Kiwirob wrote:

I think you need to pull your head in. I don’t think anyone has any clue what is going to happen until it happens, therefore aren’t we better of preparing for the inevitable?

This in itself is inconsistent. Either you know what is inevitable, thus knowing what is going to happen, or you don't. I opt for option 3, change your ways so you change the future.

For me, your line of reasoning is nothing more than driving into a wall because one thinks it is inevitable, instead of having lots of options (hit the brakes, steer away from the wall, at least stop giving gas, or whatever).



source

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Unfortunately, large scale climate-related catastrophes are what will be needed for change to be enacted. We are not intelligent enough as a species to act in anticipation to known problems. We only act in reaction to them...

I wouldn't invest in a beach property these days.

Well, lots of very intelligent people with much smart money are buying up waterfront land around the world. I’d say they’re not stupid. In my lifetime, there’s been plenty of “scientific” predictions of disaster, all turned to be a big nothing. Oil was supposed to run decades ago, population would outstrip food sources for starters.

Humans seem to fetishize apocalyptic thinking. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve come across who’re convinced that the world is on the precipice and humanity will go extinct within mere decades. People love a good disaster.

So what do you think.

Francoflier wrote:

I wouldn't invest in a beach property these days.

These people don’t seem to mind. Interesting.

I believe at least Bill Gates and maybe also the other two have been very vocal about rising sea levels.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….

AirPacific747 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I wouldn't invest in a beach property these days.

These people don’t seem to mind. Interesting.

I believe at least Bill Gates and maybe also the other two have been very vocal about rising sea levels.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….

Properties can be sold.
And the sea level rise probably won't be noticable in their lifetimes.
Anc they have enough money for repairs etc.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy posting a stupid article where he proclaimed his country used 25% less gas than last year is daft, we all know the reason why European countries are using less gas this year compared to previous years, it's not due to a desire to use less gas, or concerns about climate change, its simply due to there not being enough gas on the market, the reasons for that are very well known.

Another stupid article: 34,2% less gass ussage in week of Septembner 7th. And that is 1/3 below the level of the average of the last 3 years. Yes, that is mostly due to the price and that is exactly what you asked me, so I showed it to you.

ReverseFlow wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I wouldn't invest in a beach property these days.

These people don’t seem to mind. Interesting.

I believe at least Bill Gates and maybe also the other two have been very vocal about rising sea levels.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….

Properties can be sold.
And the sea level rise probably won't be noticable in their lifetimes.
Anc they have enough money for repairs etc.

As discussed before, due to the flood insurance, so the government pays if something happens.

Not completely -
"National Flood Insurance Program policyholders can choose their amount of coverage. The maximum for residential structures for a family of one-to-four is $250,000 in building coverage and $100,000 in contents coverage. For residential structures of five or more units, the maximum is $500,000 in building coverage and $100,000 in contents coverage.- FEMA"

Their houses and property are worth millions.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I wouldn't invest in a beach property these days.

These people don’t seem to mind. Interesting.

I believe at least Bill Gates and maybe also the other two have been very vocal about rising sea levels.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….

Obamas beach house is 110m back from the sea and about 12m above sea level, its should be around for his grandchildren even if/when the seas rise.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy posting a stupid article where he proclaimed his country used 25% less gas than last year is daft, we all know the reason why European countries are using less gas this year compared to previous years, it's not due to a desire to use less gas, or concerns about climate change, its simply due to there not being enough gas on the market, the reasons for that are very well known.

Another stupid article: 34,2% less gass ussage in week of Septembner 7th. And that is 1/3 below the level of the average of the last 3 years. Yes, that is mostly due to the price and that is exactly what you asked me, so I showed it to you.

Unless the Netherlands are different to every other country in Europe the cost increases and reduction in use of gas are directly attributed to the commotion going on to the east in Ukraine, had that kerfuffle not happened do you honestly believe gas prices would be as high as they are today? So yes this article is another daft article.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Humans/close predecessors for most of their 5 million year likely lived in groups of under a hundred or two. We simply did not evolve to cope cooperatively with billions. The marvels of the various sciences and engineering (and the Enlightenment) really are kludges of that same brain operating at the very edge of its ability. Perhaps anthropologists, able politicians, and spiritual leaders will devise cultural patterns for us to get through the next century. I doubt it, rather all of those kludges, noble intentions will increasingly be coopted by tribal loyalties for a miserable neo-fascist collapse.

Some of us will study, vote, and work for solutions, but in my observations the mass of (even intelligent) people do not want solutions. They want what they want Now.

Totally agree!!
Animals are all about self preservation and gratification. No way is the human race as a whole going to sacrifice themselves for others. Look at masks to help prevent the spread of an infectious disease. You'd think they were being asked to cut off an arm.
Humans have invented and devised amazing things, but they have been robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will take some very smart and determined minds to correct all the environmental damage caused by our fiddling with mother nature.
Hopefully we'll have a lot of time to make this planet support this huge human population and support it's growth and not have some major event which starts cascading failures of environmental systems that keeps society safe.
We are on the edge now with events like this

https://www.livescience.com/what-places ... sea-levels

When we have leaders like putin, trump, xi with their selfish ambitions, how can we ever tackle major world problems.

