The future of the planet.

[Leothebear]

Snorvey thinks it's too late to save the planet. What do you say?

[didds]

I'll be dead in twenty years. Yes I do care but my paltry and ongoing efforts wont actually save the planet on their own, so I'm resigned to my children's future, which I wont be here to witness

didds

[scrumpyjack]

Depends on your timescale
100 yrs
1,000 yrs
10,000 yrs
1m years
100m years
1 bn yrs etc

The planet has been around a very long time, about 4,500 m years
Humanity has been around for at best 200,000 years, well under one hundreth of one
percent

I guess the planet will eventually recover even if we cause our species extinction by trashing it but it might take a hundred million years or so. That's less than half the time our galaxy takes to make a single rotation.

Everything is relative!

[Leothebear]

My own view is that we are indeed doomed.

There is man's impact and potential impact on the planet these include:

.CO2 affecting climate and other noxious gases emitted.

.The use of the oceans for rubbish dumps - including nuclear waste and God knows the stuff we DON'T know about.

.Deforestation.

.Over population.

.Strong chance of nuclear weapons being used.

.Germ and chemical warfare.

.Over reliance on technology that could be catastrophically damaged by a large enough EMP.

I think the chances of avoiding all the above are rather remote. Not all are extinction events but there could be a combination of them that would be.
-------------------------------------------------

Natural threats:

.Large asteroid impact.

.Mega volcano - eg Yellowstone.

Nothing can be done to avoid the natural catastrophes, who knows when they'll hit? But they would be extinction events for man at the very least.

[Leothebear]

Have a happy weekend everyone!

[gryffron]

My own view is that we are indeed doomed... who knows when they'll hit? But they would be extinction events for man at the very least.

Disagree. Humans are very adaptable. I don't think any of the events you describe would be the end of humanity. Of course, they could easily knock our numbers back a thousandfold or so. But that, as scrumpyjack says, is a mere hiccup in humanity's progress.

Even with very primitive tech, humans have thrived from the arctic to the deserts. Throw a bit of technology at the problem and we can survive in conditions beyond that. You're telling me nowhere on the planet will support life? I think that is very unlikely.

Gryff

[UncleEbenezer]

Snorvey thinks it's too late to save the planet. What do you say?

Too late to save first-world human civilisation as we know it - yes.

Third-world humanity? Something may well survive, but I expect it'll be based on small communities and warlords once it becomes clear that survival for all is no longer a plausible aspiration. The people of Somalia or Congo might survive with relatively little change. In Blighty, those who are brought up to survive an unwelcoming environment (like gypsies) may be best-placed to survive. A Canticle for Leibowitz is perhaps as plausible and optimistic a long-term vision as any.

If humanity doesn't survive at all (and likely take other warm-blooded life with us), that leaves whatever does survive to continue the planet.

[scrumpyjack]

Don't worry, Musk will have colonised Mars by then so life will go on.

[scotia]

.The use of the oceans for rubbish dumps - including nuclear waste and God knows the stuff we DON'T know about.

Well don't worry about nuclear waste. The byproducts of nuclear power stations decay faster than the naturally occurring fuel which they use - so its a less radioactive planet we will leave to following generations.

[scotia]

I went for the last option, because I think man and the planet will survive - but may (likely) be different from the present.
But that should be no surprise - there have been massive changes of climate and vegetation during man's existence - some of which may be due to man's intervention, but the reasons for others are less clear. I agree that the current anomalous temperature excursions are larger and have come upon us faster than historical ones - e.g. faster and deeper than the start of the little ice age around 1300 CE, but technologically we are much better equipped to deal with such excursions. So I do not fear that the planet will not survive. However we are likely to see the need for significant construction of flood defences around major world cities - e.g. London. And I'm afraid that there will need to be large migrations from areas that will/can not be so protected. E.G. the Ganges delta. And this will undoubtedly create political problems. But there will also be climate winners. So it will be a different world - but whether better or worse than the current, I can't predict.
On the thoughts of self destruction with nuclear weapons - I think that possibility has substantially receded - it probably reached its zenith with the Cuban crisis in 1962. So politically, I don't see it happening in a confrontation between the major powers, and it is much less likely to happen accidentally, due to the increased sophistication of the weapons. I still think its possible that a small rogue state may use a nuclear weapon, but I don't see it escalating, and the effect would probably no worse than we imposed on Germany and Japan with conventional bombing - from which they have bounced back over the following years. So I don't see it as a world threatening effect.

[Itsallaguess]

I just wish that every one of the protesters at yesterdays climate-protest events wore a t-shirt clearly marked with the number of children in their direct family...

I wonder how many '1' t-shirts we would have seen......

The laughable irony of an adult trying to convince me to personally alter my lifestyle to cater for their profligate approach to population increases is something that often seems beyond their really quite selfish comprehension...

We should be asking ourselves what the personal CO2 impact on the planet might be for the next 200 years by having two kids instead of one......just have a think about the size of those inverted people-pyramids in 200 years.....how much extra C02 is likely to be generated five generations out from a standing-start??......

