Climate change. discuss/.

[Derek Flint]

I had a thought today (and had a lie down after)

Without confining the concept to these shores, of fuel duty was doubled, and auditably ringfenced to be spent only on emissions reduction, how would people feel about it?

my own view; I’d use my vehicles less, public transport more, and be glad to see something that catalysed change.

[Non-Believer]

I watched that Liz Bonnin documentary last night on the effects of meat production on the planet. At least an equal concern IMHO.

But the IoM Govt pensions crisis dwarfs any of that.... 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

With world population doubling every 50 years (exponential) and new populations expecting first world lifestyles, all MMGW reduction initiatives are irrelevant until such time as the issue of population control is dealt with.

Sorry, but it's simple arithmetic.

[Max Power]

We are certainly being told that we need to prepare for something, but nobody knows what we should be doing and for what! 

The whole climate change debate seems to be in the hands of those who demand radical action, yet the USA can't do something relatively simple and instigate some form of gun control? What hope?

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

With world population doubling every 50 years (exponential) and new populations expecting first world lifestyles, all MMGW reduction initiatives are irrelevant until such time as the issue of population control is dealt with.

Sorry, but it's simple arithmetic.

Nature will find a way to kill us by the billion. A global pandemic of a lethal new virus probably.

[maynragh]

Nice to see a light hearted topic in here for a change.

[wrighty]

I've got a pretty nihilistic view on all this - I doubt we can really do anything to prevent climate change, it'll probably progress and humans will adapt to it - in some cases by people dying out.  Eventually the planet will reach a new equilibrium with fewer humans, more trees will grow given the higher levels of CO2 and it'll cool down again.

Human activity may have accelerated our emergence from the current ice age, but these things have been happening for millions of years before we were here, and will carry on for millions of years after we're all gone.

As for the OP - I don't trust governments to use double fuel duty to reduce emissions.  It makes perfect sense to promote electric vehicles however, and to generate that electric from clean sources though, and perhaps tax breaks on these things would be the way to go.

[CharlieBrown]

Just run cycle and eat your veg. In one generation that will rid the island of those stupid fat farmers, mind you lot will be dead by then, double dolly..

[Roger Mexico]

5 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

With world population doubling every 50 years (exponential) and new populations expecting first world lifestyles, all MMGW reduction initiatives are irrelevant until such time as the issue of population control is dealt with.

Even if that were true it would be the opposite of irrelevant, the more people, the more drastic the action required to cope.  But actually   population is less a problem than people think - indeed some people already claim we have reached 'peak child'.  That doesn't mean that population won't continue to grow because of the 'bulge' coming through and people living longer.  But fertility is falling rapidly in most countries or is already at or below replacement level.  Growth isn't exponential and it's predicted that population might peak in around 2100.

That's not to say a lot more couldn't be done, especially in Sub Saharan Africa where a lot of the problem is due to poor health services (and hence access to contraception) with those available often being religiously-based.  Aid policies often don't push reproductive services enough (again because of religious influences, especially in the US).  But unless you're intending to start killing people off it's not the top priority because it's starting to solve itself (and will do so quicker with the right help).  And if you are intending to kill people off you really ought to start with the biggest consumers of resources, emitters of pollution and so on, which are the wealthy, particularly in the  West.

The real question is why some people need to believe that population growth makes everything impossible, even though that's not true (and fairly easy to show that it's not).  I suppose they just need to find an excuse to go on being self-indulgent like they have for the rest of their lives and blame someone else for the results (ditto).

[Lagman]

5 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I had a thought today (and had a lie down after)

Without confining the concept to these shores, of fuel duty was doubled, and auditably ringfenced to be spent only on emissions reduction, how would people feel about it?

my own view; I’d use my vehicles less, public transport more, and be glad to see something that catalysed change.

Would Just be another tax grab, climate change or not the UK effects about 1% of the climate (and just the tiniest fraction here), how would it's emission reductions effect the world? - barely noticibly, so what's the point.

[Albert Tatlock]

6 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Even if that were true it would be the opposite of irrelevant, the more people, the more drastic the action required to cope.  But actually   population is less a problem than people think - indeed some people already claim we have reached 'peak child'.  That doesn't mean that population won't continue to grow because of the 'bulge' coming through and people living longer.  But fertility is falling rapidly in most countries or is already at or below replacement level.  Growth isn't exponential and it's predicted that population might peak in around 2100.

That's not to say a lot more couldn't be done, especially in Sub Saharan Africa where a lot of the problem is due to poor health services (and hence access to contraception) with those available often being religiously-based.  Aid policies often don't push reproductive services enough (again because of religious influences, especially in the US).  But unless you're intending to start killing people off it's not the top priority because it's starting to solve itself (and will do so quicker with the right help).  And if you are intending to kill people off you really ought to start with the biggest consumers of resources, emitters of pollution and so on, which are the wealthy, particularly in the  West.

