UKC

I suppose I'm opening another can of worms but....
It has been established by the world's leading scientific authorities that the planet is in very deep trouble. Those in this forum who choose to turn a blind eye to their warnings will not find the game they seek by baiting me on the subject this time.
To those who sense the danger is real I ask how much, how far should enviromental issues be taken? What is too far?
Is there a "too far" at this dangerous stage? Repeatedly scientists have stated we are at a turning point.
I'm not militant on ANY subject though my views are strong. I've for example always found the destruction of trees to celebrate Christmas to be repugnant and hypocritical. Is such an opinion over the top at this this time? Needless to say to cease consumption of oil would mean no more transportation, no more plastics (both having a profound effect on delivery of food), and heres the clincher, no more armies. This would have a devastating effect on global economies. How do we stop, how do we slow the impending holocaust within reason? Thoughts? Cheers.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

Define "very deep trouble".

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
I do have a flair for mixed metaphors.
*deaf ear.

In reply to TRNovice:

Come back when you've read a newspaper.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

Why would reading a newspaper help me? How many journalists double as climatologists or experts in complex systems?

I know what IPCC say - I'm just wondering whether you do.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

Well you've thrown out one hell of a huge subject there, 'goatlips'! My sympathies are broadly with you. What I fear is going to happen is that, yet again in history, we are going to learn the 'hard way'. Which will mean nuclear war as an eventual inevitable result of 'preemptive strikes' (dubya's great contribution to world history) - that will be a huge backward step, another 'Dark Ages' for Homo Sapiens, if we survive at all.

Just how do we let these imbeciles into positions of supreme world power???

In reply to AcidEric:

I'm not sure which I would find more exausting, worrying about it or taking your and Gordon's defeatist stance.
I can't bring myself to be resolved to destruction.
Unless it's this accursed malfunctioning keyboard.
Destroying IT will be a pleasure.
Don't you both ever feel a sense of responsibility to the future? If so how can you permit yourselves to believe as you do?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


WE DIDN'T. It's now widely recognized that Bush arrived in the White House courtesy a rigged election with the assistance of Diebold Corp.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

I don't think I could be described as defeatist. i.e. Dubya could just get run over, or die tomorrow...


Agreed completely with what you said in your earlier post.


Bad luck, probably some horrible mass-produced, world dominant brand.


??


Here you are absolutely right. We are all deeply implicated. But some of us much more than others.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

I know full well

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
The human race is too self involved to save itself, we're all doomed. Not enough is being done, no-one is paying enough attention, it's going to take a mega-disaster to give enough of a kick up the arse to make people change there lifestyles or just wipe enough of us out to make a difference.
My thoughts on this subject (but I’m a little low right now)
Had a load of whinging people on the news today because a wind farm is being built locally I've suggested that maybe they would like a nuclear power station instead.

^^ Edited from b4 Regis's reply

In reply to your reply

Of course I feel responsible (I recycle, have reduced power consumption, Try to live as environmentally as I can and still have a modern western lifestyle) but not enough people do. I believe as I do and have done for a long time since b4 the recent upsurge in "Environmentalism". There are too many humans on this planet; population pressure will get us b4 global warming or global warming will solve the population pressure problem by starving millions of us to death first.
I'm not always this down on the whole subject just today I've been reminded that as a group people are thick sometimes even if the individuals are not.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


And this sense of guilt combined with fear I believe is the deep seated source of the kind of denial we have unfortunately seen on the subject here and elsewhere. Proposing psychological origins is very reasonable; not all have a vested interest in the status quo.
Keyboard: I now have to SLAM each letter to make it work.
New one is en route.
Bit frustrating.
doh.

In reply to AcidEric:
Ah, well....chin up mate.
Good thoughts never go to waste.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

This is, I believe, the big subject for historians to tackle. Just what dementia got into dubya and his cronies. And no, 'oil', while very important, was always secondary to some other demented lust .. it may perhaps come out in the wash, but probably/sadly when it's all far too late. But the truth should come out anyway, whether we are already doomed by this madness or not.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


An accute summation mate though I for one would omit "probably" as already stated.
Madness indeed. One wonders how a human being can use a paycheck, wealth and/or power to rationalize, to enable such behaviour which may be accurately described as sociopathic.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

We are broadly agreed, it seems. I am nodding off, so, in the words of Wilfred Owen '... Let us sleep now.'

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
And further....
I've always wondered what they tell themselves in private.
What lies they believe. What BS they tell one another to provide a rationale and a support system when if exposed to the light of day they would go down in infamy; where they know they'd land very quickly indeed.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
Another mixed metaphor:
*the sport they seek.
(if I was a bartender I'd be hearing this frequently): "If you mixed drinks as bad as you mix metaphors you'd be out of a job".

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

It doesn't seem too badly mixed a metaphor to me, what's important is that it's very apt.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I thought you were going to sleep.
For Shame!

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

I'm often still awake in the depths of the night after a hard day's work ..

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

So no definition then?

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

I think one of the problems with tackling global warming is the time scale. In geographical terms it is occurring at an alarming rate. In human life span terms it is still a bit slow, it's a bit of the "I'm all right Jack" syndrome, whilst we might start to feel uncomfortable, it's our granchildren who are really going to suffer. As it is not going to actually affect the current generation that badly, we would prefer to ignore it and let others deal with it.

Human beings are funny creatures, we hide our heads in the sand and hope "they" will find a solution. Of course "they" should use less fuel, "they" shouldn't fly so much, "they" should buy fuel efficient cars etc. So long as "they" are doing something about it "I" don't really have to worry do "I"?

It won't be until suddenly "I" can't get any elecricity or fuel for my car, my garden starts to flood regularly (why didn't "they" do somethinbg about improving flood levies sooner?) that "I" will really start to panic.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


It would be interesting if you would give your own... just to get the ball rolling, as it were.

