's climate?

Using 150 years of newspaper reports, temperature charts which have been doctored or even deleted, CIA documents and letters to U.S. presidents, THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS reveals that, in a futile attempt to fight the non-existent threat of man-made global warming or climate change or climate emergency or climate crisis or whatever it's called this month, we are about to commit the most expensive and disastrous scientific blunder in human history.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/THERE-CLIMATE-CRISIS-David-Craig/dp/1872188176

And this:

While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis

• September 2022
• Journal of Sustainable Development 15(5):116

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Always_Will_Change_There_Is_no_Climate_Crisis

And this:

The Death of Science: The retreat from reason in the post-modern world
'SCIENCE IS ON ITS DEATH BED':

Lies, specious argument and fraud abound in a variety of scientific endeavours including the treatment and vaccines for Covid-19. Managers and politicians have taken over where previously the scientists were in charge. They have been able to utilise the bizarre language and contradictory processes of political correctness, making themselves into the high priests of a new religion, one which spawns more politically correct managers and despises experts, but there is hope and possible answers are proposed.

Remember the Covid-19 mantra: "We're following the science".? If those who foisted that onto us really and truly believed what they would have us believe, (and enforced that view with criminal penalties), they'd have behaved in quite a different way to that which they did:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Scie...a8-97db-0bf1bb43c732&pd_rd_i=1854571133&psc=1

Nothing will change.

I'd drop that book in the bin if I were you! It's doin' yer 'ed in!
Have you read any other books on the topic? Maybe you should.

PS how do you account for the fact that climate change seems to happening now, more or less as forecast by the science?
https://royalsociety.org/news-resou...nge-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

 

[DrPhill]

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...09-scientists-sign-a-declaration-saying-ther/

Only 10 of the signatories described themselves as climatologists or climate scientists, Agence France-Presse found.

About 200 signatories were engineers. Other professionals were mathematicians, medical doctors and agricultural scientists. Six signatories were deceased.

 

[DrPhill]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58954530