Glad I'm in my 60's and didn't have kids, cause I'm not sure if the smartest of humans will be able to save the selfish masses from themselves.

Hopefully I am proved wrong.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

What would the climate crisis be like if Hillary Clinton became President in 2016, considering that the United States would have stayed in the Paris Climate Agreement?

Probably not all that different, unfortunately. Perhaps the US would have introduced something like the Green Deal for the US, just like Biden kind of did, this year.. So perhaps not four years lost for the US, but nothing for the rest of the world.

Would Hillary Clinton's influence have led to more action in G7 and G20 economies though?

HRC was literally hosting meetings with fracking lobbyists at the 2016 DNC convention. So, no difference at all.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy posting a stupid article where he proclaimed his country used 25% less gas than last year is daft, we all know the reason why European countries are using less gas this year compared to previous years, it's not due to a desire to use less gas, or concerns about climate change, its simply due to there not being enough gas on the market, the reasons for that are very well known.

Another stupid article: 34,2% less gass ussage in week of Septembner 7th. And that is 1/3 below the level of the average of the last 3 years. Yes, that is mostly due to the price and that is exactly what you asked me, so I showed it to you.

Unless the Netherlands are different to every other country in Europe the cost increases and reduction in use of gas are directly attributed to the commotion going on to the east in Ukraine, had that kerfuffle not happened do you honestly believe gas prices would be as high as they are today? So yes this article is another daft article.

Daft for you and for the rest of us it is economics. So people are price sensitive, nobody denies this, although nobody:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't think cash grabs like carbon taxes are going to do anything at all, people still have to live and they will still pay what ever it costs to heat there homes charge or refuel there cars, business will still pay as well and pass on the costs to there customers.

Your thoughts are ncorrect and this daft article shows it.

Dutchy wrote:

I find it astonishing and shocking to see that some people don't want to see that this affects all living people or simply don't care. To me, it is so egocentric to do so. The collapse of ecosystems will not be a matter of investing in infrastructure. Literally, billions of people will suffer and have to relocate. But some just want to continue their current way of life and simply don't care who has to suffer to do so.

There is an ethical dillema: if you are in control of a railway junction, there is a train coming that is heading to a wall and all 10 people on the train will die for sure if you do not change the track, on the side track there is one person bound to the track and will be killed by the train. So what do you do? Change the track so one person will die because of your action, or ten people will die without your action. I prefer to work on system change so we can change our ways and people who are not willing, will be forced to live a life that is more in line with what the earth is actually capable of handling.

A lot of words to say that the world population is out of control and needs to be culled to more sustainable level. Too many people breathing and farting.

Just look at the ecosytem in Chernobyl without the human species interaction its going gangbusters

A101 wrote:

A lot of words to say that the world population is out of control and needs to be culled to more sustainable level. Too many people breathing and farting.

Just look at the ecosytem in Chernobyl without the human species interaction its going gangbusters

Of course, people who do not want to change will highlight this aspect. Seems to me the next phase for deniers, I hear it a lot from people with the populist persuasion or conservative people. It is just an excuse for not acting. From the beginning of this century, the number of children on earth hasn't risen, 2bn. The population will rise to around 10/11bn and will decline thereafter. So if you want to have fewer people, you need to act in Africa, the only continent which will see a substantial rise in the number of people, that will mean a massive investment from the west, are you prepared to do so? Investment in living standards, education, and in healthcare, then the number of children per women will come down.

But given that a person in the west (let's say who travels from the UK to Australia all the time), will admit a massive amount more CO2-eq than some born in Benin. So the problem is not overpopulation, but with the lifestyle, especially in wealthy nations and especially those with a higher income "doing just fine" and higher income.

The number of people on earth will not go down unless you are prepared to kill a massive amount of young people. As this is a given, something else must be done.

It is such an immoral argument, I do not want to change my ways, so other people can't live.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

A lot of words to say that the world population is out of control and needs to be culled to more sustainable level. Too many people breathing and farting.

Just look at the ecosytem in Chernobyl without the human species interaction its going gangbusters

Of course, people who do not want to change will highlight this aspect. Seems to me the next phase for deniers,

Not next phase it has been brought up before in previous threads

Dutchy wrote:

From the beginning of this century, the number of children on earth hasn't risen, 2bn.

That statement is a bit dishonest, even the Netherlands birth rates are steady at 0.2%+ year on year human population growth continues across the globe. Each year there are x number of birth and an x number of children who reach adult hood. Birth rates are higher than death rates across the globe.

Dutchy wrote:

The population will rise to around 10/11bn and will decline thereafter. So if you want to have fewer people, you need to act in Africa, the only continent which will see a substantial rise in the number of people, that will mean a massive investment from the west, are you prepared to do so? Investment in living standards, education, and in healthcare, then the number of children per women will come down.

That’s predicted for around the year 2100 bit late for the so called “climate emergency”
Your right ill send a box of French Tickler’s, please send an name and address to whom the recipient should be.