Oh, you have? Sorry... hmmm!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm not a scientist but with common sense I've ended to same conclusion. I'm 95% sure that we'll learn the hard way. There's nothing stopping that.

Okay, western countries (except US) might do some fairly minor changes but that has no real affect because of the other countries like China and US that pollute way too much. Yes, we pollute too but their scale is something totally different.

I've accepted the fact that we've probably lost the game and we and our children have to pay the bill. I know, what a pathetic way to think.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

agree entirely and it is going to start in Iran with the nuclear production facilities. The nuclear war threat is much greater than global warming, especially right now.

In reply to Juki:

There is good news around though. I saw a TV programme on the Cinq on French cable TV the other day and the forecast is that world population, which was what has always scared me, will stabilize out at about 8.5 billion in about 40 years... and then go into a gentle decline. If this is true and even more so if it can be accelerated a bit then I think mankind could survive.

It will require a bit of an effort but as oil runs out we'll have to find another way of powering our cars and this will necessarilt not be carbon based. Absorbing carbon be reafforestation, for example, could do a quick fix on CO2 levels until the next generation of hydrogen based nuclear reactors came on line which will solve the long term problem... sea level will require watching, but this is essentially a money problem in poor countries... as these become richer and with a bit of help sea defenses could be sorted.

The planet will continue to warm for a bit longer as the trend slows down but this will have the advantage of bringing huge areas of tundra in Canada, Alaska and N Russia into the cultivatable sphere thus easing the food production problem... if historical models are repeated the Sahara will become damper so cultivation there will pick up again.

Humanity has shown itself to be pretty robust and adaptable so if we can avoid killing each other by warfare then I think there's a very fair chance of survival... assuming the required measure are taken... no need to panic, natural dangers seem less of a risk than a panicking mankind lead by excessive and dishonest leaders, using scare mongering propaganda about global warming and doom!

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Good to see that the fundamental and necessary optimism of the Left is alive and kicking! FWIW I tend to agree with you, but it's ironic that we will both probably end up sounding like Herman Kahn from the 1970s - remember him?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


So Bush was the one who invented the notion of "preemptive strikes", and there was me thinking it was Julius Caesar! How silly of me!

I think you must have been a little "tired and emotional" when posting last night!

Not that the Von Goatlips noticed of course... Bush was fairly elected Herr Goatlips, close the first time but by a comfortable margin on the second... you seem to be getting over excited at present, which is dangerous for the planet, not to mention your own health. Please calm down a little.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


No! I'm afraid not.

Thank you for calling me "Left"... it's not often I get such compliments these days Especially since I started saying Sarkozy doesn't seem so bad!

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

A sense of inevitability does not mean I am defeatist. However:
- I think it's wrong to box up the blame and leave it with Bush. It's not just him, it's all of us. Too many people, too much consumption.
- The oil thing. We (humanity) *will* use *all* the fossil fuel reserves. The only variable is how long it takes - 50 years or 150.

For me the issues boil down to three fundamental questions:
1. Will we find an alternate source of energy in time? Clearly the longer we eke out what we have, the more time to find something else.
2. What will the impact of climate change mean for fresh water availability and food production?
3. Can we manage to address these issues on a coordinated, global basis?

Unless we have good solutions to all three of these challenges then there will be enormous famines, population displacement, billions of deaths. At that point social order will dissolve and the last people standing are likely to be those with the best guns.

Solutions?

1. Make fuel reserves last as long as possible (is the US conserving US supplies by buying in?)
2. Fewer kids at longer intervals.
3. Appoint a world dictator.

Not looking rosy I'm afraid.

J

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: The Stern review showed that one of the major effects of climate change will be economic disaster, along with mass population displacement and loss of species.

However, on the economic front it seems to me that there is little point in applying measures which will only accelerate economic collapse and in a sense beat climate change to it. So extreme measures like stopping everyone flying, restricting the use of cars and banning exports from overseas will just be counter-productive. So in answer to your question, I think there are measures that would be too extreme.

I believe climate change is real, but the urgency of the crisis has at times been overstated by government and media. What is needed is a steady but concerted effort to move to a more sustainable way of living rather than knee-jerk reactions which may do more harm than good.

In reply to alanw:

I'm struggling to think of any measures, knee-jerk or other, that have been introduced or are in the process of being introduced. A steady but concerted effort to move to a more sustainable way of life would be a good thing, but at the moment, there are virtually no incentives for the vast majority of the population to make any changes to their lifestyles.

I'm not sure what urgency you're talking about on the part of government. I haven't seen any signs - apart from empty words - that there is any urgency to take real action. It could very easily be argued that at least 10 years have been wasted while the scale of the problem has been known without any meaningful action from any government.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Very much a minority view I think - most demographers seem to think closer to 10 billion is the likely end-point, possibly as high as 12. It is very unlikely that we can sustain a population of 8.5 billion in any case (or that we can sustain our current 6.5 billion for an extended period - still up from 4 billion? at the start of the 20th C). Recent reports refer to "a slowing in the rate of increase of population", not a fall. Of course, there are some dramatic distortions of demographics between and within countries at the same time. Certainly we don't seem to have realistic alternatives to our current mode of living to sustain our existing population, tinkering around the edges in a way that makes people feel good notwithstanding.



Some very dangerous gambles and risky experiments there. Dramatic climate change will be full of surprises, most of them nasty.


The species will probably survive - but its population is more likely to be controlled by the old methods, war famine, pestilence and death.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

chill out man!

In reply to tony: I agree that what we have had from governments so far has been empty words, but these have at times been overly sensational. The problem with this is that it makes the public believe that we're doomed and there is nothing they can do to stop it and I don't believe this is the case.

We also have the likes of Monbiot proposing to ban 90% of flights and this, it seems to me, has resulted in a large section of the public who think that it's just tree hugging hippies who want to return us to the dark ages, which again is not helpful.

Hmmm.

