RugbyRebels

Galfon wrote: If there was a higher being watchful and considering the future of the planet, he/she/it would be organising some sort of cull by now...
Of course believers might say killer-flu...

procreate-max..we're stuffed-lite.

(apols. for the rowanism.. )

Only took a few weeks eh; though despite the real nastiness of the current pandemic, world pop. continues to grow by c. 150 every minute ( Worldo- figures).
That's alot of consumables needed...education would be the answer but time and other barriers suggest that our new normal is non-idyll.

Galfon wrote:

Galfon wrote: If there was a higher being watchful and considering the future of the planet, he/she/it would be organising some sort of cull by now...
Of course believers might say killer-flu...

procreate-max..we're stuffed-lite.

(apols. for the rowanism.. )

Only took a few weeks eh; though despite the real nastiness of the current pandemic, world pop. continues to grow by c. 150 every minute ( Worldo- figures).
That's alot of consumables needed...education would be the answer but time and other barriers suggest that our new normal is non-idyll.

Came across an article the other day bemoaning the falling birth rates in Europe, USA, Japan, etc as fewer people have kids due to women's rights, liberalism, etc, and suggesting ways in which it could be "fixed". Obviously the way our economies work make it bad to have a lot of older people and fewer young, but there wasn't even the hint of a suggestion that the planet could probably use some places with a falling population!

Puja

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:

Galfon wrote: If there was a higher being watchful and considering the future of the planet, he/she/it would be organising some sort of cull by now...
Of course believers might say killer-flu...

procreate-max..we're stuffed-lite.

(apols. for the rowanism.. )

Only took a few weeks eh; though despite the real nastiness of the current pandemic, world pop. continues to grow by c. 150 every minute ( Worldo- figures).
That's alot of consumables needed...education would be the answer but time and other barriers suggest that our new normal is non-idyll.

Came across an article the other day bemoaning the falling birth rates in Europe, USA, Japan, etc as fewer people have kids due to women's rights, liberalism, etc, and suggesting ways in which it could be "fixed". Obviously the way our economies work make it bad to have a lot of older people and fewer young, but there wasn't even the hint of a suggestion that the planet could probably use some places with a falling population!

Puja

And then you could fill the young person gap with migrants. Oh wait... we’re all anti-migration now...

Hmmm...

Religious extremism anyone? I’ve got a very good book, just don’t read the second half about love and peace and you’ll be great.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote: (apols. for the rowanism.. )

Only took a few weeks eh; though despite the real nastiness of the current pandemic, world pop. continues to grow by c. 150 every minute ( Worldo- figures).
That's alot of consumables needed...education would be the answer but time and other barriers suggest that our new normal is non-idyll.

Came across an article the other day bemoaning the falling birth rates in Europe, USA, Japan, etc as fewer people have kids due to women's rights, liberalism, etc, and suggesting ways in which it could be "fixed". Obviously the way our economies work make it bad to have a lot of older people and fewer young, but there wasn't even the hint of a suggestion that the planet could probably use some places with a falling population!

Puja

And then you could fill the young person gap with migrants. Oh wait... we’re all anti-migration now...

Hmmm...

Religious extremism anyone? I’ve got a very good book, just don’t read the second half about love and peace and you’ll be great.

Don't be silly; those migrants would be blaaaa...I mean not an inherent part of our proud culture.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:

Galfon wrote: If there was a higher being watchful and considering the future of the planet, he/she/it would be organising some sort of cull by now...
Of course believers might say killer-flu...

procreate-max..we're stuffed-lite.

(apols. for the rowanism.. )

Only took a few weeks eh; though despite the real nastiness of the current pandemic, world pop. continues to grow by c. 150 every minute ( Worldo- figures).
That's alot of consumables needed...education would be the answer but time and other barriers suggest that our new normal is non-idyll.

Came across an article the other day bemoaning the falling birth rates in Europe, USA, Japan, etc as fewer people have kids due to women's rights, liberalism, etc, and suggesting ways in which it could be "fixed". Obviously the way our economies work make it bad to have a lot of older people and fewer young, but there wasn't even the hint of a suggestion that the planet could probably use some places with a falling population!

Puja

The population (growth) issue is simply never addressed.

Are we not solving the problem by looking to off world millions of people?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote: (apols. for the rowanism.. )

Only took a few weeks eh; though despite the real nastiness of the current pandemic, world pop. continues to grow by c. 150 every minute ( Worldo- figures).
That's alot of consumables needed...education would be the answer but time and other barriers suggest that our new normal is non-idyll.