The real question is why some people need to believe that population growth makes everything impossible, even though that's not true (and fairly easy to show that it's not).  I suppose they just need to find an excuse to go on being self-indulgent like they have for the rest of their lives and blame someone else for the results (ditto).

I'm calling complete BS on that post. You've simply picked the low option, more out of supporting your own argument.

[display name]

11 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I had a thought today (and had a lie down after)

Without confining the concept to these shores, of fuel duty was doubled, and auditably ringfenced to be spent only on emissions reduction, how would people feel about it?

my own view; I’d use my vehicles less, public transport more, and be glad to see something that catalysed change.

I'd feel you should remain laying down and reduce the taxation of the brain

[foxdaleliberationfront]

There is no such thing as 'man made climate change' - the set of data that Climate Change Extremists use to promote their view is so tiny in the history of the planet that it's actually funny. 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, they're using information from the early 1800's to today and most of the climate data pre-1940 is sketchy at best. 

 

Green technology is such a growth area because big industry has cottoned on to the fact they can sell green crap to gullible idiots with money to burn 

 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

10 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Even if that were true it would be the opposite of irrelevant, the more people, the more drastic the action required to cope.  But actually   population is less a problem than people think - indeed some people already claim we have reached 'peak child'.  That doesn't mean that population won't continue to grow because of the 'bulge' coming through and people living longer.  But fertility is falling rapidly in most countries or is already at or below replacement level.  Growth isn't exponential and it's predicted that population might peak in around 2100.

That's not to say a lot more couldn't be done, especially in Sub Saharan Africa where a lot of the problem is due to poor health services (and hence access to contraception) with those available often being religiously-based.  Aid policies often don't push reproductive services enough (again because of religious influences, especially in the US).  But unless you're intending to start killing people off it's not the top priority because it's starting to solve itself (and will do so quicker with the right help).  And if you are intending to kill people off you really ought to start with the biggest consumers of resources, emitters of pollution and so on, which are the wealthy, particularly in the  West.

The real question is why some people need to believe that population growth makes everything impossible, even though that's not true (and fairly easy to show that it's not).  I suppose they just need to find an excuse to go on being self-indulgent like they have for the rest of their lives and blame someone else for the results (ditto).

'Holier than thou' attitudes such as this will get you nowhere (as you have already witnessed for the past decade). You cannot expect 'Guilt' to work on those who do not feel guilty.

Three things need to be done to make a big start;

1. Man Made Global Warming needs to be separated out from natural cyclic GW. People no longer believe facts as a matter of course, they are fed up of being bullshitted. They deserve an honest, simple appraisal of what Man is and is not responsible for - and hence how much of a difference he can make.

2. Politicians are no longer trusted - so when a politician uses any subject as a reason for tax rises (especially to fund their own favourites) - then, as the tax rises, the original issue loses backing rather than gains backing. This issue is a serious one - uses it as an excuse for other issues is indefensible.

3. It was Sir David Attenborough who stated that world population had doubled in the time that he had been making his documentaries and that the issue must be addressed. If there were zero 'Mankind' - there would be zero MMGW - Fact. 

MMGW = N x E (Where N = Number of Man and E = Average effect of each individual Man). 

Make either number = Zero and the overall effect of man on GW will be zero - So why concentrate on only one component of the equation?

Population matters - and it nonsense to dismiss it as you did. You can control population without "Killing people" - so stop trying to scare people and make them feel guilty - this approach has backfired to date and needs to be dropped sharpish. The future is no more important to your grandkids than it is to mine. 

"And if you are intending to kill people off...."   Sorry Roger, that really is some insult to throw out - it really is!

The past decade has been lost in guilt, blame, taxation excuse, bullshit and vested interests - if you want to convince people to change, then the first people who need to change are the one's lecturing others...... (See; Definition of madness - doing the same thing... example).

[BallaDoc]

Heresy alert - I don't think climate change as such is important, because it's been happening naturally for billions of years.  For example, the fact that there are oil and gas deposits under Antarctica mean that the planet was once ice-free and Antarctica was a lush tropical jungle, and that was probably just fine at the time.  Our problem is the speed of climate change which makes it very difficult for humans and other species to adapt in time, for example, coastal towns like Douglas were built in the expectation that the sea level would stay where it is for the foreseeable future, which now looks unlikely.  Our farming methods were also developed in the expectation that the climate would remain stable and predictable, so that's another big problem.  I don't think we will find the motivation or political will to adapt in an orderly manner - it's probably all going to be rather chaotic and we are probably going to see large population reductions (by whatever means) in the process.