Collapsing economies?

No more money?

No more armies?

The end of government?

The destruction of industry?

The demise of popular culture?

A return to small-scale rural agriculture?





I say, WHERE DO I SIGN UP? WHAT CAN I DO TO SPEED THIS ALONG?

If that's the coming apocalypse then oh please dear sweet merciful God let it come as soon as possible.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yeah Brucie. Well done. Keep up the good work.

Who moved the rock?

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I'm fine Morgan.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

I don't know about whether there's a "too far" but in "solutions" like congestion charging for cars in the UK, expansion of windfarms, etc, there's an element of pissing on the campfire while the forest fire is burning all around us.


I think it *is* OTT: in the UK, at least, Christmas tree growing is an industry that works to a cycle of harvesting and re-planting. The trees are grown specifically to be cut and used at Christmas...we don't just dive into the nearest woods and cut them down without replacing them. And they wouldn't otherwise be grown at all. In a 6-7 year growing cylce, therefore, at any moment, there is an amount of carbon "fixed" in the trees being grown for future seasons that would not otherwise be "fixed".

So yes, this "repugnance" is an example, not just of pissing on the campfire and ignoring the forest fire as per above, but of pissing on one's own shoes instead of the campfire!

Let's look at the British media's current obsession with "saving the planet" by reducing car use in the UK. It’s a moot point how much reducing carbon emissions from traffic will help the situation. Carbon dioxide emissions by source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukem.htm
shows that in the UK, road transport (cars and lorries) accounted for about 33 Mt of total UK Co2 emissions of 153 Mt (2004), or about 21% of UK MAN-MADE emissions. The UK in total accounts for around 2% of global MAN-MADE Co2 emissions (therefore UK transport accounting for around 0.4% of man-made emissions globally). Total man-made CO2 emissions globally are around 7 Bt compared to 150 Bt natural CO2, or around 5%. UK transport emissions are therefore 0.4% of 5% of the total emissions, or around 0.0002%. So however drastically we curb UK CO2 emissions from transport, even if we banned all internal combustion transport completely and went to zero, on a global scale it'd be virtually undetectable.

Almost 20% of global man-made Co2 emissions come from the bruning of the South American rain forest. Reduce or stop that and we'd actually be starting to drop water bombs on the forest fire (literally!) rather than pissing on the camp fire of transportation.

Another 10% of man-made Co2 comes from burning off Indonesian and Malaysian rain forests, largely to plant bio-fuel crops: here's an example of people thinking they're "saving the planet" by switching to bio-fuels whilst actually making the situation worse.

Then there's the huge proliferation of dirty coal-fired power stations in China and India to service the requirements for energy needed to manufacture "cheap" exports. We need to take into account the full ecological costs (in air and sea miles and in additional pollution) caused by the "outsourcing" of manufacturing to "cheaper" locations. Yes, Berghaus and Burberry etc can make their clothes more cheaply (in wages terms) in the Far East, but if you had to add an "ecology tariff" to the cost to account for things like stricter emmissions controls on the power stations used to generate the power that powers their mills, then you may find that retaining the factories in the UK would have made more sense.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything to curb emmissions or modify our lifestyles locally. I'm just saying that most of the "solutions" I see being pushed will have negligible effect on man-made Co2 emmissions, whilst there appears to be no will at all to even highlight where the main Co2 contributions are coming from, never mind to anything about it.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Convincing stuff Rob. Thanks for that. It'll be interesting to see whether anyone can debate those figures.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

You're creating excuses. In Britain, we have to do what we can. Our emissions arise from burning fossil fuels, so it's clear we have to do something about that. In Brazil and Malaysia, their emissions arise from burning forests, so it's clear they have to do something about that. But there's absolutely no reason why they should do anything if they don't see that the rich West is doing something as well. We're the ones who created a world economy based on the burning of fossil fuels and we're the ones who have derived the greatest benefit. It's about time we faced up to our responsibilities and showed a bit of leadership.

In reply to Rob Naylor: I think Tony has just added a very good footnote to your post. We cannot use the inaction of others as an excuse not to act ourselves.

In reply to the thread:
I live in the worst CO2 producer on the planet (per head of population) - largely due to the large-scale refining of aluminium that happens here - and we also happen to be the chief provider of the coal to those dirty power stations mentioned in Rob's post. Our government has been using the excuse that because the U.S. does nothing, we should do nothing, for some years now. The problem here is that it is politically impossible for any government to act decisively on this matter, they would be destroyed at the next election. It will be interesting to see how our politicians handle it now they have accepted the reality of climate change.

In reply to tony:

No, mate, *you're* creating excuses.

Note that I said "I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything locally"... even quoted it back at me.

But *you* appear to be creating excuses for the major polluters not to do anything (yet) on the patronising grounds that "they", poor unthinking dears "can't be expected" to tryand do anything about their 20% contribution until they see that "we who started it" have taken our 0.4% contribution down to 0.3998%.

Yes, the West started the industrial revolution, and things have been done (and are still being done) that are unsustainable. But to give the apparent excuse that it's "OK" in these days of better knowledge and a much more "global" community for the major polluters to say " you chopped down and burned your forests, and now you're trying to handicap our development by asking us not to burn ours" is, I think, a bigger cop-out than anything I was saying.

In reply to tony:


Thank You Tony!

In reply to Simon4:




I think you are being over pessimistic here, but in doing so it is not your fault we are all being told to react like this, it is possible to resist though.

Mankind has made enormously enormous progress over the last couple of centuries.. try stepping back and looking at it objectively. The real danger, IMO, is a political one (it usually is!)... there are some really backward nasty movements brewing at the moment, grouped around what I hope is a last vicious twitch in the tail of moribund religion and obscurantism, but if we can keep our heads and and remain calm then I think things can be sorted.