Why can't we ask ourselves to seriously think about that single question, and what the really quite awkward answer might be?

So........people tend to avoid thinking about it, because it's awkward to do so, and people continue to pump out large families, and prefer to then ask others to turn their central heating down by 1 degree to 'Help Save The Planet!!'.......what hoots.....

If you want to save the planet for 'your kids' then the first thing you might want to do is not to have so many kids.....all those C02-pumping inverted-people-pyramids start from the pointy-end, let's not forget, and we can choose to start an extra one, or we can choose not to....

This isn't a rant about large families, by the way, but a rant against people who choose to have large families and who then decide that they can preach how I should be doing so much more to 'Help To Save The Planet!!'.....

The elephant in the room is not going away just because we're ignoring it.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Mea culpa. I'm the problem. I have grown to enjoy the material trappings around me. And I can't be part of a unilateral effort to reduce my emissions. Ironically though I am prepared to accept any changes my government enacts as it will apply to everyone in the UK. I can live with that.

And perhaps even more strangely I am not entirely sure that the UK acting alone will make the difference the planet needs. Yet I'd be happy to have a go, even if the odds were stacked against success. I'd rather fail trying. But not on my own.

I think much of what I feel revolves around a sense of entitlement. But I don't want to be part of a missed opportunity and leave my daughter a deadly legacy.

In the same way that I couldn't defend this island on my own, I can't make a difference to many other issues, including emissions. I'm happy to review my values and ultimately my emissions, but not unilaterally.

I hasten to add I have the utmost admiration for those who have taken unilateral steps to make a change. Regardless of the outcome I have to say they have far more discipline than me.

AiY

[panamagold]

I hasten to add I have the utmost admiration for those who have taken unilateral steps to make a change. Regardless of the outcome I have to say they have far more discipline than me.

AiY

Hmm? Whilst watching the media coverage yesterday, regarding the demos on climate change, I wondered how much fossil fuel would have been globally consumed ferrying the media and the demonstrators to and from these events and also how much electricity would also have been required to charge up the batteries of their smartphones so photos from the experience could be uploaded to social media?

Oh and I'm with itsallaguess on this topic.

[Itsallaguess]

If you want to save the planet for 'your kids' then the first thing you might want to do is not to have so many kids.....

I did mean to add in my earlier post that I found it snortingly laughable yesterday when I read of the UK media grabbing hold of a story from Canada, where an 18 year-old is 'refusing to have children' due to the climate-change issue, and it seems that her story is now being endorsed around the globe by similar-thinking people....

'Good on her', I initially thought - finally, someone who gets it, but then I read further and discovered that she's only 'refusing to have children' as a form of protest, and she's wanting the Canadian Government to start taking more action on the issue before she's willing to start a family....

A Canadian teen's pledge not to have children until her government takes serious action against climate change is drawing support from young people around the globe.

Emma Lim, 18, launched a climate change movement this week called "#No Future, No Children" that includes a website where other teens can take her pledge.

"I am giving up my chance of having a family because I will only have children if I know I can keep them safe," she says on her website. "It breaks my heart, but I created this pledge because I know I am not alone. ... We’ve read the science, and now we’re pleading with our government."

By Thursday afternoon more than 1,200 kids had signed on.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/19/no-future-no-children-pledge-teens-refuse-have-kids-until-climate-change-action/2372010001/

So there we have it in this typically 'Alice in Wonderland' world of ours - people refuse to take personal control of the primary global population issue to help reduce climate damage themselves, but think that they can weaponise the threat of doing so, with a view to forcing Government action, and thus we now have the quite real situation where that Canadian Governent doing absolutely nothing will actually lead to the one thing that will do the most good....

Let's hope that some far-sighted environmentalists have discovered this loop-hole, and they are able to generate massive global momentum behind this form of individual protest, at the same time as ensuring that world Governments do their utmost to ensure that the people making these threats continue to carry them out by doing absolutely nothing, and doing it loudly.....

It's a funny old world at times.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[UncleEbenezer]

Mea culpa. I'm the problem. I have grown to enjoy the material trappings around me. And I can't be part of a unilateral effort to reduce my emissions. Ironically though I am prepared to accept any changes my government enacts as it will apply to everyone in the UK. I can live with that.

I wonder how many you speak for there?

One historic datum tells us you could be a Silent Majority. That is, the silent majority who accepted it the one time in our history when a UK government did something meaningful. The silent majority who decisively rejected "Dump the Pump", despite the massive media campaign behind it (millions worth of free publicity from a far-from-impartial BBC, for instance).

Very likely you were also among the majority who remained silent when, a few months after dropping that campaign, a bunch of thugs (egged on by the media) came back with blockades that had no need of public support, and a moronic, craven government capitulated to them?

[Dod101]

Am I the only person not to have the slightest idea what UE is writing about in his response to AsleepinYorkshire?

Dod

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Mea culpa. I'm the problem. I have grown to enjoy the material trappings around me. And I can't be part of a unilateral effort to reduce my emissions. Ironically though I am prepared to accept any changes my government enacts as it will apply to everyone in the UK. I can live with that.

I wonder how many you speak for there?

Well I think I can definitely say I represent at least 1 . I wonder if I should be so bold as to suggest that I'm probably not alone though? It could be that I am and such a thought verbalised could create some negative perceptions about my individual approach. Perhaps I should remain quiet as I fear negative repercussions? What to do, what to do?

One historic datum tells us you could be a Silent Majority. That is, the silent majority who accepted it the one time in our history when a UK government did something meaningful. The silent majority who decisively rejected "Dump the Pump", despite the massive media campaign behind it (millions worth of free publicity from a far-from-impartial BBC, for instance).

I agree completely that I am part of a silent majority. I hope I'm not invited to discuss my reason for being a part of that silence. After all I'm more than aware of the damage I am doing. Yet seemingly I am not prepared to be held responsible for that. Although I've clearly stated the terms under which I will "join in".

Very likely you were also among the majority who remained silent when, a few months after dropping that campaign, a bunch of thugs (egged on by the media) came back with blockades that had no need of public support, and a moronic, craven government capitulated to them?

Often the best intentions are backed up by poor implementation. It's also possible that those who don't share similar intentions hi-jack proceedings under false pretences?

Of course there's perhaps a huge irony in my admission. I am prepared to back my government in the battle to reduce carbon emissions. And in doing so I feel a sense of pride both in myself and my country. But of course I get to elect that government. And the mainstream political parties appear to have arrived at the concept of adopting reduction very late in the day. So the changes are going to have to be quite dramatic in order for the UK to become carbon neutral. But if the third world does not join in then our contribution will be no more than an epitaph. As the demand for reduction ramps up it's entirely possible that the impact on me and my family isn't something I want to tolerate any longer. I could be persuaded to reduce that impact through my vote?

The only real fact in all of this is that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased and will increase and this will have an impact upon climate world wide. The clear threat to me is as plain as the nose on my face. My standard of living is under threat. I can think of no valid reason for people with lower standards of living in the developing world to want to support me by giving up their opportunity to achieve the same as me. And I believe that may be the largest threat to an overall reduction in carbon emissions world wide.

A perfect economic anathema?

I wonder if some additional facts make this problem even more unassailable?

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _UN.ORG-11

Approximately 30% of the worlds output of Co2 is from China, the largest contribution. 1% is from the UK & 2% Germany.

It's not just the size of China's population but also the contribution per person. In China that's 7.7 te per annum. In the UK it's 5.7te.

That's not a case for the UK to decline to accept it's [collective] responsibility. But more the simple but overwhelming numbers that have to be overcome to achieve a successful outcome for "planet earth".

I'm currently watching a film. I'd like to plagiaries a line from that film.

We can all walk through life with great principles and values, guarding and enforcing them upon ourselves. Each individual can choose to opt in or out of their Co2 footprint. But at our funeral the number of mourners that turn up will largely be dictated by the weather.

"We" need to act. I will not and cannot do that without the majority of the rest of the world committed to the same value.

AiY

[UncleEbenezer]

Am I the only person not to have the slightest idea what UE is writing about in his response to AsleepinYorkshire?

Dod

If it helps, here's much more detail in an old blog piece.

[JohnB]

Its not up to us. Not only is the equable British climate able to stand more extreme weather, but flood barriers and air conditioning won't hit the economy too hard and still leave us in a pleasanter state than much of the US where people live successfully. Its not up to the poor of Africa who will be hit very hard. Its up to the growing middle classes of Asia who will need to decide which of the West's current essentials to forgo. They can all get fridges and computers/tv without problem but if they also get cars and foreign holidays then they will have to accept the impact of severe weather on their already extreme continental climates. As they become the world's biggest economic block, Asians will be considering changes to the monsoon*, or midsummer heatwaves as they plan their holidays to Paris. And while they might be interested in our culture, they won't listen to our pleas for them to stay home.

So does anyone know the status of the environmental movement in China?

https://www.rmets.org/resource/indian-m ... ng-climate

[djbenedict]

I just wish that every one of the protesters at yesterdays climate-protest events wore a t-shirt clearly marked with the number of children in their direct family...

I wonder how many '1' t-shirts we would have seen......

The laughable irony of an adult trying to convince me to personally alter my lifestyle to cater for their profligate approach to population increases is something that often seems beyond their really quite selfish comprehension...

We should be asking ourselves what the personal CO2 impact on the planet might be for the next 200 years by having two kids instead of one......just have a think about the size of those inverted people-pyramids in 200 years.....how much extra C02 is likely to be generated five generations out from a standing-start??......

There was quite a good More or Less on this subject that I happened to hear at the weekend. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswk2h

One point that is made in the programme is that, on a global level, large families do not have as much of an impact on CO2 production as you might think. This is because most large families are in Africa (specifically) and the average CO2 production per capita in Africa is low, and forecast to remain low.