Dutchy wrote:

But given that a person in the west (let's say who travels from the UK to Australia all the time), will admit a massive amount more CO2-eq than some born in Benin. So the problem is not overpopulation, but with the lifestyle, especially in wealthy nations and especially those with a higher income "doing just fine" and higher income.

That’s contradictory wealthy nations cannot help the third world unless the wealth continues to increase remember it’s the taxes raised by governments that pays for foreign aid. Spending money across the globe increases the taxes paid in various nations. So really lifestyle choices indirectly helps pay for the foreign aid programs across the globe

Dutchy wrote:

The number of people on earth will not go down unless you are prepared to kill a massive amount of young people. As this is a given, something else must be done.
It is such an immoral argument, I do not want to change my ways, so other people can't live.

You said it yourself about the collapse of ecosystems, the only way to return it to its natural environment is to remove the human input as I point out with Chernobyl, and it is widely considered the worst environmental disaster in history, the removal of humans has allowed nature to flourish.
The scare mongering with the so-called climate emergency is on the same level you want the ecosystems to return to its natural existence remove the human element until then well….

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

A lot of words to say that the world population is out of control and needs to be culled to more sustainable level. Too many people breathing and farting.

Just look at the ecosytem in Chernobyl without the human species interaction its going gangbusters

Of course, people who do not want to change will highlight this aspect. Seems to me the next phase for deniers,

Not next phase it has been brought up before in previous threads

The world is quite a bit bigger than this forum, so there has been a trend, that's what I meant. The first phase flat out denial, since the 1980s, funded by the fossil industry, including lobbying, And now, we see the changes all around, the next phase is blaming it on overpopulation. Unlike some, I am not trying to win some pointless forum debate. Chornobyl is a bad example of the real problem we are discussing and you know why don't you?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

From the beginning of this century, the number of children on earth hasn't risen, 2bn.

That statement is a bit dishonest, even the Netherlands birth rates are steady at 0.2%+ year on year human population growth continues across the globe. Each year there are x number of birth and an x number of children who reach adult hood. Birth rates are higher than death rates across the globe.

Numbers aren't dishonest. Some are just incapable of looking at the bigger picture. The number you are looking for is the number of birth per woman, which says something about long-term population growth. And that number is [url=In 2020, the total fertility rate in the EU was 1.50 live births per woman (compared to 1.53 in 2019).]1.50[/url].

Basing your opinions on facts is better than being ignorant, Hans Rosling, many pro-conceived ideas, which aren't true. Perhaps you care to watch it, too educate yourself a bit.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The population will rise to around 10/11bn and will decline thereafter. So if you want to have fewer people, you need to act in Africa, the only continent which will see a substantial rise in the number of people, that will mean a massive investment from the west, are you prepared to do so? Investment in living standards, education, and in healthcare, then the number of children per women will come down.

That’s predicted for around the year 2100 bit late for the so called “climate emergency”

Correct, so that's why it is just an excuse not to do anything about the very real climate emergency.

A101 wrote:

Your right ill send a box of French Tickler’s, please send an name and address to whom the recipient should be.

Ok, nice attitude to make fun of it, or fun, it isn't even funny, just show the ignorance and unwillingness too face facts.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But given that a person in the west (let's say who travels from the UK to Australia all the time), will admit a massive amount more CO2-eq than some born in Benin. So the problem is not overpopulation, but with the lifestyle, especially in wealthy nations and especially those with a higher income "doing just fine" and higher income.

That’s contradictory wealthy nations cannot help the third world unless the wealth continues to increase remember it’s the taxes raised by governments that pays for foreign aid. Spending money across the globe increases the taxes paid in various nations. So really lifestyle choices indirectly helps pay for the foreign aid programs across the globe

What? So a flight from London to Melbourne will help the third world? Strange reasoning.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The number of people on earth will not go down unless you are prepared to kill a massive amount of young people. As this is a given, something else must be done.
It is such an immoral argument, I do not want to change my ways, so other people can't live.

You said it yourself about the collapse of ecosystems, the only way to return it to its natural environment is to remove the human input as I point out with Chernobyl, and it is widely considered the worst environmental disaster in history, the removal of humans has allowed nature to flourish.

As said before, the Chornobyl-region is a bad example. We are talking about the collapse of the ecosystems due to the warming of the planet, thus on a global scale. Chornobyl is local.

A101 wrote:

The scare mongering with the so-called climate emergency is on the same level you want the ecosystems to return to its natural existence remove the human element until then well….

That is complete and utter bull, if you think this is scaremongering than you might want to read the predictions of what will happen (after you die, but your children will be very much a live) in a few decades.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Of course, people who do not want to change will highlight this aspect. Seems to me the next phase for deniers,

Not next phase it has been brought up before in previous threads

The world is quite a bit bigger than this forum, so there has been a trend, that's what I meant. The first phase flat out denial, since the 1980s, funded by the fossil industry, including lobbying, And now, we see the changes all around, the next phase is blaming it on overpopulation. Unlike some, I am not trying to win some pointless forum debate. Chornobyl is a bad example of the real problem we are discussing and you know why don't you?