Population is the main problem... if the figure I heard is optimistic, although it was agreed to by a panel of several rather calm French specialists, who may not be wrong, then all the more reason to address this fundamental problem.

You will have noticed that this doesn't seem to be in the news much, nor be the favorite subject of the pseudo ecological doom and gloomers... this should give people a few hints to the validity (lack of) of the whole scare campaign.

Don't worry so much, make the best of the few years we have while doing what we can to push policies in a sensible direction. Calm!

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

I dont think there would be too far for us to go, 'us' as in meaning the world as a whole. But its not about the world. You cant rely on the world to change, you can only rely on you. Its all about you. How you vote, how you act.

Unfortunately if britain were to scrap its armed forces, resort back to the dark ages, we would probably all starve, get diseases and/or get invaded within a few months.

The situation unfortunately requires time to adapt. The government can DRASTICALLY reduce the speed at which we shift to a carbon neutral state but theyre not doing it.

We have to vote accordingly and act responsibly, and then we have to hope that the natural but hopefully hastened adaption to carbon neutrality happens quick enough.

Ive said before on here, the fear with global warming isnt just a few degrees (which is the maimum extent that we can affect the climate by), its the cascade effect that a few degrees will have. Increase the average temp by 5 degrees quickly and the biosphere cant adapt. Plant life (absorbs solar energy) will rapidly shrink, cloud and snow cover (reflects solar energy) will reduce, which in turn creates more heat, and so we loose more plants, more heat, less ice more heat, etc. in 100 years you end up with mars.

I think no measures are too much, but i believe the only way out of extinction is a natural linear process, not one big push. I hope its going to be quick enough, as i fear for my kids.

Mat

In reply to Rob Naylor:
Over what period of time have the developing countries been major contributors to anthropogenic emissions? I don't suppose either you or I know, but the fact that they may be the major polluters now does not alter that fact that we have made our own significant contributions over the past 200 years or so, and we should take responsibility for that fact. I'm slightly surprised that you seem so keen to shirk responsibility.

Where did I say that the major polluters should not be doing something about their emissions? The argument given in the West for not doing anything is an economic one, on the grounds that 'nothing must be done which will harm economic growth'. If that's the rule that applies in the USA and Australia, it's only fair that it applies in Brazil and Malaysia, and if they think their economic growth is reliant on burning their forests, who are we to stop them?

What is needed is an approach that says that economic growth can be decoupled more successfully from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Different places have different economies, and have different reliances. We should be doing what is appropriate to our economy, and Brazil and Malaysia should be doing what is appropriate to their economy.


If you want to avoid that cop-out, you need to explain why developing countries have to retain their under-developed status. Alternatively, if you want action to prevent forests being burned, you need to provide a mechanism that does not prevent developing countries from attaining (or at least being able to aspire to) the same standards of living as we enjoy. It doesn't seem fair to me that someone living in a developing country has a life expectancy 10 years or more less than we do in the West, and it doesn't seem right that we don't allow them the same opportunities.

In reply to Dave C:

And perversely, the US does nothing because it objects to the idea that China and India are not subject to the same Kyoto targets. So it turns out it's all about someone else... Not that anyone is passing this particular buck...

In reply to tony:

The Bush regime does nothing because they're making tons of cash A; and B they don't give a toss.

In reply to tony:

Your arguments seem to use a lot of moral words; "not fair", "take responsibility", "shirk responsibility" and so on. This is obviously all part of our judeo-christian education, the guilt motive was always a good one, but it is also the way we are easily manipulated.

A more pragmatic and less emotional approach would reduce the danger of completely missing the real issues and therefore not addressing them.. or it rather: population. This is the one underlying issue, sort that out, get the world headed towards a stable then gradually reduced population, down to say 5 billion* over the next couple of centuries and all the rest would be a doddle to sort out.


* 5 million is just an example, the world may be able to sustain more less people in the long term but I've never seen a single article or bit of research that even attempted to work out a figure.. and yet it is surely essential. Another indicator that the present hype is just that, hype.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Taking action over a 200 year timescale isn't really very helpful in this particular context. It's just far too slow.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: hide under the stairs.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You might be interested to look at a book called "Enriching the earth" by Vaclav Smil, which is a very careful and quantitative consideration of the importance of artificially fixed nitrogen fertilizers. He calculates that if we didn't use artificial fertilizers, which ultimately derive from fossil fuel energy, the earth could sustain 2.4 billion people at today's average diet, or 3.2 billion people at the average, much more frugal, diet prevalent in 1900.

So when niggle looks forward to the collapse of industrial agriculture, he should be clear that there'd be nothing merciful about it - if it happened on a timescale quick enough to make a difference to our immediate climate change problem, billions of people would die.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

Actually we (as a species) are in very deep trouble, the planet is fine (until the sun expands in a few billion years time). Is life in peril? I think not there have been mass extinctions and climate change in the past and life has pulled through. We might not see it but others will. If there is such a thing as re-incarnation I am coming back as a scorpion.
as regards the environment I believe that we are past the tipping point but there is no harm in applying a bath sponge to soak up the flood waters

In reply to Richard J:


Not sure I'd agree with that.

Before the introduction of industrial agriculture there was another, perfectly satisfactory way of farming, powered by something may have seen before (hint: it's got four legs and goes "neigh").

Those skills haven't been lost. Some of the success of modern farming is down to petrol engines, and some is down to good fertilisers. But to discount the very large proportion which is down to improved knowledge of growth cycles and so on, as well as genetic engineering of crops, would be foolish I think.

And those elements are perfectly compatible with 1900s agriculture.

In reply to Richard J:


Not sure I'd agree with that.

Before the introduction of industrial agriculture there was another, perfectly satisfactory way of farming, powered by something may have seen before (hint: it's got four legs and goes "neigh").

Those skills haven't been lost. Some of the success of modern farming is down to petrol engines, and some is down to good fertilisers. But to discount the very large proportion which is down to improved knowledge of growth cycles and so on, as well as genetic engineering of crops, would be foolish I think.