Came across an article the other day bemoaning the falling birth rates in Europe, USA, Japan, etc as fewer people have kids due to women's rights, liberalism, etc, and suggesting ways in which it could be "fixed". Obviously the way our economies work make it bad to have a lot of older people and fewer young, but there wasn't even the hint of a suggestion that the planet could probably use some places with a falling population!

Puja

The population (growth) issue is simply never addressed.

Economic thinking (of the last few decades) is broadly aligned with those who benefit from cheap labour. Degradation of the Earth* doesn't come into it, as it doesn't reduce GDP (yet).


*from a human perspective - the planet doesn't care

Been reading a lot lately about the links between climate destruction and overtly discriminatory economic/political policies. This is an interesting article along those lines.

"We decided we’d talk to leading black climate activists about the connections between racism and climate change.

A clear theme emerged from those discussions: Racial and economic inequities need to be tackled as this country seeks to recalibrate its economic and social compass in the weeks and months to come. Racism, in short, makes it impossible to live sustainably."



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/clim ... acism.html

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l8fb

not revelatory, but an interesting story on energy producers coming together to fight reality/science. it's a little under 15 minutes long so not too hard a listen

Digby wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l8fb

not revelatory, but an interesting story on energy producers coming together to fight reality/science. it's a little under 15 minutes long so not too hard a listen

I don't know if that stuff is happening more or if there is just more awareness. There's currently an attempt by Big Oil in the US to gut the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Very interesting move from Irish supreme court, telling Irish govt to be more ambitious in tackling the climate crisis....?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.4318578

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:I don't know if that stuff is happening more or if there is just more awareness. There's currently an attempt by Big Oil in the US to gut the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Both. It's been going on forever; with the most famous example being the US tobacco industry's denial of harm.
However, with social media, we're more aware of it, and with Trump in power, they're more blatant about their lobbying.

Which Tyler wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I don't know if that stuff is happening more or if there is just more awareness. There's currently an attempt by Big Oil in the US to gut the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Both. It's been going on forever; with the most famous example being the US tobacco industry's denial of harm.
However, with social media, we're more aware of it, and with Trump in power, they're more blatant about their lobbying.

Or, for instance, the state of Nigeria thanks to oil.

Shell just don't bother fixing their pipes, the leaks are siphoned off by illegal petrol producers, and then, the best bit of all, their fuel is of higher quality than the fuel Shell and others import back to Nigeria.

Absolutely ridiculous and a huge scandal.

I know that all oil companies are terrible, but there's a reason I avoid Shell over any other.

Madrid is planning 74km forest belt around the city... *Donny approves #forwhatthatsworth *



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

New Zealand, having banned oil and gas development, plans to go 100% renewable. *Donny approves #notworthmuch



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

"The most likely outcomes of unmitigated climate change are so costly, they should have prompted the world to take much more ambitious action a long time ago."

Alarm over climate change is not alarmism....

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Very interesting move from Irish supreme court, telling Irish govt to be more ambitious in tackling the climate crisis....?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.4318578

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Here's hoping the Irish decision nudges* everyone else along...

"We know that the transition to the low-carbon economy is technologically feasible - there is no legal basis for a lack of political will.

"Governments around the EU have no excuse now."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-53619848

*forces. if required drags, kicking and screaming

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Fracking boom tied to methane spike in world's atmosphere

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/dist ... ssion=true

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

The thing about climate change is...

No matter whether you believe in it or not, 80% of the changes required to fight it benefit 80% of the population...

So the only reason we're not doing more as a civilization is to line the pockets of the Saudis, Putin and his cronies, Winnie the Pooh, and several American oil barons.

Stom wrote:The thing about climate change is...

No matter whether you believe in it or not, 80% of the changes required to fight it benefit 80% of the population...

So the only reason we're not doing more as a civilization is to line the pockets of the Saudis, Putin and his cronies, Winnie the Pooh, and several American oil barons.

Speaking of which... it seems like trying to chase oil companies for damages is more widespread than I had realised.

https://amp.ft.com/content/d5fbeae4-869 ... ssion=true

What's most interesting about these to me is that they suggest there is a large degree of recognition about the effects of climate change but no concurrent drive to make changes, or to try and reduce CO2 levels, only to try and mitigate those effects.

Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Stom wrote:The thing about climate change is...

No matter whether you believe in it or not, 80% of the changes required to fight it benefit 80% of the population...

