Climate Change

[Westward]

24 minutes ago, henry d said:

Sure is.

You did not say short term, so I did not distort that, you missed it out. Which means that there is more water vapour in the atmosphere, yes?

Here`s your quote, you seem to be saying 1 - world population is increasing  2 - more water vapour is being released because of meat production and then link these two to third world growth even though they do not eat as much meat as the "first world".

The link I provided would have shown you that the average American eats 30 times (120.2 KG) more meat than the average Bangladeshi (4kg) and we here in the UK eat eleven times (84.2Kg) more than them too, so I am hard pressed to find a reason why you seem to think that there is a correlation between meat production and the third world being to blame for the problems that come from meat production (you only mention water vapour and disregard gases etc)

So looking at the extremes, 329 M Americans, eating 30 times more meat than 161 M Bangladeshis, that is 60 times (app) more meat and the same pollutants/water vapour.

Yeah, English is my first language, my skin is white and my English lineage goes back to the 18th century thanks for asking!

Okay just for you as you still seem determined to obsess about the trivia whilst ignoring the point. Air breathing animals of all types produce gases, not just methane but also exhale more water vapour than they inhale and similarly exhale more CO2 than they inhale.

I really don't care who eats the most meat because it's irrelevant to the topic. What matters is that meat production has increased hugely over the last 70 years. More importantly, the human population is now just about 4 times what it was in 1950 and every sing;le one is constantly emitting greenhouse gases without ever getting into a car or aircraft.

Hopefully, instead of picking silly arguments over context you can perhaps see that the over population crisis is at least as big as the climate crisis

[Westward]

59 minutes ago, oowee said:

However the residents of 3rd world countries contribute far less emmissions than those of developed nations. 

Total CO₂ emissions by country/region in 2017 vs per capita emissions (top 40 countries)

 

Thanks but I'm not worried about CO2 emissions. If anyone thinks 0.04% level (today) can alter the climate when 0.03% (1900) didn't either has an agenda or is fooling themselves. The developing nations however, with their continual huge population growth are emitting plenty of other much more potent greenhouse gases and in the case of one of them, water vapour, the level in the atmosphere is about 3,000 times that of CO2.

[Westward]

And for those determined to argue that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions from industrialised countries perhaps this report will help you to appreciate why I don't agree: https://phys.org/news/2020-01-emissions-potent-greenhouse-gas-contradicting.html

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, Westward said:

And for those determined to argue that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions from industrialised countries perhaps this report will help you to appreciate why I don't agree: https://phys.org/news/2020-01-emissions-potent-greenhouse-gas-contradicting.html

China is our producer. Their emmissions are our emmissions by proxy. It's not the population growth it's the growth of consumption that is the concern. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

China is our producer. Their emmissions are our emmissions by proxy. It's not the population growth it's the growth of consumption that is the concern. 

So Packham was wrong last night then?

[oowee]

1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

So Packham was wrong last night then?

Did not see him. 

[old'un]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

China is our producer. Their emmissions are our emmissions by proxy. It's not the population growth it's the growth of consumption that is the concern. 

don’t the two go hand in hand? Less people less consumption.

[Gordon R]

Quote

don’t the two go hand in hand? Less people less consumption.

I am sure someone will try to pick a hole in that - even though it is correct.

[Westward]

6 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I am sure someone will try to pick a hole in that - even though it is correct.

And we know which 2 posters are the likely candidates.

[oowee]

14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I am sure someone will try to pick a hole in that - even though it is correct.

No I would not argue with that but 1 in the west is worth several in less developed nations. 

[Rewulf]

54 minutes ago, oowee said:

China is our producer. Their emmissions are our emmissions by proxy. It's not the population growth it's the growth of consumption that is the concern. 

Translation:

We can't dictate to, or tax China any more than we are doing, so we shall pretend to blame ourselves, and tax 1st World citizens to the hilt, whilst feeding them a guilty premise that they are murdering the planet. 

Anyone who questions this narrative or offers any other theory, will be ostracised and labelled 'denier' with an extra helping of guilt and shame. 

Target the children, who will apply extra pressure, and use gullible political groups to push the agenda. 

 

[old'un]

28 minutes ago, oowee said:

No I would not argue with that but 1 in the west is worth several in less developed nations. 

I was thinking more of an overall reduction in the worlds population rather than any one country, or the west if you like.   

[oowee]

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Translation:

We can't dictate to, or tax China any more than we are doing, so we shall pretend to blame ourselves, and tax 1st World citizens to the hilt, whilst feeding them a guilty premise that they are murdering the planet. 

Anyone who questions this narrative or offers any other theory, will be ostracised and labelled 'denier' with an extra helping of guilt and shame. 

Target the children, who will apply extra pressure, and use gullible political groups to push the agenda. 

 

Rightly so but you are wrong on the taxing china part. We can and should start to levy carbon tax. We should continue to apply carbon tax to consumtion and start to ramp it up. Unfortunately out of the Union the UK on it's own is small beer. 

27 minutes ago, old'un said:

I was thinking more of an overall reduction in the worlds population rather than any one country, or the west if you like.   

How would you go about doing that? 

[old'un]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

Rightly so but you are wrong on the taxing china part. We can and should start to levy carbon tax. We should continue to apply carbon tax to consumtion and start to ramp it up. Unfortunately out of the Union the UK on it's own is small beer. 

How would you go about doing that? 

I don’t have an answer, I was just responding to the fact, less people less consumption.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Rightly so but you are wrong on the taxing china part. We can and should start to levy carbon tax. We should continue to apply carbon tax to consumtion and start to ramp it up. Unfortunately out of the Union the UK on it's own is small beer

So basically, keep consuming, but pay more in taxes? How does this save the planet? 