And those elements are perfectly compatible with 1900s agriculture.

In reply to niggle:

They most certainly have been lost.

In reply to Removed User:



Not if humans maintain their ability to read... it's not a sure run thing but there may be a few left who haven't lost this "old skill"!

In reply to Duncan Bourne: and humans have been predicting the end of the world since they worked out they're going to die. armegedon, nuclear war, now climate change.

i prefer to worry about the only two things that really matter.

1. why am i not getting laid as much as i want to.

2. why havn't i got any money.

In reply to Shaun L:
May be the second answers the first

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well, assuming we can find a few old die hards and enthusiasts to remind us how to farm with horses, how long would it take to get the required skills base up to the numbers needed and how long would it take to get the appropriate number of suitable horses?

What are you going to do, harness up the local teenager's Arab?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That does it - we're doomed! Unless of course you can translate into txtspk...

In reply to TRNovice:
TRN,
You have predictably like so many others before you taken the cheapest, sleaziest, & easiest route. You took a shot in the hope I wouldn't have facts and figures at my disposal.
You were right, I don't.
But even if as you seem to imply the worlds leading auhorities were wrong and the world took the path of conservation, what harm would it do? If essential needs were not forsaken, if conservationism and particular attention was given to limiting the pollutants dumped into the ecosphere, what would occur? A more beautiful, healthy and peaceful planet is most likely. So why are you being a git?

In reply to Removed User:


I don't think so. And neither do the owners of the heritage farm less than a mile from my house who do all their work with horses.


Almost any horse or pony can be broken to a plough, all that varies is their pulling power. Takes about six months all told. Heck, my other half could do it, she's done it before.

Horse can't till anything like the area that a tractor can, though. So you could expect to see the big industrial farms broken down into the smaller more manageable holdings they were originally created by absorbing. That means more jobs, and more people sharing the benefits.

Other animals like pigs, sheep, ducks, goats and especially chickens, are cheap, available and very easy to breed and keep (chooks are like cactuses, they can eat damn near anything and they're bloody hard to kill by accident).

I really don't see the big problem.

In reply to Shaun L:


Bite my (expletive).

In reply to niggle:
You've missed the point here. It isn't pulling power that's important, its nitrogen. Plants need fixed nitrogen to make proteins. You get some fixed nitrogen by natural processes, such as the bacteria that live in the roots of leguminous plants, and some fixed nitrogen is recycled via manure. The yield of food crops is fundamentally limited by how much fixed nitrogen you give them. The yields we rely on now to feed 2/3 of the world rely on supplementing these natural sources of fixed nitrogen with artificially fixed nitrogen, made by the Haber-Bosch process, which needs a substantial energy input. Basically, at the moment 2/3 of the world's population subsists by indirectly eating oil.

In reply to niggle:

Well, they wouldn't would they. Trouble is, there's a measured mile between saying and doing.

So your missus has ploughed with a 3yr old Arab colt. That I'd like to see.


In a country that can't get it's own farm labour, just how do you see the massive increase in labour requirements being accepted by the general population?


Really? Animal husbandry is far more complex than you alude to and whilst your level of common sense might get you round a lack of experience I can assure that many would fail woefully.



I do.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: sorry about that. couldn't help myself...

Well, they produce organic food for themselves and their shop, so I'd say they are "doing".


The process doesn't work that way. Horses aren't stupid, they can learn new skills pretty quickly. there are plenty of good sized horses around where I live that could be put to work.

Even then, we can assume that this imagined catastrophe won't be instant, it'll be a process of years if not decades. That's more than enough time to build the required capacity.


When you're talking about a population most of whom have lost their jobs in the economic collapse and have no way to support their families, I'd say that farm work would suddenly become pretty popular.


I think most people would pick it up. Pedigree animals are hard to keep, sure. But common-or-garden breeds of most animals are reasonably straightforward, and those which aren't - like sheep, for example - tend to have a skill base in place already.

In reply to niggle:

But how much are they producing? The figures I'm looking at say the highest yields ever produced from the most productive traditional agricultures are 3-4 times less than the highest yielding current agricultural systems (which are rice-wheat rotations in Jaingsu and Hunan provinces in China, and English winter wheat). These are high yielding because they have high inputs of artificially fixed nitrogen (about 80% of the total input).

Your nostalgic dream could happen, but it will result in mass starvation.

In reply to Richard J:


Oh, not much I wouldn't have thought. But as I said before, issues of scale are less than you might think given that the increased labour requirement would be easily met by an increased labour availability caused by the same events.

That idea goes deeper too: if we postulate economic collapse, we're suggesting the loss of very large areas of our economy, which is where the extra available labour comes from. Those areas are specifically the ones our economy is currently based around: banking, government, oil and defense. With those sectors elimiated, the centre of the economy would become agriculture, as it used to be.

With no need to feed those resource-hungry sectors that have been lost, there would logically be more resources available for the new central acitivity, both in terms of manpower and in terms fo other resources like research and innvation.


Well, it's not that nostalgic,. My family are from the island of Mull, and I know the crofters - subsistence farmers - and their activities out there pretty well. I don't doubt that you're right and there would be many deaths, largely caused by people desperately trying to cling to the old way of living in a big city and pursuing a capitalist economy which no longer works. But billions? I very much doubt it. Society is much more adaptable than some realise.

In reply to niggle:
You are simply failing to understand the point I'm making. It's not labour that's needed, it's not research and innovation. It's raw energy. If we haven't got the cheap energy available to run the fertilizer factories, we won't get the crop yields we need to feed the population, and many will die. How many? Certainly billions.

In reply to niggle: Are you an Amish?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Rob, they are really interesting figures re. the contribution to global warming caused by the Amazon and Malaysian forest burnings, where did you get them from? I dont doubt them but I'd like to look at the original sources for myself, if correct this issue needs a whole lot more investigation and publicity.

In reply to niggle: All you have said is fanciful nonsense. Whatever the options may be, they do not include a peaceful return to an arcadian paradise. Our populations are far too big, they are too urbanised and dependent on elaborate and sophisticated support systems without which they can barely live a day and there is no way that social coherence could stand that sort of transition in any controlled fashion - the result of the collapse of our current social order is most likely to be a vicious struggle of all against all. I have heard one or two comments on global warming on the lines of "I'll be all right - my house is at 250m" - as if house ownership and the rule of law stood a chance of being preserved in the sort of collapse that would accompany rising sea levels to anything like that value.

Population levels "in a state of nature" were less than a tenth of what we have now and life in a state of nature is in any case "nasty, brutish, solitary and short", not a sylvan paradise of nymphs and sheperds.

In reply to Trangia:


I think you have just restated the "Tragedy of the Commons".

In reply to niggle:


So you're going to have ducks and goats ploughing too? Sorry, I can't buy that as a solution... nuclear power by fusion is the way forward, not ducks pulling tiny ploughs.

In reply to Richard J:


I don't agree. There are many key flaws in reducing the issue to an energy balance, but one of the most important ones is that you're assuming that all crops are food. More importantly, you're assuming that all crops are staple food, ie only that required to avoid starvation.

Of course, that's just not true. Many crops are non-food. Additionally, many crops are used to make luxury items rather than essential staples.

Yes, yields would be lower without fertilizer. But not zero. And as I said before, eliminating large sectors which need to be supplied would free enormous resources for the production of staples.

In reply to Simon4:


Again, that assumes that the collapse is instant. in reality it will take decades, more then enough time for society to adapt.

In reply to Richard J:


How do nitrates come from oil?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No, they're for eating.

Where do you think your crispy duck, chicken kiev and bacon sandwich come from just now? With more people raising them, there would be more available, not less.

I have to go, thanks for the challenging responses and have a great weekend everyone!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It is possible. Some climate-change scientists (loose description I know, they all have individual specialisms), have worried that the tone of "climate change propaganda" is too uniformly gloomy, inducing a sense of fatalism. A bit the horns of a dilemma, you have to paint the story in dramatic primary colours to get the attention of politicians/the public, but if you over-do it, they think "what the heck? we're doomed anyway, so why bother?"

There is also a lingering scepticism, you, like me, are probably old enough to remember the "Club of Rome" and confident predictions, with graphs, statistics and the like, showing that complete resource exhaustion was inevitable by 1975. So while the evidence for Global Warming seems very strong and getting stronger by the day, apart from anecdotal evidence (like this so-called Winter we are having!), there is good reason to be sceptical about even the most confident of predictions.


Well certainly technological, I'm not sure about otherwise. I think it was a play by GB Shaw that included the Syphnx as a character - when one of the other characters was enthusing about progress, the Syphnx cynically remarked :

"Well I've been here 7000 years, and I can't remember much progress!"


I agree that population is a very important, possibly the MOST important issue, but I'm not so optimistic as you are. Not least because of some of the gross demographic distortions, huge population increases in the third world (I think that Algeria's population has increased by something like 400% in 50 years), while Western European (Native) populations are almost static in terms of birthrate, but swelled by greatly extending life-span. This severely compounds the demographic imbalance, especially as the populations (Western) are desperate to cling to the retirement ages, social benefits, etc, they have become used to.


There certainly is a sort of personality type that seems to relish the thought of catastrophe, even if the threat has to be invented/grossly exagerated, for all sorts of dubious motives. But remember, although the little girl kept crying "Wolf", the wolf did finally arrive.

In reply to niggle:


We have a cultural problem here, I haven't seen any of these for years.

I think even you are being over-pessimistic though. Certainly a certain return to traditional agriculture may well come about, but from choice not necessity. The Highlands and Islands could well be resettled as people come to appreciate them more but they will live in modern well insulated, energy efficient houses, made of CO2 fixing wood and which will be capable of producing their own power. The nitrogen required could come from seaweed and social life from cheap and quick internet communications plus a few village centres for orgies, evening classes, concerts and such like,... but it would not be all muck, grime and poverty... more like some modern towns in Scandinavia.

The key would be to get population down to more reasonable levels, not by war and starvation but by encouraging the present trend towards very small families... with 30 million the UK could probably even feed itself... but using tractors driven by fuel cells, not farty old horses which would reek havoc with the ozone layer! The deserted valleys of Scotland could sustain populations again, but in prosperity, not the previous poverty.

In short a brave new world awaits us, if only we can break out of the current doom and lethargy and general politically inspired Puritano-Eco-Negativism... down with PEN, I say!

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

It is a bit tricky isn't it, trying to figure out what people "seem to imply"?

To answer your question, it would do economic harm. To forestall your probable objection, I mean people being poorer, not less profits for companies (though I might want to debate whether the two are not unrelated).

The IPCC projection of the range of change in temperature by 2100 has increased from 1.4-5.8°C in the 2001 report to 1.1-6.4°C in the latest one. The nature of this area is that the science is not well-understood; there are so many complexities and feedback loops that any prediction is fraught with difficulties. That is why they use a range – however a typical headline would read - "Boffins say temperature will soar by 6 degrees".

Perhaps you might be surprised to learn that I have moved from being somewhat sceptical about climate change to being persuaded by some of the statistically literate (numerate?) evidence. On balance it would seem to be sensible to try to do something sooner rather than later, but to select actions that do the least to disrupt people (particularly poor people) bettering their lot.

However, basing any course of action on the facile sound bites and over-simplifications that appear in newspapers and the spurious use of "facts" based on three data points does little to help IMO. Using words like "holocaust" is equally sensationalist and unproductive; it just stifles any sober debate.


Generally resorting to name-calling is not indicative of rigour in your arguments.

