My Reason To Be Cheerful Tonight.

[gness]

David Attenborough's Climate Change: The Facts seems to be having a fantastic impact. More people are now thinking about what climate change means to us....how we are affecting our climate......and what we can try to do about it. Folk who thought "global warming" was a fantasy or a good thing have been shown what it really means.
Yes, I know there will still be the selfish head in the sand because I can't be bothered to care and anyway the climate has always changed shower......but there will be fewer of them after this programme....

And as for Greta Thunberg! What a fantastic young lady. Credit to the parents who brought her up....they've done a wonderful job......

The programme saddened me especially when I think how I've contributed to this pending disaster.....but we can all change......so I'm off to bed a bit more cheery and hopeful..... :-)

[SparklyKid]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6943475/What-Attenborough-told-BBC-viewers-orangutan-fighting-digger-truth.html

[Khandro]

Note how the BBC never addresses the root cause of climate change, namely the continued huge growth in the human population. But because the growth is mainly in Africa and Asia that is beyond comment or criticism and would amount to 'racism' in their barmy pc agenda.

Btw, Attenborough is a charming, avuncular figure, but I shudder to think what his lifetime's carbon footprint would look like.

[jim360]

Population growth in itself is not, I would suggest, the primary driver for climate change: it's what the humans who are then alive do. If there are billions of humans who are also now burning masses of fuel or felling large areas of forest then in principle even a huge population could be more or less sustainable.

That's not to say by any means that it's not an issue, but it is pretty clear what is the intent of highlighting population: it neatly passes the buck from those countries who drove the Industrial Revolution in its infancy, but who now have comparatively small populations, to the now rapidly-developing countries.

It's worth pointing out that China's population growth has been slowing at around the same time as its greenhouse emissions have been exploding: per capita emissions in China recently passed those in the UK, which have over the same period been on a marked downward trend.

To be sure, humanity needs to deal with its ever-increasing population, and better education and living standards might hopefully reduce growth to sustainable levels. But to focus on that at the expense of all other issues is to abdicate the responsibility developed nations have for the present climate mess.

[gness]

We really need two best answer options.... :-)

[jim360]

Just switch between them every week or so :)

[Khandro]

jim; China's population is still on the increase, saying it is slowing down is beside the point. The increasing populations of India & Africa don't bear thinking about and Bangladesh has 1,156 people per Km2 !
It is obvious that this increase is unsustainable, the planet can not support such numbers, and the Malthusian principles of famine, pestilence and violence are sadly inevitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[Muntin]

I am quite willing to share my B A with Jim. He seems, to coin a phrase, to know of what he speaks and takes the trouble to explain points for our benefit.
I know this has been pointed out before, but it's all the fault of the farmers, original farmers that is, natch.
When people were hunter gatherers, [bit of meat, nuts, berries, fish] they kept in pace with their environment, moved on, or starved. Populations and resources kept in step. Crucially, there was no way of building up stocks of food so consumption was limited. And the impact was thus limited.
Then grain farming and cattle herding and settled populations and towns took off and we became where we are, with muesli, sandals, smart phones and single use plastic.

[jim360]

The Malthusian principles you speak of seem to me to be from roughly the same school of thought as the "oil will run out in 40 years": that is to say, something that is clearly true in principle but impossible to pin down in practice. For example, oil is still expected to run out at some point, but it has been something that will happen in 40 years or so for a good 40 years now. Same with Malthus: clearly, population growth is unsustainable at some point, but nobody seems to know *when*, because new ways to make resources go further are always being discovered.

My point about China's population growth was to show that expanding populations and greenhouse emissions need not necessarily be linked so neatly. It depends on what that large population is actually doing, and how it derives its energy, food etc. I have no interest in disputing that it is a contributing factor, but nevertheless it is neither the only nor even necessarily the main factor.

[jim360]

Thanks, Muntin, although you got there first so really you can (and should) keep it :)

[10ClarionSt]

Muntin, re. Dr Johnsons observation that "I have studied the matter. You have not". Does that apply to our politicians as well? Many have them have studied Economics, Finance, Business etc, so they know what they're talking about don't they? Everything they say MUST be true. It must be! Hence, everything from the experts in this OP must be true.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Must attend to this post with more care when I'm awake.

Note that favourite posters like Jim and NJ, although normally opposed to each other, appear to share the Malthusian fallacy. Please note, both you guys: Malthus was wrong. Right?

That applies to population growth (NJ) and energy resources (Jim).