7 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That isn't true. And not relevant either.

Population growth rate in Europe is lower now than in the 60's. 

But we're talking climate change. Which means we're talking global. How do you reduce global population?

Just give it a couple of hours. Bolty will know. 

2 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That isn't true. And not relevant either.

Population growth rate in Europe is lower now than in the 60's. 

But we're talking climate change. Which means we're talking global. How do you reduce global population?

It is 100% true. Previous growth rates aren't relevant to now, save for the fact that they illustrate how humans tend to populate places then naturally find ways of stabilising its own population: war, disease, famine etc.

The growth rate in the 60s followed years of austerity and war which cost the lives of millions and was bound to bounce back.

It then slowed to a point of stability.

As you are well aware modern reasons now allowing growth again.

As for the rest of the world, as has previously been discussed, everyone has to adopt a far more responsible approach and not repeat the mistakes of history.

Unfortunately, they are doing just that, and war, famine and disease; prevalent in Africa, parts of South America, the middle East and throughout parts of Asia, are providing some means of population control.

In modern, more stable places, longevity increases, but birth rates naturally drop.

 

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is 100% true. Previous growth rates aren't relevant to now, save for the fact that they illustrate how humans tend to populate places then naturally find ways of stabilising its own population: war, disease, famine etc.

The growth rate in the 60s followed years of austerity and war which cost the lives of millions and was bound to bounce back.

It then slowed to a point of stability.

As you are well aware modern reasons now allowing growth again.

As for the rest of the world, as has previously been discussed, everyone has to adopt a far more responsible approach and not repeat the mistakes of history.

Unfortunately, they are doing just that, and war, famine and disease; prevalent in Africa, parts of South America, the middle East and throughout parts of Asia, are providing some means of population control.

In modern, more stable places, longevity increases, but birth rates naturally drop.

 

Education is a key factor in reduced birth rates 

1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

Education is a key factor in reduced birth rates 

Aye.

Quite interesting looking at old grave stones; just how large the number of children couples had, and the number of very young children that died.

Education: knowledge, medicine, diet etc.

A piece on vegan diets last night (channel 4 I think) 

they used a drone to show the amount of farmland that’s required to 

A) produce X amount of vegetables 

b) produce X amount of Poultry

C) produce X amount of beef

Beef production needs much more farmland per tonne of meat produced vs the other food sources. As they feed on grass the farmland is generally just ex woodland that’s been cleared. Globally, we now use  an area the size of the North American continent to produce beef. That’s a whole continent of trees taken down that are no longer pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. 

Dont get me wrong, I love Beef but it did make me think about swapping more red meat for fish / poultry. As ever there should be a happy medium that can be reached 

Snippit from Google- 

Nearly 60% of the world's agricultural land is used for beef production, yet beef accounts for less than 2% of the calories that are consumed throughout the world. Beef makes up 24% of the world's meat consumption, yet requires 30 million square kilometres of land to produce.

Edited April 24, 20197 yr by birch-chorley

Most farm land was once forest. Whether meat or arable. True enough that meat uses more land.

Be interesting to see what resources to into arable as opposed to meat though.

Ploughing, planting, spraying, harvesting all use fuel and produce emissions.

Countryfile once produced a statistic that for every joule of energy of food produced, almost 3 joules of energy from fossil fuels was used. It didn't break it down by sector- it would be informative to see.

Apparently some nuts can yield highest amounts per given area, though I'm not sure we can live on a predominantly nut based diet!

 

As stated above, 60% of agricultural land produces 2% of calories consumed (Beef) 

So the other 40% of agricultural land produces 98% of calories consumed 

In terms of efficiency Beef isn’t at the races 

4 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Most farm land was once forest. Whether meat or arable. True enough that meat uses more land.

Be interesting to see what resources to into arable as opposed to meat though.

Ploughing, planting, spraying, harvesting all use fuel and produce emissions.

Countryfile once produced a statistic that for every joule of energy of food produced, almost 3 joules of energy from fossil fuels was used. It didn't break it down by sector- it would be informative to see.

Apparently some nuts can yield highest amounts per given area, though I'm not sure we can live on a predominantly nut based diet!

 

 

Oh, I don't know. This place does.

11 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

As stated above, 60% of agricultural land produces 2% of calories consumed (Beef) 

So the other 40% of agricultural land produces 98% of calories consumed 

In terms of efficiency Beef isn’t at the races 

Indeed. The point I was alluding to, is if there is a bigger carbon footprint associated with arable products.

I've already started to reduce the amount of red meat I consume, however for the future it's vital that the whole effect of production is understood, and improved.

14 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It is 100% true. Previous growth rates aren't relevant to now, save for the fact that they illustrate how humans tend to populate places then naturally find ways of stabilising its own population: war, disease, famine etc.

The growth rate in the 60s followed years of austerity and war which cost the lives of millions and was bound to bounce back.

It then slowed to a point of stability.

As you are well aware modern reasons now allowing growth again.

As for the rest of the world, as has previously been discussed, everyone has to adopt a far more responsible approach and not repeat the mistakes of history.

Unfortunately, they are doing just that, and war, famine and disease; prevalent in Africa, parts of South America, the middle East and throughout parts of Asia, are providing some means of population control.

In modern, more stable places, longevity increases, but birth rates naturally drop.

 

You said "until recently European population was relatively stable". 

We currently have a rather flat growth rate. And its far lower than the 70's and 80's. So your statement is not true. I'm not sure how factually you can even pretend it is true. 