In reply to TRNovice:

TRN,
you are not fooling anybody.

A brief look at your 2 even briefer opening posts exposed you before you took the trouble to above.
Estimates of human casualties in the beginning of the next century run in the millions. How would you classify that? Holocaust too disturbing a word for you? Tough luck.
These horrific figures I obtained from traditional news sources who obtained them from scientists whom, though it seems you wouldn't care to believe it, have a better grasp of the situation than you do.
Your comment above about economic harm is for example quite condescending. It is not indicitive of rigour in YOUR arguments. Not to mention the fact it displays a bogus concern; no, I don't know you personally. But I already know you.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
Correction: 3 posts

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


Do you mean the National Inquirer?

I do a lot of work with journalists and it is very few of them who manage to convey the essence of what is actually going on when the topic becomes more complicated than football. Ask anyone who is an expert (or even has a basic knowledge) in an area to comment on journalism in the same area and you may get some similar feedback. Our media is pretty dumbed down, perhaps something that we could agree on?

As an aside, I wasn't actually trying to fool anyone. I think it might be an all too frequent mistake to think you know anyone from what you see of them on-line, but each to his own I guess.

Your point about me being condescending is at least one part of your assessment that is accurate BTW. Patronising and arrogant would probably also work.

In reply to Anonymous:

A good point, well made, which I am happy to concede.

In reply to TRNovice:


And here you both show your true colours.
Your statements are typically adololescent in spite of your "accumen". Well done.
Your mothers must be very proud.
The real question is will your progeny?

In reply to TRNovice:


I am fully aware of the shortcommings of this method of communication. It does lead to misunderstandings.
But you remain as transparent as glass the pair of you.
It is a common technique of trolls for example to offer up some comment very subtly stated, then later to throw up their hands and say WHAT DID I DO?
It is as obnoxious and thick as could be imagined to think it works on everyone.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

OK - I guess we'll agree to differ - and leave others to make their own minds up based on what we both say and how we say it.

In reply to TRNovice:


Fair enough and cheers.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


It's hard to argue with that, but it's not called a holocaust it called natural death... millions die every year you know.

You sound like a schoolboy who has just read a book about something and is appalled by the "new" fact, but it's only new for him, most "grown ups" have known about this great truth for ages.

If anything your excessive language and badgering just makes many of us even less inclined to take the various problems seriously... not a very efficient method really.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

To convert gaseous nitrogen into urea or ammonium nitrate, for use as an artificial fertiliser, you need energy - a lot of energy. This comes from oil or gas.

In reply to Richard J:

Couldn't it come from nuclear energy via electricity? In France EDF generates 95% of it's electricity from nuclear and hydraulic (just a little) power?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Yes, in principle, it could come from nuclear, or even given lots of technological progress, from solar.

In reply to TRNovice:


With all due respect I have enlisted aid to find out what the IPCC truly is and if as I suspect they have less than savoury corporate ties. Whether you have chosen to interpret or edit their reports to suit your needs will of course remain to be seen.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: wood/biomass fueled combined heat and power systems.

Some time in the not too distant future the weather forecast will be praising cold and wet weather and warning of hot dry weather. The change in peoples perceptions need to be so significant as to change our taste, in this most particular phenomenon, the weather.

In reply to tonanf:

Most sane people are already doing that. Have done for years.

In reply to tonanf:

Believe me, this has already started where I am. A good weather forecast is a wet weather forecast over here.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: I would have thought most people here in england still want dry and warm, its when the forecaster tells it with the positive inclination on cold/wet that the change in public perception will be evident. To encourage people to reduce global warming they need to be encouraged to like cold, then it can be like a goal for them personally to reduce their C. for their own benefit. And if the TV weather girl says 'a lovely cold morning' instead of 'much nicer, warmer weather to come' it might help.

In reply to Dave C: are you in Auzzie, mate?

In reply to tonanf: Ive read about their droughts in places, BAD

In reply to tonanf: Yep. The drought's breaking across many parts now but it's still got a firm grip down our way.

In reply to tonanf:



Where I live* the local network news affiliate telly stations are owned by right wing republicans. No speculation this, it is established (what's more virtually ALL yank stations across the country are also).
Consequently they play down any refference in any form to global warming. One afternoon I was appalled to watch as one local lead "meteorologist" said quote: "I don't buy into global warming". The irresponsibility of such comments from those that are PAID to know better is truly despicable.
As a result the blistering heat of the summer (temperatures that kill people every year in increasing numbers) is always accompanied by off the cuff remarks like "it's worse" in such and such a place; and "lovely out isn't it?".
Meanwhile they predict rain that NEVER arrives. In a town fulla buffoons this criminal excuse for journalism goes unoticed and unmentioned.
*Coachella Valley

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: how about as an awareness campaign; the weather as it should be read...

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
off the cuff remarks like "it's worse" in such and such a place

Yeah geniuses. In the Nefud maybe.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

'' an unuaually warm front will cross the Country tommorrow, but it will be followed by some reservoir filling, pollution diluting, life giving rain. The wet gold will be interrupted by periods of short wave cancer causing radiation, increasing the disturbance to the thermal system and provoking the formation of high levels of ozone in some cities,,

In reply to tonanf:


Those that question the integrity of local journalism here are graced with having their sanity questioned. I kid you not. The Coachella Valley is a place that is mentally ill; I am far from being alone in this observation.
An Awareness campaign when all mass media journalism in the states is in essence dead would be of little use.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


This is a bit defeatist; but till you've experinced this wreched dump for yourself, it's impossible to describe how disheartening it can be.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: this is not just for your area and its supposed to be like a kind of ironic comedy sketch i think.

In reply to Anonymous: do you want the HIV weather forecast? That could get quite ill

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Morality can have nothing to do with religion of any kind. It's not obviously part of anything.


