/ Eco System Meltdown- So what?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Blizzard - on 09 May 2013
I have been watching this news feature this week

http://www.channel4.com/news/green-pleasant-land-nature-crisis-google-hangout-video

It highlights that:

1) Our wildlife and ecology is in crisis

2) The whole natural world is under threat

3) There are an increase in the number of extreme weather events.

The programme has left me pondering on the following:

Will a recent report on biodiversity due to the climate change, make any actual difference in shaping future outcomes?

Is the Channel 4 feature on Our Green and Pleasant land simply media scaremongering or are they reporting a reality that we have no control over?

Will things i.e. nature that we take for granted soon dissappear forever?
OwenM - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard:
> I have been watching this news feature this week
>
>
> The programme has left me pondering on the following:
>
> Will a recent report on biodiversity due to the climate change, make any actual difference in shaping future outcomes?

No.
>
> Is the Channel 4 feature on Our Green and Pleasant land simply media scaremongering or are they reporting a reality that we have no control over?

Yes.
>
> Will things i.e. nature that we take for granted soon dissappear forever?

Yes.

Put simply we are in a mass-extinction event right now.

Blizzard - on 09 May 2013
In reply to OwenM:

So our children( I dont have any) will not be inheriting a green and pleasant land, filled with birdsong and wildlife.

And all people bang on about is UKIP, politics, Europe and Economic growth,etc... shouldnt we be more worried?
Eric9Points - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard:

Yes.
Blizzard - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Everyone proverbally has their head stuck in the sand then.

Not exactly reassuring is it?
Eric9Points - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard:

Well no.

I used to think that this country at least had some people in Government that had their heads screwed on but a few weeks ago I heard some cretin of a minister from the Department of Energy and Climate Change whingeing on about having more to worry about than CO2 emissions as he had to keep the electricity lights on etc, etc. I suspect he's just another tollie in denail about what's happening.
Alyson - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard: There are a lot of good, passionate people doing fantastic conservation work for very little thanks or financial reward, and there are lots more people who care and who try to do their bit to make a difference. However the level of both global co-operation and lifestyle compromise needed to reverse current ecological decline is almost insurmountably huge.
Tony Simpson - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

we are starting to experience something that occurs naturally and is a world wide issue. It is not something we can or should control it is just one of those issue our world has faced from time to time since its conception.

An ice age will come, we can not stop it, it will effect us all and as far as I can tell from reading lots of stuff relating to climate change, ice age etc we will not have had an adverse effect causing this. It was going to happen regardless.

The bees and rainforest disappearing are a different matter..

Look out it will be very cold in a few thousand or so years.
James90 - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard:

if you believe human nature is inherently selfish, then this leads to an inevitable outcome as we exaust finite resource for individual gain.
Eric9Points - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Tony Simpson:

I'm afraid you are completely wrong. The change in our climate is due to our increase in CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. The evidence is overwhelming and correlates well with the theoretical model.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it. Go and read up on the subject.
Oliiver - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard: oh dear, what is little England polluting in the wider picture of the world? Very little.
Blizzard - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Tony Simpson:

I dont know about a few thousand years, we need to be worried about the next 100 years. Energy crisis looming, overpopulation. I dont believe for one minute there will be another ice age, if it ever happens we will be long gone, as will the natural world, and most of our precious resources of so many which we waste through needless consumption living unsustainable lives.

How terribly depressing, no one wonder many of us live lives of pure escapism.
Alyson - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Nobody other than you is making this about individual nations.
malk - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver: yeah, London's ecological footprint is only 4.54 global hectares per person-less than the UK average.
the enviro agency know what they're talking about..
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/115654.aspx
Eric9Points - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Quite a lot per person actually:

http://tinyurl.com/yzh39x

About twice the world average. The figures don't include CO2 emissions for goods and services consumed in this country but produced in another. If they were the figures would be worse for the UK.

You do realise this isn't an argument about who does the washing up, "well I'm not going to bother washing my dishes because you've got more dirty ones in the sink than me."?
The Norris - on 09 May 2013
malk - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> The figures don't include CO2 emissions for goods and services consumed in this country but produced in another.

the same for the global hectare calculation for london no doubt- what a joke..
malk - on 09 May 2013
In reply to The Norris: nope. just a step change in human consciousness..
OwenM - on 09 May 2013
In reply to Tony Simpson:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> we are starting to experience something that occurs naturally and is a world wide issue. It is not something we can or should control it is just one of those issue our world has faced from time to time since its conception.

Human beings are wiping out species after species at a rate far higher than in any of the great mass extinctions of the past apart from maybe the K-T event. By hunting, human induced climate change, habitat clearance etc. This isn't natural.
>
> An ice age will come, we can not stop it, it will effect us all and as far as I can tell from reading lots of stuff relating to climate change, ice age etc we will not have had an adverse effect causing this. It was going to happen regardless.

Not for another 86,000 years.
>
> The bees and rainforest disappearing are a different matter..
>
> Look out it will be very cold in a few thousand or so years.

malk - on 09 May 2013
Eric9Points - on 10 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard:

A timely thread as mankind passes another milestone: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22486153

Bruce Hooker - on 10 May 2013
In reply to Blizzard:

> Will things i.e. nature that we take for granted soon dissappear forever?