 

16 hours ago, boltondiver said:

Education is a key factor in reduced birth rates 

Can we call this reducing your carbon fuckprint?

23 hours ago, SatanGreavsie said:

Can we call this reducing your carbon fuckprint?

Or cocking off early?

Whilst I have climate change concerns, I do expect that technology, innovation and profit will succeed 

 

An example could be the carbon capture trees that are being developed by Silicon Kingdom, said to be 000s of times more effective than trees at stripping CO2 from the air. 

19 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Whilst I have climate change concerns, I do expect that technology, innovation and profit will succeed 

 

An example could be the carbon capture trees that are being developed by Silicon Kingdom, said to be 000s of times more effective than trees at stripping CO2 from the air. 

Sounds good, I'll check it out.

Seen quite a bit of the climate change debate in the hoc. Hopefully they will start to deliver.

That's got to start with the current government, and continue to be foremost within manifestos in the future.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Seen quite a bit of the climate change debate in the hoc. Hopefully they will start to deliver.

That's got to start with the current government, and continue to be foremost within manifestos in the future.

Definitely. It's an issue way beyond party politics.

Do you know what - I've been proper heartened by how many people on here think we could and should be doing more. Even people I'd assumed would be dead against it.

Perhaps there is some hope for humanity after all? 🙂

12 hours ago, kent_white said:

Definitely. It's an issue way beyond party politics.

Do you know what - I've been proper heartened by how many people on here think we could and should be doing more. Even people I'd assumed would be dead against it.

Perhaps there is some hope for humanity after all? 🙂

There was some political points scoring in the debate, as often no one refuses an opportunity to knock the government. However, if some of the assertions were true, then it's very disappointing.

I think it was mentioned more than once that MPs previously had been reluctant to adopt a strong environmental approach for fear of losing voters. However, there appears to be a complete reversal now.

As the current incumbents, with much shit sticking to them, the Tories will need to come up with some really attractive ideas to win prospective voters over (especially younger ones).

The environment is going to be a far bigger story come the next election.

Governments need to stop playing with stats, and to actually face the music. If that means making some really brave decisions that may seem unobtainable, or even counterproductive in the short term, then do so if the long term justifies it.

Mother Earth healing herself 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8155667/amp/Earths-ozone-layer-HEALING-reduction-damaging-chemicals.html

15 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Mother Earth healing herself 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8155667/amp/Earths-ozone-layer-HEALING-reduction-damaging-chemicals.html

In more ways than one. The doubting Thomasina's on here won't have it though.

11 hours ago, gonzo said:

Mother Earth healing herself 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8155667/amp/Earths-ozone-layer-HEALING-reduction-damaging-chemicals.html

I'm always shocked by how fast ecosystems can recover on this planet. It's amazing what can be achieved when the legislation is put in place. In this case- banning the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. 

Now we need to do exactly the same for CO2 emissions. Declaration of a climate emergency has to have with it legislation that makes it illegal to pollute and emit dangerous levels of carbon. It will mean another mass mobilisation and concerted effort to change the way we live and how our economy functions. But if we can learn anything from the current crisis, it's that it can be done. The coronovirus is a needle in the haystack compared to what will come from climate inaction. Though it may not feel that way for folk who are really suffering now. 

I just hope that those in charge down the line will be led by scientists over climate legislation in the same way they have been led by expert advice throughout the current health crisis. 

Edited March 27, 20206 yr by London Wanderer

4 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

I'm always shocked by how fast ecosystems can recover on this planet. It's amazing what can be achieved when the legislation is put in place. In this case- banning the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. 

Now we need to do exactly the same for CO2 emissions. Declaration of a climate emergency has to have with it legislation that makes it illegal to pollute and emit dangerous levels of carbon. It will mean another mass mobilisation and concerted effort to change the way we live and how our economy functions. But if we can learn anything from the current crisis, it's that it can be done. The coronovirus is a needle in the haystack compared to what will come from climate inaction. Though it may not feel that way for folk who are really suffering now. 

I just hope that those in charge down the line will be led by scientists over climate legislation in the same way they have been led by expert advice throughout the current health crisis. 

But as soon as it's over...

16 hours ago, MickyD said:

But as soon as it's over...

Course fella. We all know what our priorities are now.

On 28/03/2020 at 02:07, London Wanderer said:

 The coronavirus is a needle in the haystack compared to what will come 

 

I am listening to the little voice on my head saying "FFS don't encourage him" but I will agree with you on this one.

We've had AIDS, Ebola, SARS, bird flu etc. etc. and 'science' in the main has been able to fight them. We are over populated. She'll keep trying.

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

 

I am listening to the little voice on my head saying "FFS don't encourage him" but I will agree with you on this one.

We've had AIDS, Ebola, SARS, bird flu etc. etc. and 'science' in the main has been able to fight them. We are over populated. She'll keep trying.

Always listen to the voice in your head fella 😁

I hope you & your family are well under the circumstances.

I've seen a few of these kind of comments around the place in recent weeks. The idea that this virus is the Earth managing population is a pretty disturbing view tbh. It's also not helpful for people who are really suffering. We've been plagued by diseases long before we were living outside of our means.

Overpopulation is of course a big factor in the climate crisis. It's something that could be managed with a united global effort to get all women into education, employment & teach family planning. But even if we do that- we won't achieve anything if we don't massively reduce C02 emissions through tackling over consumption & waste. After all, small families in developed/richer nations emit far more carbon than large families in less developed nations. Overpopulation is just an excuse for many in these countries to carry on emitting & polluting. 

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by London Wanderer