I can only respond to what you write not what you meant.
No, I am not blaming over population just highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called climate emergency to the biggest obstacle in reducing global emissions.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

From the beginning of this century, the number of children on earth hasn't risen, 2bn.

That statement is a bit dishonest, even the Netherlands birth rates are steady at 0.2%+ year on year human population growth continues across the globe. Each year there are x number of birth and an x number of children who reach adult hood. Birth rates are higher than death rates across the globe.

Numbers aren't dishonest. Some are just incapable of looking at the bigger picture. The number you are looking for is the number of birth per woman, which says something about long-term population growth. And that number is [url=In 2020, the total fertility rate in the EU was 1.50 live births per woman (compared to 1.53 in 2019).]1.50[/url].

LOL, seems you cannot look at you own posts intelligently, one you are saying that child births are steady for the last 22 years in this century, but at the same time acknowledge that the worlds population is increasing to 10/11 billion its either one or the other it cannot be both.

Dutchy wrote:

Basing your opinions on facts is better than being ignorant, Hans Rosling, many pro-conceived ideas, which aren't true. Perhaps you care to watch it, too educate yourself a bit.

Only person here being ignorant is you if you cannot see what you are writing and looking at it logically

In 2021, the crude death rate for the world is 7.64 deaths per thousand population, and the crude birth rate for the world is 17.76 births per thousand.

Births are running at 133% more than the worlds deaths rate those are the facts
https://statisticstimes.com/demographic ... h-rate.php

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The population will rise to around 10/11bn and will decline thereafter. So if you want to have fewer people, you need to act in Africa, the only continent which will see a substantial rise in the number of people, that will mean a massive investment from the west, are you prepared to do so? Investment in living standards, education, and in healthcare, then the number of children per women will come down.

That’s predicted for around the year 2100 bit late for the so called “climate emergency”

Correct, so that's why it is just an excuse not to do anything about the very real climate emergency.

So, what do you do to tackle the elephant in the room?
Increase the worlds population increase the human carbon emissions, not rocket science

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Your right ill send a box of French Tickler’s, please send an name and address to whom the recipient should be.

Ok, nice attitude to make fun of it, or fun, it isn't even funny, just show the ignorance and unwillingness too face facts.

Certainly not going to cry over it, after all it was your suggestion to help the African continent after all.
Am happy to send to the Netherlands Embassy in Pretoria with your name on it to distribute as they see if you cannot suggest a suitable recipient if you like.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But given that a person in the west (let's say who travels from the UK to Australia all the time), will admit a massive amount more CO2-eq than some born in Benin. So the problem is not overpopulation, but with the lifestyle, especially in wealthy nations and especially those with a higher income "doing just fine" and higher income.

That’s contradictory wealthy nations cannot help the third world unless the wealth continues to increase remember it’s the taxes raised by governments that pays for foreign aid. Spending money across the globe increases the taxes paid in various nations. So really lifestyle choices indirectly helps pay for the foreign aid programs across the globe

What? So a flight from London to Melbourne will help the third world? Strange reasoning.

Are you claiming that my international travel does not contribute to the internal revenue of the nations I go too which contributes to foreign aid?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The number of people on earth will not go down unless you are prepared to kill a massive amount of young people. As this is a given, something else must be done.
It is such an immoral argument, I do not want to change my ways, so other people can't live.

You said it yourself about the collapse of ecosystems, the only way to return it to its natural environment is to remove the human input as I point out with Chernobyl, and it is widely considered the worst environmental disaster in history, the removal of humans has allowed nature to flourish.

As said before, the Chornobyl-region is a bad example. We are talking about the collapse of the ecosystems due to the warming of the planet, thus on a global scale. Chornobyl is local.

Chernobyl is the best advertisement of massively reduced human interference to help the ecosystems recover from man made disasters.

So, either you are saying the so-called climate emergency is a load of rubbish or you are saying the ecosystems cannot recover, which is it?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The scare mongering with the so-called climate emergency is on the same level you want the ecosystems to return to its natural existence remove the human element until then well….

That is complete and utter bull, if you think this is scaremongering than you might want to read the predictions of what will happen (after you die, but your children will be very much a live) in a few decades.

The predictions are of what they think might happen in the future, ie scaremongering

A101 wrote:

No, I am not blaming over population just highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called climate emergency to the biggest obstacle in reducing global emissions.

Not blaming it, but yet calling it the biggest cause. It isn't. But even if it was, it isn't something we can fix, it is a given. So, it isn't hypocrisy, it is an excuse not to do anything.

Dutchy wrote:

LOL, seems you cannot look at you own posts intelligently, one you are saying that child births are steady for the last 22 years in this century, but at the same time acknowledge that the worlds population is increasing to 10/11 billion its either one or the other it cannot be both.

Instead of doing another ad hominem, perhaps you can show us that the best statistician are wrong and you are right. Just look at the link I provided from the talk of Hans Rosling. Or don't and be ignorant and continue to make wrong statements like this.

Dutchy wrote:

Basing your opinions on facts is better than being ignorant, Hans Rosling, many pro-conceived ideas, which aren't true. Perhaps you care to watch it, too educate yourself a bit.

Only person here being ignorant is you if you cannot see what you are writing and looking at it logically

In 2021, the crude death rate for the world is 7.64 deaths per thousand population, and the crude birth rate for the world is 17.76 births per thousand.

Births are running at 133% more than the worlds deaths rate those are the facts
https://statisticstimes.com/demographic ... h-rate.php[/quote]

The obvious answer, the world's population is young, so generation sizes are becoming bigger, the population pyramid is changing. It is an excellent example of how one can be fooled into thinking in one direction, convinced of being right, instead of thinking it through. Causal or correlation relationship. This just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

That’s predicted for around the year 2100 bit late for the so called “climate emergency”

Correct, so that's why it is just an excuse not to do anything about the very real climate emergency.

So, what do you do to tackle the elephant in the room?
Increase the worlds population increase the human carbon emissions, not rocket science [/quote]

South Sudan had the fastest population growth: 5,05%, CO2 emmisions: 0,2ton per capita. One flight from London to Sydney;6.1 t. The average Australian: 15,5t. So 77,5 times as much.

The argument is a deflection to not do anything.

A101 wrote:

Are you claiming that my international travel does not contribute to the internal revenue of the nations I go too which contributes to foreign aid?

Your flight from Australia to London will admit 6,1ton of carbon, roughly 30 times what a South Sudanese admits in a year. So not taking such a long flight is by far more effective than having the government spend whatever low contribution your flight makes to the treasury. And flights have all kinds of negative economic effects on countries which are paid by the treasury anyway. So your flight hasn't been paid for in full. So yeah, taking a flight will not contribute to the internal revenue of a nation. I bet this answer surprises you because it looks a bit further than, paying for a ticket, and an airline pays a small amount of taxes (not being VAT or excise duty of course).

A101 wrote:

Chernobyl is the best advertisement of massively reduced human interference to help the ecosystems recover from man made disasters.

So, either you are saying the so-called climate emergency is a load of rubbish or you are saying the ecosystems cannot recover, which is it?

And that is again a narrowminded false dilemma. Not admitting all kinds of greenhouse gasses will help to sustain life on earth and might help to avoid the 6th mass extinction event. I am talking about a global-scale event, you obviously talking about a local event. That's the difference. Not having human interference on the South Pole will not help the ecosystem, because there is none, directly.

A101 wrote:

The predictions are of what they think might happen in the future, ie scaremongering

So, predicting the weather for tomorrow, that it is a sunny day, with a light breeze is scaremongering? My mind is blown.

At the end of the say, one is in denial and mostly because realizing it will lead to a change in behavior and some just don't want that.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No, I am not blaming over population just highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called climate emergency to the biggest obstacle in reducing global emissions.

Not blaming it, but yet calling it the biggest cause. It isn't. But even if it was, it isn't something we can fix, it is a given. So, it isn't hypocrisy, it is an excuse not to do anything.

Dutchy wrote:

LOL, seems you cannot look at you own posts intelligently, one you are saying that child births are steady for the last 22 years in this century, but at the same time acknowledge that the worlds population is increasing to 10/11 billion its either one or the other it cannot be both.

Instead of doing another ad hominem, perhaps you can show us that the best statistician are wrong and you are right. Just look at the link I provided from the talk of Hans Rosling. Or don't and be ignorant and continue to make wrong statements like this.

Dutchy wrote:

Basing your opinions on facts is better than being ignorant, Hans Rosling, many pro-conceived ideas, which aren't true. Perhaps you care to watch it, too educate yourself a bit.

Only person here being ignorant is you if you cannot see what you are writing and looking at it logically

In 2021, the crude death rate for the world is 7.64 deaths per thousand population, and the crude birth rate for the world is 17.76 births per thousand.

Births are running at 133% more than the worlds deaths rate those are the facts
https://statisticstimes.com/demographic ... h-rate.php

The obvious answer, the world's population is young, so generation sizes are becoming bigger, the population pyramid is changing. It is an excellent example of how one can be fooled into thinking in one direction, convinced of being right, instead of thinking it through. Causal or correlation relationship. This just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

That’s predicted for around the year 2100 bit late for the so called “climate emergency”

Correct, so that's why it is just an excuse not to do anything about the very real climate emergency.

So, what do you do to tackle the elephant in the room?
Increase the worlds population increase the human carbon emissions, not rocket science [/quote]

South Sudan had the fastest population growth: 5,05%, CO2 emmisions: 0,2ton per capita. One flight from London to Sydney;6.1 t. The average Australian: 15,5t. So 77,5 times as much.

The argument is a deflection to not do anything.

A101 wrote:

Are you claiming that my international travel does not contribute to the internal revenue of the nations I go too which contributes to foreign aid?

