Environment crisis



It's not really bonkers as it's expected. We're naturally built for self preservation of ourselves and our 'tribe' so policies that go against that is fighting nature. Add onto that the last 100 or so years of consumerism conditioning and protecting ourselves is now set as protecting a certain standard of living, not just simply being alive and not at risk of death.

I agree with all of that but it’s self preservation of us as individuals not of our species
 
I agree with all of that but it’s self preservation of us as individuals not of our species
I think human history shows we don't care about the species overall. Just ourselves or our particular tribe. Until we see the whole population as our tribe our attitudes won't change.
 
I think human history shows we don't care about the species overall. Just ourselves or our particular tribe. Until we see the whole population as our tribe our attitudes won't change.

The bit that I think is arguably different is the tribe usually includes children and future generations. We have given up on those despite being family or close to home
 
The bit that I think is arguably different is the tribe usually includes children and future generations. We have given up on those despite being family or close to home
Future generations of your own tribe though. When decisions are made to improve the lives of children in Parliament, are they trying to improve the lives of all children or just the children of the UK? One thing some people didn't like about being in the EU is that we were a net contributor. Our money was going to improve other places in the EU and not the UK. Why not spend that money just on us instead?
 
Future generations of your own tribe though. When decisions are made to improve the lives of children in Parliament, are they trying to improve the lives of all children or just the children of the UK? One thing some people didn't like about being in the EU is that we were a net contributor. Our money was going to improve other places in the EU and not the UK. Why not spend that money just on us instead?

But surely where climate change is concerned their is no tribe??? We are one overall humankind that are affected. You can make an arguement that some people closer to sea level would be affected first but ultimately no one is immune. So by default we are all one tribe with something of a Global catastrophic nature
 
But surely where climate change is concerned their is no tribe??? We are one overall humankind that are affected. You can make an arguement that some people closer to sea level would be affected first but ultimately no one is immune. So by default we are all one tribe with something of a Global catastrophic nature
You'd like to think so, but in a world of information, both true and false, not everyone sees an issue. And if changing things involves a nation being worse off for the sake of the environment, some might be unwilling to make a change in case a rival doesn't make the change and profits off it. Think it's like some of the times America has had misgivings about the Kyoto accords as some other nations could still pollute heavily for industry. Americans at times felt it wasn't fair for them.

Maybe I'm being too cynical. But we've just recently left something that is trying to better Europe overall because we felt it wasn't in just our own interests to be in it. Or that maybe we'd be better off out of it, doesn't matter if others end up worse off without us.
 
I've never denied the damage being done by climate change however when it was used an excuse to raise taxes I stopped caring that much.
There’s loads of other countries have a recycling scheme that earns you money. Just a shame others have chosen to punish people for it instead.

In Alberta they have a bottles and can return. While the money is not 5c for them and 25c for over a litre. Most people do it. Even if they don’t, the homeless people round them up.
Also scouts, Cubs, kids sports teams do drives for them. Like cleaning a highway and cashing in for new strips etc.

It’s a really easy but really smart idea

I know that’s just recycling but it shows there are some good ideas out there
 
  • 1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up AgainNew York Times, February 1895
  • 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
  • 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice AgeNew York Times, October 1912
  • 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
  • 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
  • 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice AgeNew York Times, Sept 18, 1924
  • 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
  • 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
  • 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year RiseNew York Times, March 27th, 1933
  • 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
  • 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
  • 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
  • 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
  • 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
  • 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
  • 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be OffFortune Magazine
  • 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
  • 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
  • 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
  • 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
  • 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
  • 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
  • 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
  • 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age


  • 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be InevitableNew York Times, May 21st, 1975
  • 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
  • 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
  • 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
  • 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
  • 1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
  • 1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
  • 1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
  • 1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
  • 2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
  • 2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
 
Last edited:
The number of fully cellular container ships operating today stands at about 5,222 ships with a combined capacity of about 21.5 million TEUS

All burning diesel 24 hours a day and carrying plastic crap and god knows what else.

We are doomed.
 
I propose a number of solutions -

Set a target for product packaging to be recyclable by 2025.

Build a large lens in space and position it so that the North and South poles sun (temperature) is reduced. This will reduce global temperatures and protect life and glaciers.

Build massive sea water salt removal processing plants (solar powered) and pipe water into arid parts of the planet. This will create jobs in poor areas, bring water to people that need it, increase vegetation/farming capacity and reduce sea levels.
 
Is there anybody on here still in denial about the environmental emergency we have created? Just wondering.
It depends what you mean by environmental emergency. Can you be more specific?
The bit about natural cycles and there has been higher levels of CO2 in the past annoy the shit out of me. I was thinking of an analogy the other day - I will gently rest my head on a wall if those with that opinion will run into it as fast as they can. We will both be just touching the wall!

