Lots of hot air

[Spectric]

An awful amount of sentient beings other than **** sapiens would call this planet their home…

So what good things have humans done for the planet, fact is we have really only done things that benefit us at the expense of everything else. We are actually dismantling everything that nature has created including our planet.

 

[bansobaby]

There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.

Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.

Allow the market to decide when/if it actually becomes a problem - the less able will be driven into poverty or worse. Wealthy and educated will survive relatively unscathed. Risk of chaos and societal meltdown, needs active police or military enforcement.

Possible solution - tax carbon consumption, not income. Will make consumers rethink their own spending and priorites. Assume a very average income of £30k pa, £1000 domestic energy and 12000 miles pa in a small car. Other VAT etc unchanged:

• current total tax bill is income tax £3500, NI £2450, VAT on household energy £50, VAT and duty on fuel £900 = total £6900
• reduce income tax rate fom 20% to 10%. Increase personal allowance to £15k. Halve national insurance, increase VAT on domestic energy to 100%, increase fuel duty and VAT to £2700 = total £6700.

Detail needs refinement - eg: tax imported goods on their embedded energy. Individual groups may get vocal about different elements - low paid and domestic energy costs, trades needing vans/transport etc. Changes to be phased over say 10 years as a consistent policy.

The main message is that without burdening people with more tax (generally) their behaviours would change markedly. Suddenly home insulation and efficiency would be important and worth investment. Small cars and less driving for non-essential purposes would preferred.

Those staying ahead of the environmental game would benefit with more disposable income and a tax regime encouraging "green" activities. Those who don't care or won't change will be penalised - tough isn't it!!

That’s a great analysis, and I agree 91.247% with your analysis, but my fundamental problem with all of this is that you wont get the people with all the money to spend it on stuff that doesn’t make them richer……

 

[bansobaby]

So what good things have humans done for the planet, fact is we have really only done things that benefit us at the expense of everything else. We are actually dismantling everything that nature has created including our planet.

I totally agree, mankind is the worst thing to happen to this planet….so far

 

[Trainee neophyte]

So what good things have humans done for the planet, fact is we have really only done things that benefit us at the expense of everything else. We are actually dismantling everything that nature has created including our planet.

If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.

According to the Lancet, half a million people die globally from excess heat, but 4.5 million from cold. The assumption is that global warming saves 166,000 lives per year, and rising. Given that we want to reduce CO2, who do we nominate to die?

 

[Jacob]

....

Climate change is a long tem threat. .....

Climate change is here now. It is a threat now. The only thing long term about it is that it will take many years for action to have effect. Even if every button was pressed today it would many years before it halted and reversed. Syracuse is likely to experience even higher temperatures, for some time to come.

 

[Keith Cocker]

The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.

Man has evolved to be “top dog” with a disproportionate amount of power. That is not a “belief” it’s a “fact”.

 

[danst96]

Man has evolved to be “top dog” with a disproportionate amount of power. That is not a “belief” it’s a “fact”.

Man has always been top of the food chain but we have taken it to a different level where we are just abusing our resources now through greed.

 

[Jacob]

If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.

This is true and it is beneficial but not a game changer - unless we help the process along with massive reforestation and other unlikely things like developing peat bogs which apparently sequester massive amounts of CO2 compared even to rain forests.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/peatlands-store-twice-much-carbon-all-worlds-forests

 

[Jacob]

Man has always been top of the food chain ...

Depends on your point of view. We dung beetles think we are the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[danst96]

Depends on your point of view. We dung beetles think we are the best thing since sliced bread.

You do have a crappy job though, admit it

 

[Rorschach]

Man has always been top of the food chain but we have taken it to a different level where we are just abusing our resources now through greed.

Who says? You are assigning some kind of external moral/ethical framework that says we shouldn't use the resources the planet has. Why? No other species on this planets manages their resources or purposely limits their potential. Does the wolf limit how many deer it eats for the benefit of others?

 

[Jacob]

You do have a crappy job though, admit it

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. And we are definitely top of our food chain. We belief the universe was created for us by an all seeing all knowing benevolent dung beetle in the sky.

 

[danst96]

Who says? You are assigning some kind of external moral/ethical framework that says we shouldn't use the resources the planet has. Why? No other species on this planets manages their resources or purposely limits their potential. Does the wolf limit how many deer it eats for the benefit of others?

You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.

 

[Jacob]

You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.

Populations wax and wane in the non human world and they too can eat themselves out of house and home, depending on circumstances. It's all part of life's rich pattern.

 

[Rorschach]

You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.

Who says it has been plundered? Who says it isn't our immediate need? We aren't using resources for a laugh, we don't drill for oil and then squirt it into space for the fun of it. I'll admit we aren't always the most efficient at using them, but we don't purposely waste them either.

 

[planesleuth]

Who says it has been plundered? Who says it isn't our immediate need? We aren't using resources for a laugh, we don't drill for oil and then squirt it into space for the fun of it. I'll admit we aren't always the most efficient at using them, but we don't purposely waste them either.

'but we don't purposely waste them either' lmao

Planes that burn a gallon of fuel every second and container ships that burn 60000 gallons per day. Yet folks seem to think they are entitled to a ‘holiday in the sun’ and others buying things they don’t actually need, made by the biggest polluter in the world and straight from those same container ships.

 

[Rorschach]

'but we don't purposely waste them either' lmao

Planes that burn a gallon of fuel every second and container ships that burn 60000 gallons per day. Yet folks seem to think they are entitled to a ‘holiday in the sun’ and others buying things they don’t actually need, made by the biggest polluter in the world and straight from those same container ships.

You might consider that a waste, those going on holiday don't think so, those whose businesses rely on the tourists don't think so, those who design and build the planes don't think so, those who fly the planes and take care of the passengers or work at the airports or build the airports don't think so, I could go on, but it will be a very long list and will make you look very silly.
You are committing the fallacy of assuming that because that container ship bringing items that are not for you, it must therefore be full of useless things that people don't need.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Humans have two capabilities which separate them from animals.

The first is now the capacity to impact the global environment rather than just the local and accessible. A statement of the obvious over any but geological timescales.

The second is to understand, and in theory moderate, natural instincts to limit negative environmental impacts which could compromise future survival of the species.

The second is only a theory - mankind has, and is, demonstrating it behaves precisely like its animal kingdom conterparts. Exploit the environment with little regard for the future. When resources run low we will fight over the scraps that remain.

There may be sufficient a population left at the end of the process to start the cycle again, or another species will then dominate (with ultimately the same result).

**** sapiens from the latin means 'wise (or astute) human'. We are anything but!

 

[planesleuth]

You might consider that a waste, those going on holiday don't think so, those whose businesses rely on the tourists don't think so, those who design and build the planes don't think so, those who fly the planes and take care of the passengers or work at the airports or build the airports don't think so, I could go on, but it will be a very long list and will make you look very silly.
You are committing the fallacy of assuming that because that container ship bringing items that are not for you, it must therefore be full of useless things that people don't need.

Thanks for the insult. Go on then, give us the very long list. You know, the one that keeps you on the supporting pedestal that preaches hominids have an inane right to blindly continue to stumble into the hell hole they created. You think you have a right to judge me and accuse me of assumation? Get your head out of the sand and look around you.

 

[Chris152]

You might consider that a waste, those going on holiday don't think so, those whose businesses rely on the tourists don't think so, those who design and build the planes don't think so, those who fly the planes and take care of the passengers or work at the airports or build the airports don't think so, I could go on, but it will be a very long list and will make you look very silly.
You are committing the fallacy of assuming that because that container ship bringing items that are not for you, it must therefore be full of useless things that people don't need.

You seem to be confusing needs and wants. You need something (fuel, for eg) to achieve a want ( a holiday, for eg). Obviously, if you want to be slack in the use of the terms you can call most people's summer hols a need, but that's a pretty flabby definition of a need in the context of this thread. Your list is far from making planesleuth's thoughts look silly, quite the opposite.