Your flight from Australia to London will admit 6,1ton of carbon, roughly 30 times what a South Sudanese admits in a year. So not taking such a long flight is by far more effective than having the government spend whatever low contribution your flight makes to the treasury. And flights have all kinds of negative economic effects on countries which are paid by the treasury anyway. So your flight hasn't been paid for in full. So yeah, taking a flight will not contribute to the internal revenue of a nation. I bet this answer surprises you because it looks a bit further than, paying for a ticket, and an airline pays a small amount of taxes (not being VAT or excise duty of course).

A101 wrote:

Chernobyl is the best advertisement of massively reduced human interference to help the ecosystems recover from man made disasters.

So, either you are saying the so-called climate emergency is a load of rubbish or you are saying the ecosystems cannot recover, which is it?

And that is again a narrowminded false dilemma. Not admitting all kinds of greenhouse gasses will help to sustain life on earth and might help to avoid the 6th mass extinction event. I am talking about a global-scale event, you obviously talking about a local event. That's the difference. Not having human interference on the South Pole will not help the ecosystem, because there is none, directly.

A101 wrote:

The predictions are of what they think might happen in the future, ie scaremongering

So, predicting the weather for tomorrow, that it is a sunny day, with a light breeze is scaremongering? My mind is blown.

At the end of the say, one is in denial and mostly because realizing it will lead to a change in behavior and some just don't want that.[/quote]

I think you should give up, you’re contradicting yourself, A101 has tied you up in knots and beaten you with you own words.

It’s the funniest argument I’ve read all week.

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

Kiwirob wrote:

I think you should give up, you’re contradicting yourself, A101 has tied you up in knots and beaten you with you own words.

It’s the funniest argument I’ve read all week.

Thanks for your non-contribution. Might be because you are in bed with A101 for this argument and don't want to change your ways either, so you are far from objective.

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

Population growth will stop around 2060, if one would like to address that and move that date sooner, then look at Africa (and some other countries) to bring the number of births down. Most countries are around the 2-babies per women mark, or even far below like Europe.

Nobody would be against it, most women seem to want to have a maximum of two or three kids. Using it as an excuse not to doo anything, is noot acceeptable.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No, I am not blaming over population just highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called climate emergency to the biggest obstacle in reducing global emissions.

Not blaming it, but yet calling it the biggest cause. It isn't. But even if it was, it isn't something we can fix, it is a given. So, it isn't hypocrisy, it is an excuse not to do anything.

Please show where I said it’s the biggest cause.
The biggest cause and the biggest obstacle are different things

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

LOL, seems you cannot look at you own posts intelligently, one you are saying that child births are steady for the last 22 years in this century, but at the same time acknowledge that the worlds population is increasing to 10/11 billion its either one or the other it cannot be both.

Instead of doing another ad hominem, perhaps you can show us that the best statistician are wrong and you are right. Just look at the link I provided from the talk of Hans Rosling. Or don't and be ignorant and continue to make wrong statements like this.

LOL, I don’t need to because the statics from your link (Rosling) and my own came from the same place, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. Where you are failing is that because birth rates are falling in the west does not corelate to failing birth rates globally.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Basing your opinions on facts is better than being ignorant, Hans Rosling, many pro-conceived ideas, which aren't true. Perhaps you care to watch it, too educate yourself a bit.

Only person here being ignorant is you if you cannot see what you are writing and looking at it logically.

In 2021, the crude death rate for the world is 7.64 deaths per thousand population, and the crude birth rate for the world is 17.76 births per thousand.

Births are running at 133% more than the worlds deaths rate those are the facts
https://statisticstimes.com/demographic ... h-rate.php

The obvious answer, the world's population is young, so generation sizes are becoming bigger, the population pyramid is changing. It is an excellent example of how one can be fooled into thinking in one direction, convinced of being right, instead of thinking it through. Causal or correlation relationship. This just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.

Correct there are a number of reasons why the birth rates are falling in 1st world countries and that corelates to the changing demographics on where people are living.

More and more people are living in urban environments where the needs are different to those living in rural environments whereas in the late to 19th/20th century rural farming practice were labour intensive with the children often working the farms alongside the parents. Whereas more and more people are living in the urban areas the need for larger families are just not there with the more children becomes an economic disadvantage compared to earlier generations where children were an economic advantage in rural settings.

But at the end of the day this is not what we are talking about world population is still increasing a problem because those in the third world countries as they emigrate to 1st world countries become consumers and the problems perpetuate as more and more consumables are need to clothe and feed the extra population.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Correct, so that's why it is just an excuse not to do anything about the very real climate emergency.

So, what do you do to tackle the elephant in the room?

Increase the world’s population increase the human carbon emissions, not rocket science

South Sudan had the fastest population growth: 5,05%, CO2 emmisions: 0,2ton per capita. One flight from London to Sydney;6.1 t. The average Australian: 15,5t. So 77,5 times as much.
The argument is a deflection to not do anything.

Air travel is expanding all the time with just not business people but also travel for pleasure.