So the only reason we're not doing more as a civilization is to line the pockets of the Saudis, Putin and his cronies, Winnie the Pooh, and several American oil barons.

Speaking of which... it seems like trying to chase oil companies for damages is more widespread than I had realised.

https://amp.ft.com/content/d5fbeae4-869 ... ssion=true

What's most interesting about these to me is that they suggest there is a large degree of recognition about the effects of climate change but no concurrent drive to make changes, or to try and reduce CO2 levels, only to try and mitigate those effects.

Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Well, the melting glaciers might not actually be about temperature, but about the earth trying to reduce its carbon dioxide levels...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ainforests

Donny osmond wrote:Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

It can, but it's very tricky. While CO2 levels are much higher than we want them to be for our future survival, they're still only 0.04% of the atmosphere, which means that you have to process 1,000,000 litres of air to get 400 litres of CO2 and that's assuming 100% accuracy on the part of your filtration system! There's a big effort by a firm in Switzerland at the moment to make a go of it though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41816332

At present, it's much more cost effective to go to the source of where your carbon is being pumped out and directly capture if from that source (you know, like how the UK were working on and getting very far down the line to workable systems before deciding it wasn't politically important and austerity was better).

Of course, then you have the issue of where you put the damned stuff after you've caught it, to make sure it doesn't just go back out into the atmosphere. This is an article from a couple of years ago about turning it into rock, which I found quite interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43789527. I've also heard the idea of putting it down old fracking holes and mines.

Came across this while googling - really good overview of the whole industry and area of CO2 removal: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/2 ... te-change/

Puja

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

It can, but it's very tricky. While CO2 levels are much higher than we want them to be for our future survival, they're still only 0.04% of the atmosphere, which means that you have to process 1,000,000 litres of air to get 400 litres of CO2 and that's assuming 100% accuracy on the part of your filtration system! There's a big effort by a firm in Switzerland at the moment to make a go of it though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41816332

At present, it's much more cost effective to go to the source of where your carbon is being pumped out and directly capture if from that source (you know, like how the UK were working on and getting very far down the line to workable systems before deciding it wasn't politically important and austerity was better).

Of course, then you have the issue of where you put the damned stuff after you've caught it, to make sure it doesn't just go back out into the atmosphere. This is an article from a couple of years ago about turning it into rock, which I found quite interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43789527. I've also heard the idea of putting it down old fracking holes and mines.

Came across this while googling - really good overview of the whole industry and area of CO2 removal: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/2 ... te-change/

Puja

Nice, ta

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Stom wrote:The thing about climate change is...

No matter whether you believe in it or not, 80% of the changes required to fight it benefit 80% of the population...

So the only reason we're not doing more as a civilization is to line the pockets of the Saudis, Putin and his cronies, Winnie the Pooh, and several American oil barons.

Speaking of which... it seems like trying to chase oil companies for damages is more widespread than I had realised.

https://amp.ft.com/content/d5fbeae4-869 ... ssion=true

What's most interesting about these to me is that they suggest there is a large degree of recognition about the effects of climate change but no concurrent drive to make changes, or to try and reduce CO2 levels, only to try and mitigate those effects.

Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Well, the melting glaciers might not actually be about temperature, but about the earth trying to reduce its carbon dioxide levels...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ainforests

Interesting, although misleadingly/abiguously written article, ie

for decades, the northern rivers secretly pulled carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a rate faster than the Amazon rainforest.

This means that during high melt periods, glacial river water will absorb 40 times as much carbon as the Amazon rainforest.

“On a per-metre-squared basis, these rivers can consume a phenomenal amount of carbon dioxide,” said St Pierre. But their limited size means on a gross scale, they pull in far less than the sprawling Amazon.

Potentially drawing in more CO2 than the Amazon, or just per metre-squared?

I had to go to the research paper to see that it was indeed just per metre-squared, even at times of high melt. It's much smaller than the Amazon in absolute terms.

So, I'm afraid glaciers melting is indeed all about the temparatures - they will not significantly offset CO2 released in other ways. And of course when the glaciers are gone, Earth will reflect less sunlight back into space, hence warm up even more.

Also, not mentioned in the article is, well what happens to all the CO2 absorbed? My first thought was that it eventually flows into the sea and so ends up in the atmosphere in time. However, in fact, chemical reactions in the proglacial lakes cause the CO2 to be "consumed" ie used to form another chemical, hence actually removed from the atmosphere (fairly) permanently.

Donny osmond wrote:
Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Talk to the trees