Might do, but I doubt it. Why worry?
Jimbo W on 10 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Does the concept of caring for people mean only those alive when you are? If you could be granted a wish for a perfect happy satisfying pleasurable life but only at the expense of the pain and agony for those who live after you pass away would you wish it? I'll presume the answer is no, and say that that is why we should worry about it, because if we can do anything about it, we are morally required to do our best to try irrespective of whether this is man made or natural global warming?
Bruce Hooker - on 10 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

You take life too literally. The fact is we never get to make such decisions so the example is meaningless.

No one wants to look at the real problem - population growth - it's not politically correct, all the rest is pissing in the wind. It also enables a lot of people to make a comfortable living pedalling fear and for others it's a political bread winner.

If a sensible government takes measures that reduce energy consumption in a non aggressive way people will follow, the shock horror end of the world stuff just turns people off, it's a poor pedagogical method.
phja - on 10 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> No one wants to look at the real problem - population growth - it's not politically correct, all the rest is pissing in the wind.

I agree...while global warming/ecological damage is very important, the elephant in the room is population growth.

Global warming has 2 underlying causes...the strive to be rich, and growth in human population.

You can talk and talk about how people should recycle and how we should all have solar panels...but try telling people they can't have kids!!

Thats the real problem...and no one will dare face it!!
Tony Simpson - on 11 May 2013
In reply to OwenM:

I agree with your points and that's why I put my last two comments, both meant to be a bit tongue in cheek and well understated.

What my post was trying to say is climate change is happening and we can not stop this but the other stuff mentioned, that we as the superior race are doing to our planet and the others that share it with us is wrong.
Jimbo W on 12 May 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> You take life too literally. The fact is we never get to make such decisions so the example is meaningless.

It's not an example, it's a thought experiment to see where your concern really resides. It is only meaningless if you want and choose it to be so. What other way to take that aspect of life that deals with major problems other than literally!

> No one wants to look at the real problem - population growth - it's not politically correct, all the rest is pissing in the wind. It also enables a lot of people to make a comfortable living pedalling fear and for others it's a political bread winner.

Population growth is a major problem, but population is already way too excessive, and depopulation doesn't provide a proper solution when the cure could be as unpleasant as the problem. Of course we need to curtail population growth, but throwing your hands in the air, blaming others and giving up because of the lack of attention to what you perceive as being the main problem, is itself one of the major problems, the reason for general intransigence on the issue, and the reasons governments get away with it so completely.

> If a sensible government takes measures that reduce energy consumption in a non aggressive way people will follow, the shock horror end of the world stuff just turns people off, it's a poor pedagogical method.

Governments follow people, not vice versa... ...if you otherwise leave it to Government, they will lead according to short term vested interests and ideology as has been all too evident of late. As I think it was Ghandi said: "you need to be the change you want to see"! It does surprise me how little evidence there is on these threads of such behaviour... ...it seems to me that the natural world is just an amenity of which the superficial aesthetic is worth preserving, but there is little underlying evidence of a connection or underlying concern for the environment and natural world, nor of those who inherit it from us, quite the opposite, as we jetset around the world, consume cars, eat far more than we need, throw even more away. Capitalism and individualism are endemic, and those like thatcher got under even your skin, and how ironic to see the swathes objecting to her record as they live according to her ideals. I'm not sure anything much other than money "turns people on", but a little bit of thought about the potential nature of our children's lives must surely be a little sobering?!
Bruce Hooker - on 12 May 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> Population growth is a major problem,

It is not just "a" problem, it is "the" problem, ecological problems stem from it, especially when you start thinking in terms of survival of the species. Reducing the population is probably not worth trying at present as just slowing down growth is not even being attempted by most countries - the exception being China and look how all our fine speaking worthies slag China off for doing it!

People are more sensible than their erstwhile "betters" believe, they reject the superficial and excessive spin about global warming as they feel that it won't save anyone if population continues to explode in exactly the areas who are least able to deal with it. Give people reasonable things to do and they will do them - like smoking less, drinking and driving less, buying cars which consume less and so on. On the other hand when their "betters" say take the train, not the car they look at the price and inefficiency of trains and say b*gger off - especially when the same lesson givers can be seen flying around the place to foreign holidays with ner a thought for the pollution air travel causes... I bet half the ukc eco-lobby are guilty of this! I'm not BTW.

We can, with care and new technologies feed, clothe and provide reasonable standard of living for the present population and do this in a sustainable way, I think, but I'm not sure for the double. Whether long term this population can survive is a calculation that needs to be made, I've never seen anything published on the subject though... so basically all the ballyhoo is being spouted but there isn't even a clear long term plan to give it a bit of credibility.

If you want people to act sensibly the you could try treating them in a sensible way, which is not what is being done at present.
Baron Weasel - on 13 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Tony Simpson)
>
> I'm afraid you are completely wrong. The change in our climate is due to our increase in CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. The evidence is overwhelming and correlates well with the theoretical model.
>
> I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it. Go and read up on the subject.

We have been getting warmer for 10000years now - the industrial revolution and on going pollution is making things worse though. I studied paleoclimatology at university and this iswhat it teaches.

BW
Bruce Hooker - on 13 May 2013
In reply to Baron Weasel:

Did you study the medieval hot period? When the Mer de Glace was a prairie and the col behind was used for driving cattle between the French and Italian bits of Savoy?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.