Harry Angstrom
Striker
Because birth rates are declining
Environment crisis
- Thread starter Market Where?
- Start date
Teed
Striker
UK - 1.80 births per woman (2016)
US - 1.80 births per woman (2016)
Austrailian - 1.81 births per woman (2016)
China - 1.62 births per woman (2016)
India - 2.33 births per woman
Russian - 1.75 births per woman (2016)
France _ 1.96 births per woman (2016)
Spain. - 1.33 births per woman (2016)
Germany - 1.50 births per woman (2016)
Problem is, those billionaires must be some of the dumbest people on the planet, they're buying up beachfront property at an alarming rate, you'd think with the money they have, they'd hire an advisor when buying a new kip.
Last edited:
babyimreadytoblow
Central Defender
Yep, population growth is actually slowing atm isn't it.
I think population isn't expected to go any higher that 9-10 billion.
I think population isn't expected to go any higher that 9-10 billion.
Teed
Striker
If you take into account male infertility along with the decline in birth rates, then the population will decrease dramatically in the coming years, so that will make a few on here very happy.
Male infertility crisis - Wikipedia
Global fertility rate is 2.4 atm and China are encouraging people to have up to 3 kids now. The population isn't going to start declining any time soon. The damage is already done in that regard.If you take into account male infertility along with the decline in birth rates, then the population will decrease dramatically in the coming years, so that will make a few on here very happy.
Male infertility crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Teed
Striker
It's already started, and the way things are at the moment with China, a can see war in the near future.
Earth Overshoot Day nears record high – DW – 07/29/2021
The COVID effect didn't last. Earth Overshoot Day, the day humanity exceeds its yearly allotment of the planet's biological assets, is nearly back to its record high. What can be done to ease the burden?
www.dw.com
Will e
Central Defender
Diesel car suits me better than electric, says PM’s climate spokesperson | Green politics | The Guardian
amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
There is no doubt we have reached a danger point much sooner than ever predicted over the last 50 years.
The main concerns are of course deforestation, ice melt and permafrost melt. The permafrost melt will release a great deal of methane which is 10 times more effective than CO2. Polar ice melt is increasing at an alarming rate which will lead to sea level rise and loss of coastal prime arable land. Glacier melt will drastically reduce fresh water available to humanity and increased rain will wash away more fertile top soil. Deforestation will of course reduce the absorption of CO2 although increase in temperature will result in more drought and the resultant forest fires that will release more CO2 and as temperatures rise more CO2 is actually released from vegetation.
We have a problem. Maybe we will cope somehow with the changes that will affect our human systems but there will be severe consequences globally.
However, despite these tipping points being reached there are still a couple that we may be able to avoid but I am sceptical. A four degree rise in temperature will mean vegetation will reach saturation in its absorption of CO2 and start releasing CO2 instead and the microbiology of rainforests will also change to have such a reverse effect. The really big tipping point we need to avoid is that billions of tons of methane are frozen on the ocean floor. If this is released we face complete and utter devastation and there are already signs off the coast of Japan that such melting has begun.
I am confident the human race will survive but it will be a vastly different world to the one we know today and our human systems will collapse.
...
One solution is of course to pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to increase cloud cover and effect some global dimming but we have been there before and reduced the sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere because it ends up as acid rain and that in not good for vegetation. It could be a very toxic world in the future.
The main concerns are of course deforestation, ice melt and permafrost melt. The permafrost melt will release a great deal of methane which is 10 times more effective than CO2. Polar ice melt is increasing at an alarming rate which will lead to sea level rise and loss of coastal prime arable land. Glacier melt will drastically reduce fresh water available to humanity and increased rain will wash away more fertile top soil. Deforestation will of course reduce the absorption of CO2 although increase in temperature will result in more drought and the resultant forest fires that will release more CO2 and as temperatures rise more CO2 is actually released from vegetation.
We have a problem. Maybe we will cope somehow with the changes that will affect our human systems but there will be severe consequences globally.
However, despite these tipping points being reached there are still a couple that we may be able to avoid but I am sceptical. A four degree rise in temperature will mean vegetation will reach saturation in its absorption of CO2 and start releasing CO2 instead and the microbiology of rainforests will also change to have such a reverse effect. The really big tipping point we need to avoid is that billions of tons of methane are frozen on the ocean floor. If this is released we face complete and utter devastation and there are already signs off the coast of Japan that such melting has begun.