Total emissions from air travel sit around 8% and the light vehicle sits around 60% of emissions produced. According to the US EIA Jet fuel produces an average of 21.1 pounds of CO2 per gallon and aviation gas 18.4, while fuel for cars is 19.6 then divide that by the number of occupants with the mode of travel my business travel produces a lot less emissions per person than you infer. While the numbers fluctuate between flights its generally between 2/400 pax depending on the plane used. As well as the taxes generated for Governments which contributes to foreign aid to 3rd world countries.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... l_mass.php

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Are you claiming that my international travel does not contribute to the internal revenue of the nations I go too which contributes to foreign aid?

Your flight from Australia to London will admit 6,1ton of carbon, roughly 30 times what a South Sudanese admits in a year. So not taking such a long flight is by far more effective than having the government spend whatever low contribution your flight makes to the treasury. And flights have all kinds of negative economic effects on countries which are paid by the treasury anyway. So your flight hasn't been paid for in full. So yeah, taking a flight will not contribute to the internal revenue of a nation. I bet this answer surprises you because it looks a bit further than, paying for a ticket, and an airline pays a small amount of taxes (not being VAT or excise duty of course).

The emissions aspect was answered ^ post.

Do tell me please of the negative economic effects of my business travel.

But just for measure you only point out direct taxes with my travel and not the indirect tax with my travel.

Depending on which country you use the taxes are different but ultimately all generally go into the big bucket of each nation internal revenue, we have vast collect of direct taxes like departure taxes (Passenger Movement Charge AU)( Passenger Service Charge Uk) and what not.

But on the other side of the coin you have the indirect taxation by employing people in the airline industry helping them keep out of poverty things like company taxes payroll taxes GST/VAT income taxes so it all adds up these are also contributed by the direct taxes you pay will in the nation of choice you still have to spend money at either places

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Chernobyl is the best advertisement of massively reduced human interference to help the ecosystems recover from man made disasters.
So, either you are saying the so-called climate emergency is a load of rubbish or you are saying the ecosystems cannot recover, which is it?

And that is again a narrowminded false dilemma. Not admitting all kinds of greenhouse gasses will help to sustain life on earth and might help to avoid the 6th mass extinction event. I am talking about a global-scale event, you obviously talking about a local event. That's the difference. Not having human interference on the South Pole will not help the ecosystem, because there is none, directly.

1st I you have continually used the wrong vocabulary in your post but I take it you are saying emitting not admitting which have to very different meanings, but ill take it you are say emitting

You do realise with increased population there is a need to increase food production because of the additional mouths to feed. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere tend to increase plant growth like grains and so forth, the CO2 fertilization increases agricultural production and thus able to marginally reduce food prices in years when we have an abundance of supply. But unfortunately, these come at the expense of the natural ecosystems. As yourself pointed out about the collapse of these ecosystems because of human interaction. To reduce this interaction, you need to reduce the human impact, what you continually fail to see is how the world is proclaiming climate change as a man-made disaster, what we have seen in a man-made disaster like in Chernobyl that mother nature and the local Flora and Fauna can recover from human interaction, is that not what you want?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The predictions are of what they think might happen in the future, ie scaremongering

So, predicting the weather for tomorrow, that it is a sunny day, with a light breeze is scaremongering? My mind is blown.

Difference is no one is trying to scare the shit out when giving tomorrows weather forecast and just like weather forecasts have been known to be wrong.

The repeated scaremongering is having a impact on mental health of some people with climate anxiety.

Dutchy wrote:

At the end of the say, one is in denial and mostly because realizing it will lead to a change in behavior and some just don't want that.

Nothing to do with denial or changing behaviour, that come naturally with the change in technology by design and the free forces of consumerism.

Dutchy wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

Population growth will stop around 2060,

Incorrect, you are presenting it as fact when that is not the case at all, its only a prediction of what MIGHT happen in the future, for all we know there could in fact be another baby boom

Dutchy wrote:

if one would like to address that and move that date sooner, then look at Africa (and some other countries) to bring the number of births down. Most countries are around the 2-babies per women mark, or even far below like Europe.

Nobody would be against it, most women seem to want to have a maximum of two or three kids. Using it as an excuse not to doo anything, is noot acceeptable.

I am sure the pro choice lobby would be against that idea, along with most 1st world government are alarmed at the decreasing birth rates as it has economic consequences long term to the prosperity to those industriailised nations

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think you should give up, you’re contradicting yourself, A101 has tied you up in knots and beaten you with you own words.

It’s the funniest argument I’ve read all week.

Thanks for your non-contribution. Might be because you are in bed with A101 for this argument and don't want to change your ways either, so you are far from objective.

In regards to the subject matter being objective is entirely subjective

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

It is a common fact of life for the human species to survive it will emit carbon in some form no matter what, and as technology improves those emissions had no where to go but up directly or indirectly

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

It is a common fact of life for the human species to survive it will emit carbon in some form no matter what, and as technology improves those emissions had no where to go but up directly or indirectly

But not all emit the same amount.

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

It is a common fact of life for the human species to survive it will emit carbon in some form no matter what, and as technology improves those emissions had no where to go but up directly or indirectly

so that makes it ok, to emit everything?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think you should give up, you’re contradicting yourself, A101 has tied you up in knots and beaten you with you own words.

It’s the funniest argument I’ve read all week.