It's exactly what I said before, its not about co2, it's about money. 

Why don't governments in the 1st world divert some of this taxation toward more nuclear power stations, and research into fusion reactors? 

Because there's no profit in it! 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So basically, keep consuming, but pay more in taxes? How does this save the planet? 

It's exactly what I said before, its not about co2, it's about money. 

Why don't governments in the 1st world divert some of this taxation toward more nuclear power stations, and research into fusion reactors? 

Because there's no profit in it! 

Taxation will curb consumption. 

Why don't governments in the 1st world divert some of this taxation toward more nuclear power stations, and research into fusion reactors? Because we have a stupid first past the post, short term government that is unable to make long term decisions. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Taxation will curb consumption. 

That is the argument that many people peddle, but I would question the logic. When fuel duty goes up, do motorists drive less or just stump up the extra tax? It's all about making more money and nothing to do with saving the planet.

[Penelope]

On 20/01/2020 at 21:56, islandgun said:

wot no oaty milk, just looked them up, these carp get better food than i do, garlic and blue cheese !

And the rest.

I see Charlie has been glad handing the little Greeter. Oh the manipulation!!!

[Scully]

13 hours ago, oowee said:

Taxation will curb consumption

No doubt intended government policy and one of the most throw away infuriating comments you’ll hear, and as many have said, climate change whether real or imagined, won’t effect the wealthy, it’s the average bloke in the street who will bare the brunt. It’s revenue garnering, nothing more nothing less. 

[Westward]

17 hours ago, oowee said:

Because we have a stupid first past the post, short term government that is unable to make long term decisions. 

Errr. Where's the connection between the method used to decide the election and the length of the government's term? As one of PW's relentlessly negative posters you seem to be confusing even yourself this time by merging 2 separate entities into one, a bit like the climate hysterics merging global warming and CO2 into a single entity.

[Vince Green]

23 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It's not just about the temperature.

How many more people can this planet support?

That's the big one, but politicians won't confront that issue its too hot to handle. 

Chris Packham tackled it on Horizon BBC2 a couple of days ago and credit to him. We don't often have anything good to say about him but this is good and much needed. You can see it on iplayer.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Vince Green

[discobob]

19 hours ago, oowee said:

Because we have a stupid first past the post, short term government that is unable to make long term decisions. 

I actually find myself agreeing with OOWEE here - there are certain things that should be taken out of the control of "short term" governments to stop them being used as political fodder!!

 

[oowee]

4 hours ago, Westward said:

Errr. Where's the connection between the method used to decide the election and the length of the government's term? As one of PW's relentlessly negative posters you seem to be confusing even yourself this time by merging 2 separate entities into one, a bit like the climate hysterics merging global warming and CO2 into a single entity.

For those of small capacity.

A government has an elected term of just five years making it difficult to take decisions about things that will exceed the term of its election. It's also reliant on populist short term support so is more likely to promote short term easy wins. Difficult decisions that require long term sustained pressure for change, wether they be climate change, long term infrastructure, debt repaymant, economic strategy, education or the health service are beyond the thinking and election term of any government so not on the radar for 'long term' change. 

As a result we are likely to flip flop between policy swinging with the whims of voters and who, rather like a sick smoker, are unwilling to kick the habit for their own health.

Maybe you need to engage brain a little more before opening gob? 

Edited January 23, 2020 by oowee

[Westward]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

For those of small capacity.

A government has an elected term of just five years making it difficult to take decisions about things that will exceed the term of its election. It's also reliant on populist short term support so is more likely to promote short term easy wins. Difficult decisions that require long term sustained pressure for change, wether they be climate change, long term infrastructure, debt repaymant, economic strategy, education or the health service are beyond the thinking and election term of any government so not on the radar for 'long term' change. 

As a result we are likely to flip flop between policy swinging with the whims of voters and who, rather like a sick smoker, are unwilling to kick the habit for their own health.

Maybe you need to engage brain a little more before opening gob? 

For those of

I fully understand and completely agree. The mystery was how you managed to connect it to the first past the post system. Whatever way we choose to elect parliament it will still be for a limited period. Pretty much the same as every other democracy.

What we really need is a Presidential system with executive powers. At least then there would be someone who could call the CO2 hoaxers to account rather than just bailing and babbling about the impossible goal of becoming "carbon neutral".

[oowee]

19 minutes ago, Westward said:

For those of

I fully understand and completely agree. The mystery was how you managed to connect it to the first past the post system. Whatever way we choose to elect parliament it will still be for a limited period. Pretty much the same as every other democracy.

Demorcacy based upon a proportional model would be more able to take long term decisions (by consensus rather than in oposition).  Look at the sustained economic policy decisions taken by Germany over the last forty years.

The first past the post system leads to voter inequality where voter power is not equal. The number of votes per MP elected for each party varies wildly, with one party needing 23,033 votes per MP in 2015, and another needing 3,881,099. Some votes were worth 19 times as much as others in 2017, and over 168 times as much as others in 2015.

Countries with low voter inequality also: – Are better equipped to take a long-term approach to policy making, rather than focussing on short-term partisan gain. – Have a significantly better record on environmental policy and climate action, owing to better political representation of ‘diffuse interests’, leading to a better informed and more sophisticated national debate. – Political scientist Salomon Orellana found that countries with a pure PR system could expect to have an 11 per cent improvement in CO2 emissions, towards a reduction in emissions, compared with countries with voting systems like the UK’s.

Excerpts taken from The Path to Proportional Representation.