I could do better - and will - but I try to reduce my consumption. I’m eating a lot less meat this year. I’m going to sell my car shortly.
You sell your car, someone else buys it and uses it. Good plan :lol:
Everyone on this board denies it exists by their actions and consumption. Even resident vegans like me.
Speak for yourself marra
The bit about natural cycles and there has been higher levels of CO2 in the past annoy the shit out of me.
Why is this?

What do you know about them, have you done any research?
Stop having kids.
:lol:
 
Last edited:
There’s loads of other countries have a recycling scheme that earns you money. Just a shame others have chosen to punish people for it instead.

In Alberta they have a bottles and can return. While the money is not 5c for them and 25c for over a litre. Most people do it. Even if they don’t, the homeless people round them up.
Also scouts, Cubs, kids sports teams do drives for them. Like cleaning a highway and cashing in for new strips etc.

It’s a really easy but really smart idea

I know that’s just recycling but it shows there are some good ideas out there
Norway's plastic bottle deposit return scheme sees north of 90% of plastic bottles being recycled. Yet here we seem to have endless government debates and consultations about it, but no action.
 
This says a meat eater needs 17 times more Land than a vegetarian.

That does seem a lot and the main reason is;
This is principally because we use a large proportion of the world’s land for growing crops to feed livestock, rather than humans. (Of the world’s approximately five billion hectares of agricultural land, 68% is used for livestock.)
We need to stop feeding livestock with grain, it isn't natural for them. They need to be out in fields farting and shitting and helping with biodiversity. Free range beef anyone.
That’s not true, the world can easily sustain 10b humans, if we learn to live in a more environmental way.
A more environmental way usually means destroy the environment, build more houses, use more resources, plough more land. We started using more of the earths resources than it can replace a couple of decades ago, we're on a downward slope already but people just seem interested in increasing the world population.
We're all part of the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and it's all going to come crashing down soon.
Build massive sea water salt removal processing plants (solar powered) and pipe water into arid parts of the planet. This will create jobs in poor areas, bring water to people that need it, increase vegetation/farming capacity and reduce sea levels.
And destroy the deserts and all the creatures that live there so we can increase the human population. Very environmentally friendly.
 
Last edited:
That does seem a lot and the main reason is;

We need to stop feeding livestock with grain, it isn't natural for them. They need to be out in fields farting and shitting and helping with biodiversity. Free range beef anyone.

A more environmental way usually means destroy the environment, build more houses, use more resources, plough more land. We started using more of the earths resources than it can replace a couple of decades ago, we're on a downward slope already but people just seem interested in increasing the world population.
We're all part of the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and it's all going to come crashing down soon.

And destroy the deserts and all the creatures that live there so we can increase the human population. Very environmentally friendly.

Yes, to some extent, the deserts are vast though, so you wouldn't destroy a lot. Also remember where there is water, there is life. There are also animals struggling as more and more the desert encroaches on their environment, this may tip the scales the other way.
 
Yes, but that 'environmental way' consists of hundreds of concessions on people's lifestyles, freedoms and opportunities. Putting quantity over quality of life is going to make life pretty miserable for a lot of people.
Not at all,

Some simple changes will make a massive difference.

1. Reduction in eating meat - massive impact to the amount of space used for food production and big reduction in CO2
2. No more driving to work and back for those who can work from home. - Reduction in space needed, commute CO2, vehicle needs etc.
3. No more car ownership, pooled car subscriptions. 80-90% reduction in car production.
4. Stop burning fossil fuels, move to 100% renewable - very possible despite the deny-ists 'The wind does always blow argument'
5. Cost of recycling added to the purchase cost of all goods. Things like batteries now carry the cost of their environmental recycling at the beginning.

Do those and 10b is very viable.
  • 1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up AgainNew York Times, February 1895
  • 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
  • 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice AgeNew York Times, October 1912
  • 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
  • 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
  • 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice AgeNew York Times, Sept 18, 1924
  • 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
  • 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
  • 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year RiseNew York Times, March 27th, 1933
  • 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
  • 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
  • 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
That's a lame argument. The science in 1895 or even 1974 is nowhere near what it is today. This is straight from the Brexiteers handbook - 'Well experts have been wrong before"
A more environmental way usually means destroy the environment, build more houses, use more resources, plough more land. We started using more of the earths resources than it can replace a couple of decades ago, we're on a downward slope already but people just seem interested in increasing the world population.
We're all part of the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and it's all going to come crashing down soon.
That's clearly not true. A more environmental way, by the definition of the words in that sentence means more sustainable for the environment.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top