Is it a lost cause and we’re doomed? Is it overblown and we’ll be fine? I’m interested to know the diversity of opinions and views on here.
It's clearly a problem and the species is doomed (maybe not in our lifetime). There's no solution though, due to the staggering population growth across the world and the growth of the Chinese, Indian and Indonesian economies in particular. We need to make huge sacrifices as a species to save the planet and unfortunately individual contributions seem like preaching and 'small potatoes' in the face of the industrial scale damage done by Corporation's and Governments.
Surely no one can doubt now, that its to do with the expanding world population and humanities use of finite resources, but what to do about it before it gets any worse is the problem.
The climate has never ceased changing. Some of the current changes are probably attributable to man's activities, though they are impossible to genuinely quantify. The world appears to have become no warmer in the last twenty years, and is a good deal cooler than in the middle ages, and a lot cooler than in Roman times. But we are probably right to try and stop belching so much ****e into the air if we can, though some of the alternatives have huge and hidden environmental costs. For instance the vast amount of energy needed to make solar panels and the huge mining operations required to get the metals used in them. Or the burying of old blades from wind turbines as they can't be disposed of any other way. But it's worth keeping on trying I'd say, though the Chinese and Indians are opening hundreds of coal power stations each year, and the sainted Germans are opening three too. And they are using lignite, the dirtiest coal going. Complicated subject not debated honestly IMO. It has become the go to subject for useless politicians for nearly twenty years, maybe more, and has attracted people who attach a religiosity and zealotry that turns people off. And it's always worth remembering the remark and by the late Michael Crichton who was no fool on the matter; " When you hear scientists and consensus in the same sentence, they're after your wallet". To me it's a mix of something worth thinking about and trying to act on sensibly, and of some absolutely giant racketeering going on.
I mistyped in my earlier post. The planet won't be ****ed. It will survive, just without humans or at the very least, the semi functioning society as we know it.
I think a virus could wipe us out before we damage the earth beyond repair. We have getting too big for our boots and something will come along to put us back in our place. Covid is just a small taster. The main course will be of biblical proportions.
We certainly need to stop dumping **** into the atmosphere and polluting the rivers and seas however real change requires a global response which will never happen unless there is some kind of cataclysmic event. There is simply too much greed with regards to gas and oil production and not enough focus on renewable energy. Seems to be just a lot of talk around the climate issues leading to agreements which just get ignored or even ditched a year or so later when the targets are obviously not going to be met. Focusing solely on gas and electric production, no matter what options are put on the table someone will poke holes in it. Take wind turbines for example, people say its bad because of the manufacturing process but surely that will outweigh burning fossil fuels in the long run for power generation? We live in an ideal place to take advantage of wind power after all. The UK need to get the planned new nuclear power stations online (one of the safest and cleanest energy sources when considering greenhouse emissions) so we are not relying so much on imported energy, we also need to focus on wind turbines. To answer your question, I think we are doomed unless there is a huge effort globally...which I personally don't think will ever happen. But there are still steps we can take to make at least some kind of change starting with windfall tax for the likes of BP. This can then be invested into research for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels for manufacturing, heating and transport. Even simpler, reduce the amount of waste from packaging and improve the recycling options as they are pretty crap.
It's a bit more complicated than that and different studies have come up with different results. Recent studies suggest that the Mediterranean area may have been as much as 2 degrees warmer in the Roman period but perhaps only as much as 0.6 degrees cooler in Britain. From about 400AD (ten years before Roman rule ended in Britain) a period of colder, wetter weather began which brought in a prolonged cooling period. The period between 1303 and 1850 is sometimes referred to as the little ice age. Some people believe that the mass release of CO2 beginning with the Industrial Revolution interrupted a natural cooling period that would have led to another ice age. I believe that we have adversely impacted on the world's climate. I don't believe it will lead to the extinction of humans though. People have managed to scratch out an existence in all sorts of climatic conditions and, thanks to human ingenuity, will continue to do so. Plenty of other species will become extinct though and human numbers could well plummet. Despite this, I think its vital to do as much as we can to reverse it so that we don't lose biodiversity. Having said that, no matter how long we take to solve it, nature will bounce back but in an adapted form.
Fascinating subject that unfortunately has become a fanatical religious cause, therefore it's impossible to have any kind of sensible debate about it at a level where things could really change. Yes it exists, yes we are contributing to the effect, but are we entirely responsible and can we stop it, those are two far more difficult questions to answer. From my point of view the sooner we get to nuclear fusion the better, and we need to be looking at offsetting the impact rather than reducing emissions, because reducing emissions is something the whole planet would need to do in tandem and we're nowhere near that level of international co-operation yet. We should be investing far more in scaling technological solutions.
It’s an unbelievably complex subject even if you look at just one element of it. Feedback loops, the role of the oceans, behavioural and social, corporate interests, YouTube theorists and personalities and then the small matter of modelling climate changes. Closer to home, the changes demanded by the average individual need to be sizeable. I haven’t noticed many meaningful changes to daily living in the UK which doesn’t bode well. Greener travel is still on the margins. Packaging is patchily improving. Smart energy use to even out the grid demands is canny.
The human race was able to survive the black death, the plague, the 1918 spanish flu because we, by and large, relied on ourselves to continue to function. And the population being so small helped. Other than lots of people dying, nothing changed for everybody else. As long as we had the simple comforts of sleep, food and warmth we were fine. Another Black Death popping up would cause our civilization as we know it to collapse. We rely so heavily on a network of people who we will never meet and functions that we dont even understand, that a removal of such simple things that we take for granted will have us running around like ants in a frenzy. Our modern day comforts that we take for granted will be forever on a knifes edge, most people dont even realise it.
Even for those who don't believe in global warming, there is no denying we are dirty bastards as a race. Why are we literally pumping human **** into our rivers? Its absolutely minging.
There will never be an international agreement to reduce emissions, or whatever we need to/should reduce, because we (nations) naturally 'look after number one' and, as Flash said above, it'll never be a major problem (one that really personally affects us) during our (or our children's) lifetimes. We (that's the royal 'we') are generally selfish, though a lot of us really care about others (I have always considered others' needs ahead of my own, and will continue to do so), which suggests that we probably will eventually destroy our planet, but not for a very long time. Some might think that we should just destroy ourselves and animals should 'rule' 'cos they're nicer than us ('cos pets show unconditional love), which is completely nonsensical, and could never work ('cos they can't cook !), but they'll be a 'special breed' (if they exist). Destruction of ourselves in the near future would probably be because of a Putin type of psycho . . . . not because we're not looking after the environment like we should be, which is a refreshing thought I've just read that . . . . what a load of bollocks
I wonder whether we're cleaner or dirtier than, say the 1700s or 1800s. Yes there are lots more people today but we're much better at dealing with waste for the most part rather than the bucket out of the window free for all. I'm old enough to remember the Thames being a different colour.
In the 1960's they said oil would run out in 10 years. In the 70's they said another ice age is coming in the next 10 years. In the 80's they said acid rain would destroy arable farming in 10 years. In the 90's they said the ozone layer would be gone in 10 years. In the 2000's they said the ice caps would be totally gone and sea levels would rise. The result of this more taxation.
Probably cleaner but we have still been doing this sort of stuff for 300 years and we continue to do it. Just stop it, immediately. It's absolutely rancid behaviour.
my 2p worth and in my opinion only A.I will be the downfall of the human race. Once it becomes self aware, it will collect all data ie Climate change, human v natural causes and adjust accordingly. Geoff Hitten has warned of what damage his creation will cause as he left Google this week. Climate change is part man made and natural cycle of the earth's life cycle. All Britain can do is "our bit". We contribute to 2 percent of the world's carbon footprint.
Our understanding of hygiene has improved since the 1800s but our relationship with our waste has changed dramatically. Until the 19th century, the night soil men operated and human excrement was often taken away for use as fertiliser and in certain industrial processes. Urine could also be used for things like leather tanning. In the Bronze Age and Iron Age, all refuse material (most of which was organic) was carefully collected and curated and used for purposes such as improving the soil or to make good settlement sites (and fill in the various holes that would have been dug for building foundations or as storage pits and other things) when they were abandoned. It's considered that, perhaps because of its 'life-giving properties', the treatment of refuse material was highly ritualised. While we perhaps don't want to be interacting with our **** in quite the same way, we could find better uses for it than just chucking it in rivers. Having said that, we've always chucked it in rivers to some extent. In moderate quantities, as an organic material, it can make for foodstuff for some forms of aquatic life.