Thanks for your non-contribution. Might be because you are in bed with A101 for this argument and don't want to change your ways either, so you are far from objective.

In regards to the subject matter being objective is entirely subjective

If one treats science as 'just another opinion' than yes, it is entirely subjective.

And that makes it completely irrelevant to debate is with such a person. So I suggest this thread to be closed.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

It is a common fact of life for the human species to survive it will emit carbon in some form no matter what, and as technology improves those emissions had no where to go but up directly or indirectly

so that makes it ok, to emit everything?

Industrialization has not reached a point where the human species can reduce its carbon footprint unless it wants to forgo the advances already made and return to pre-industralisation times

bennett123 wrote:

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Seems to me that population AND emissions per person are an issue and BOTH need to be addressed.

In terms of emissions per person that is ALL emissions.

Too many people are just saying I only pollute a bit so I don't need to address the problem.

It is a common fact of life for the human species to survive it will emit carbon in some form no matter what, and as technology improves those emissions had no where to go but up directly or indirectly

But not all emit the same amount.

True, but if those in the 3rd world countries had the same opportunities as most in 1st world countries I don't think they would be overly concerned about the climate either they would be just getting on with life.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Thanks for your non-contribution. Might be because you are in bed with A101 for this argument and don't want to change your ways either, so you are far from objective.

In regards to the subject matter being objective is entirely subjective

If one treats science as 'just another opinion' than yes, it is entirely subjective.

And that makes it completely irrelevant to debate is with such a person. So I suggest this thread to be closed.

You and I are not the only people who have made a contribution to the thread so I'm not sure why you think others should not be able to make a post within it

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think you should give up, you’re contradicting yourself, A101 has tied you up in knots and beaten you with you own words.

It’s the funniest argument I’ve read all week.

Thanks for your non-contribution. Might be because you are in bed with A101 for this argument and don't want to change your ways either, so you are far from objective.

As you’ve completely failed to comprehend I’m not a climate change denier, I just don’t accept how you want to deal with it, I accept it’s inevitable and believe we should plan for a future with higher sea levels, where as you want to tax the shit out of everyone in some daft belief that it will change the outcome, you’re tilting at windmills.

Kiwirob wrote:

As you’ve completely failed to comprehend I’m not a climate change denier, I just don’t accept how you want to deal with it, I accept it’s inevitable and believe we should plan for a future with higher sea levels, where as you want to tax the shit out of everyone in some daft belief that it will change the outcome, you’re tilting at windmills.

No, you don't deny climate change, just the human causes of it, otherwise, you would not say the things you say. For me, it is the same.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

It is a common fact of life for the human species to survive it will emit carbon in some form no matter what, and as technology improves those emissions had no where to go but up directly or indirectly

so that makes it ok, to emit everything?

Industrialization has not reached a point where the human species can reduce its carbon footprint unless it wants to forgo the advances already made and return to pre-industralisation times

Firstly, assuming you mean can't reduce to zero, clearly over the years to come technology will advance.

If you are seriously suggesting that no reduction at all is possible, then perhaps you can show how you reach that conclusion.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

As you’ve completely failed to comprehend I’m not a climate change denier, I just don’t accept how you want to deal with it, I accept it’s inevitable and believe we should plan for a future with higher sea levels, where as you want to tax the shit out of everyone in some daft belief that it will change the outcome, you’re tilting at windmills.

No, you don't deny climate change, just the human causes of it, otherwise, you would not say the things you say. For me, it is the same.

No I don’t even deny that humans have played a part in it, I just disagree that taxing people is the way to stop it. All it will do is punish developed countries, developing countries will continue to develop, who are you to deny them a developed lifestyle?

They only way to stop emissions is to stop developing countries from developing, cap their birth rates, nobody is going to allow that to happen, it’s highly racist, so emissions will continue to rise. To me it means it makes a lot more sense to plan for a future with higher seas.

The changes won't just affect sea levels.

Even if it did, most cities aren't on mountain tops.

bennett123 wrote:

Firstly, assuming you mean can't reduce to zero, clearly over the years to come technology will advance.

If you are seriously suggesting that no reduction at all is possible, then perhaps you can show how you reach that conclusion.

Correct that’s what I said earlier. We are not at a stage were we can reduce the levels to a point that’s acceptable, currently all our efforts are only having limited effect but there is a cost to the actual ecosystems for mass clearing for wind farms solar farms etc.

Whilst the intentions are admirable we are not at a point technology wise where we will reduce the levels unless consumption is serious reduced in the doomsday time frames, and to do that impacts were we currently are.

AT this stage the only way to reduce is via more nuclear power plants

IMO, we need to start doing whatever is doable now and accelerate the technology as a priority.

Waiting for the technology is not an option.

Too many people and governments are playing pass the parcel or saying 'x is only a small part of the problem'.

We need to be taking action on ALL sources of pollution.

How many inches of sea level rise have we seen since the Industrial Revolution?

noviorbis77 wrote:

How many inches of sea level rise have we seen since the Industrial Revolution?

NASA has data from 1900: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/. In the first 80 years about 4 inches, but also in the last 40 years 4 inches.