I am confident the human race will survive but it will be a vastly different world to the one we know today and our human systems will collapse.
...
One solution is of course to pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to increase cloud cover and effect some global dimming but we have been there before and reduced the sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere because it ends up as acid rain and that in not good for vegetation. It could be a very toxic world in the future.
Last edited:
They have always said this for every 30 to 50 years time. Yet life uhhuh uh finds a way
And always level off then decline as child mortality rates fall in a country
They'll have to navigate their demographic crisis first. Their 1 child policies means the old folks won't have enough workers paying in. I don't think they'll attract many migrant workers
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
I'm not sure about that to be honest.
When I first was made aware of the effects of CO2 in 1970, I was told if we didn't stop chopping down the rain forests within 5 years then irreversible climate regime change would begin although no date was specified of when that would become critical to our human systems.
The first date put on it was in 300 years time then that was reduced to 200 years time and by the 1990s it was the start of next century.
It only really since the start of the Millenium has the date been changed to later this century, then around the middle (2050) although some have been saying recently that 2040 will be more accurate and I agree with that date. Certainly by then most mountain glaciers will probably be gone and they supply 75% of the world's fresh water supply.
You don't need to be a scientist to work out the effects of that on humanity. Apart from the Himalayas, the Andes and the Rockies, consider the Alps and the fact that the Rhine flows through 5 countries and the Danube through 10. We wont escape the effect in Europe.
20 years time we will see great change beginning to occur and the 2050 target to be carbon free is too little, too late.
Teed
Striker
.
Well this will certainly help, 14 million trees would suck up a lot of carbon, then give out huge amounts of oxygen, another dumb idea by the so-called experts, they then have to dispose of all those wind turbines once they wear out, and that's not and easy thing to do.
NEARLY 14 million trees have been chopped down across Scotland to make way for wind turbines. The Scottish Government expects to be generate 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources this year – but concerns have been raised about finding a balance between green energy and sustaining forests.
Well this will certainly help, 14 million trees would suck up a lot of carbon, then give out huge amounts of oxygen, another dumb idea by the so-called experts, they then have to dispose of all those wind turbines once they wear out, and that's not and easy thing to do.
The forestry land owners will be laughing all the way to the bank. There is no Capital Gains Tax, no Income Tax, no Corporation Tax. VAT can be reclaimed on any expenditure and any improvements to roads, fencing etc can be offset. Add to all that the income received from the timber sales and the ground rent from hosting the turbines and all in all it will have been a very profitable time for them.
We have more trees than 30 year ago
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
Madness. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, or doesn't care as long as there is money to be made. How long before the temperature rises high enough to make it self defeating to plant more trees, the end of the century?
Anyway if only people had listened all those years ago. Was it really 1970 when this was released. Where has all the time gone.
pillars of hercules
Striker
Most of the trees cut are from sustainable quick growing species that are more than replaced. If you also take into account the areas cleared can often be replanted its not so bad.
Trees still grow in warm weather. A lot faster actually
Last edited:
ChrisK
Winger
Don’t get too excited about it but reckon the uk and it’s population are up there doin there bit more than most countries
Tbh hope we get the global warming ASAP and get some cracking summers and mild winters we usually get shite weather
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
Initially increased CO2 in the atmosphere will induce more rapid growth but the saturation point for absorption of CO2 by vegetation will be a 4 degree rise in temperature. That could be reached by the end of this century. Eco-systems output more CO2 than they absorb during a heatwave as proven by the 2003 European heatwave where sufficient carbon was released to reverse four years of carbon sequestration. This effect has been known for decades but little research done as it was considered to be a more distant problem in the future. However, research has been initiated recently that hopes to collect data on the problem.
pillars of hercules
Striker
Sea level will rise people will starve and the population will come down
Teed
Striker
Yes, I'm sure it has, mate.
Where are they going to plant these trees?
I don't think money is the driver behind this, though people will get rich from it, the driving factor is Agenda 21/30, download the PDF from the UN site and read it, ignore the sugar coated language they use, you have to ask how they believe they can achieve their goals.
Last edited:
