quite an offer any takers Elon Musk @elonmusk · Nov 1 Replying to @DrEliDavid If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it.
Old Holborn® @Holbornlolz · 11h Nothing I love more than hearing the Archbishop of Canterbury telling everyone to "listen to the scientific proof"
must be riveting in glasgow COP26: Was US President Biden asleep or just resting his eyes? please log in to view this image COP26: Was US President Biden asleep or just resting his eyes?Close Video footage has emerged of Joe Biden sitting with his eyes closed at the COP26 climate change summit. The US president is among the world leaders who have travelled to the event – which he has called an "incredible opportunity" – in Glasgow. But was he sleeping or just resting his eyes?
I have no doubt that climate change is a real and serious thing and it’s caused by human activity. I also have no doubt that the world has seen much bigger ‘natural’ changes in climate on a regular basis. Indeed, we are currently living in a brief ‘warm’ gap between Ice ages which has already lasted much longer than scientists predicted. Massive volcanic explosions and meteor strikes are also overdue, blacking out the sun for years. Mass extinctions happen regularly, over 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. So, COP26 etc, aren’t trying to ‘save the planet’, they are trying to save humanity and preserve in aspic the ecosystems that we thrive in. Perhaps if our leaders were more honest about this they would be more successful in getting concerted support for action. It’s about saving ourselves. I’d quite like us to succeed but don’t think we will because it requires a level of global cooperation we have never seen before. It’s a shame for our descendants, but hey, we would be extinct as a species at some stage anyway, and perhaps it’s better that we get it over and done with in the next few hundred years rather than wait for the inevitable other extinction event, geological, climate, pandemic or whatever, which will do for us. The world will recover pretty quickly in planetary terms, and there will be lots of new species to take the place of those which don’t make it. Best chance of slowing climate change is, of course, by making it profitable. Better get a move on because, in a world driven by insane continuous economic growth, all the incentives are pushing us the other way. Failing this we need a near total economic collapse and a return to Middle Ages style inertia. For a long time, the decrease in emissions associated with the pandemic last year when economic activity decreased dramatically caused zero change to climate warming apparently. Perhaps the tipping point has already been passed. But when I look and listen to the advocates, politicians, protesters etc in Glasgow I increasingly couldn’t care less. I regret the inevitable pain, distress and suffering billions will experience if we continue on our current path, and I will do my best to limit my own contribution to it, but I’m not going to spend what time I have left worrying about it. Why do we get wound up by India’s contribution to carbon emissions? The emit 1.91 metric tonnes per person. The U.K. emits 5.55 tonnes and lovely Qatar 37.29. It’s a function of economy, air conditioning and population size. People having a go at India might as well say they should cull their people. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
This would seem to show that India is one of the top 5 biggest world polluters: https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/?_adin=01742670631
My post was about climate change, I haven’t looked at pollution more broadly. For carbon India is, in absolute terms, a major contributor, but not per capita, which was the point I was making. Twenty Indians produce as much carbon as one Qatari, nearly three Indians required to produce as much as one Brit.
The problem with looking at per capita alone is that overpopulated countries appear better. If India doubled its population in the next twenty years, it would improve its carbon figures still further, but how good would the increased density of population be for India or the world? I take your point though that individual Indians produce less carbon than individuals in many other countries, due presumably to the fact that there is abject poverty in many parts of India and few opportunities to produce carbon.
I was just joking with you mate. But it is a great way to get to work if the distance is right and the roads not too dangerous. I cycled year round my last 15 working years in Oslo. It was 9km each way' perfect for me except we moved office the last 2 years and it was just 4 or 5 km., in winter it took me longer to dress for the ride than the ride itself! But I was never much good at getting home from a long day at the office and then going out for a run or something. I did often stop at a gym on the cycle ride home and do some other training. Here in Thailand I never cycle because the roads are way too dangerous for my liking.
I know you were joking! I used to cycle a lot in a previous job, stopping at the local pool for a long swim first thing in the morning. Those days are long gone now - my body would soon start complaing
I think that's the point though, there are two ways to bring pollution down: 1. one is to find energy from sources that do not pollute/produce enough of this energy 2. The other is to cull the population on earth 1. requires governments/businesses to invest and possibly not even find anything 2. requires genocide or a virus to wipe a load of us out or a war breaking out. Hitler would have killed off the indians/chinese/africans as the white is a super race Spock would have kill off the qataris and the west as we pollute way more than everyone else (kill the few for the many) so in terms of bringing emissions down, it's more efficient to wipe out the more polluting nations by capita (less have to die for the same effect) I'm with SB, i'll do my best to not pollute but i'm not drastically changing my life style in futility
Culling is rather extreme, Bobby, whether it's Mr Spock or Dr Spoke. Population control, contraception available in the Third World (and **** the Catholic church's view on this), incentives not to have too many children - are preferable. We'll all change our lives gradually by governmental pressure. Recycling is now an accepted feature of our lives. Air travel will be taxed more highly. Home insulation will improve. Hopefully, we'll all put on warmer clothes in winter rather than expect to live in a hot-house and wear a T shirt in January.
Agreed, killing people off in the name of climate change is barbaric and only a psychopath would do it. We can all reduce our waste but with the population only growing (how many times do we hear we need a steady replacement of workers so that we are not inundated by unproductive old people) I don't really see a solution to climate change. As you say, our houses are probably better insulated now than in the past, there is far more recycling going on and climate change. --- i just had a quick look: Appears that the above that i wrote is a load of bollocks about us being as polluting as possible. I wonder how much of the below is because we don't produce as much as we used to (less factories? again this could be all bollocks, just the image i get when people say we don't produce anything anymore and import loads).
Here are the reasons why we have halved greenhouse gasses since 1990: Electricity supplies that no longer rely on coal (in round numbers, about 40%); Cleaner industry (40%), including manufacturing and waste industry emissions controls on landfill methane, halocarbons and nitrous oxide (25%), as well as more efficient industrial processes and a structural shift away from carbon-intensive manufacturing (15%); A smaller and cleaner fossil fuel supply industry, with lower methane emissions from coal mines and leaky gas distribution pipes (10%).
Mmm.... The next mass extinction of the type you describe is calculated, according to NASA, to be around 20million years away!! Also, mass extinction caused by carbon imbalances in oceans etc take thousands of years to play out once initially triggered. There is a school of thought that we may only be 100 years from such a carbon tipping point, but that's the most pessimistic forecast. One would hope that continuing advances in technology will enable mankind to put things right before that tipping point is reached. Technology could also become so advanced even after that tipping point that the problem could be remedied or we may even be able to move planets. So, I think our immediate family in the near to medium future are unlikely to become extinct. Greed will undoubtedly take us nearer and nearer to disaster, though I share your view that I'm not going to spend what time I have left obsessively worrying about it all.