Couldn't you say that it's not a lot of good keeping the population under control if the world we live in is more inhospitable and polluted? Reducing your contribution to global warming can often also reduce your amount of pollution. Remember that living in a polluted environment can cause diseases and health problems.


Why shouldn't global warming be equally as serious as over popluation,and not be hype at all?

Cheers
Tim

In reply to tonanf:

Are you saying that my comments/responses to you were incorrectly focused on my own situation? If so I made them merely as a related observation. If not are you saying this is not so unusual a phenominon? That would be truly disturbing.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
'' the weather today, will end for x million people, who will die, of AIDS, mostly in the south of the world, but spreading, not gradually, everywhere''

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
NOTE: It appears someone here attempted to send me an e-mail with the heading "I like your posts".
Sorry, but in light of the malicious nature of some of those that post at UKC, I was oblidged to delete. Cheers all the same.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: not saying that, saying that allthough the approach may not work for your area it may for another or that a different angle/input line may work for your area, as I know nothing of the social climate where you are I cant say a lot really. No offence meant or taken.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: it wasnt me

In reply to Anonymous: WRONG! Global warming discriminates on allready well established lines, money.

In reply to Anonymous: the serious global issues, financial discrimination, league tables

most discriminating at
1: Starvation
2: Malnutrition
3: Malaria
4: TB
5: War
6: Global warming

(note: league tables are neither comprehensive, researched, verefied, justified or accurate; they mearley illustrate a point)

In reply to Anonymous: your RIPE thing looks cool, didnt read it all, or really any much at all, just the regional i,net access thing and that its A,Dam. is it worth reading about?

In reply to Anonymous: definition of holocaust please

In reply to Anonymous:

Sorry to interuppt this but isn't an holocaust a deliberate extermination of a people?

This is different?

In reply to Anonymous:


I'm not ruling out the dangers but all of those things you cite are already here.

The day the human race truly gives a shit about people from thousands of miles away is the day I'll play for Milan.

Its has never happened before and it it never will, humans are too selfish.

I am not saying it is right but it is the way of the world.

In reply to Simon22:


And you and "anonymous" both will kindly think of your comments this day when you greet the afterlife. Make No Mistake you will as we all will.

In reply to Regis Vardy:

I won't mate, but I am not kidding myself or passing off the dangers, simply explaining the way of the world.


BTW - if you were really committed surely you'd stop posting on here and switch off your PC?

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

In anticipation of "anonymous" reply, no that is not a threat you repetedly baiting from week to week from thread to thread plank. It is a statement of metaphysical belief that comes from extensive study and the personal experience of close mates. I for one would not choose to go to meet our maker having cavalierly tossed off my shoulder such a responsibility.

In reply to Simon22:
see above.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


Sorry fella, I have no idea what you are on about in that prev post.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

A woman on the bus the other day was telling me all about how she's really interested in environmental issues, about the courses she's been on, about the qualifications she has on the subject and how we'll all be dead before next Christmas when the world melts into space.

I politely went back to my book.

In reply to Simon22:


I see that. No offence Simon.
As to your previous reply, yeah it seems you are quite right. However if you read my desperate remarks above about where I find myself temporarily living in addition to the fact this is the only affordable method of communicating with my fiance in the UK, then you may see this forum and this peice of plastic is more than a pastime. It is my link to the real world; as much as I may appear to criticise it.

In reply to Alex Purser:


Oh well done.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

She even sounded relatively balanced before her rather ultimate prediction.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


So what can you or I do about this 'holocaust'?

In reply to Simon22:


That WAS my original question.
I didn't ask because I already had the answer unlike some trolls here are apt to do. I am not reffering to you.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:

Do you know what fella I think the whole world is leading itself into destruction......but there is nothing we in the UK can do about it.

DISCUSS!

In reply to Simon22:


Btw: I am attempting to be conciliatory. Placing holocaust in quotations, an old technique as we all know that is designed to question validity, isn't really necessary under the circumstances; don't you think?

In reply to Simon22:


Discussion in the face of such lazy acceptance of horror that has yet to occur and may yet be stopped is a waste of time mate.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


I think it is a waste of time. People liken it to the appeasement of Hitler in 1937/38 but he could be stopped by force.

All the armies in the world aren't going to stop this.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


Well, well! No I won't say it

You seem to have gone through a major crisis last night... are you feeling better this morning? BTW it's grey and windy here this morning, alas, and the forecast is bad all weekend. I'll go for a walk but won't bother with a picnic, nor any climbing (Fontainebleau boulders are no fun when damp).... by your way of seeing the world I should be jumping for joy, I suppose!

I would suggest changing your medication.

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:


Are you religious too? The plot thickens!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Definition of "holocaust":

From the Latin meaning "all consumed by fire". It was used to refer to a historical Jewish religious practise of sacrifice, of a ram for example, by burning entirely ....

It was also used to describe the German nazi genocide of Jews, in a recent popular Hollywood film for example, but this use has been contested by many Jews as it implies "sacrifice", that is that their genocide was some kind of human sacrifice to appease a god... not quite what most people meant!

So the use you make of it, "the total destruction of the planet by fire" would fit in here with your rather dramatic presentation of the future that awaits us... with the reserve, of course, that it's hard to see in what way this can be a sacrifice to a wrathful god.. Perhaps your own religious convictions are coming through here?

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: What will it be called if/when the world is comsumed by water? And dont say flood.!

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips: To quote Dave Brock

Think about the things that we should have done before
The way things are going the end is about to fall.
We took the wrong step years ago
Take a look around and see the warnings close at hand
Already weeds are writing their scriptures in the sand
We took the wrong step years ago
The morning sun is rising, casting rays across the land,
Already nature's calling, take heed of the warning,
We took the wrong step years ago

In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
how do we slow the impending holocaust within reason? Thoughts? Cheers.>


Not sure if asking the average Rocktalker is your best bet.

Try asking some scientists or Al Gore.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce, your basic premise (that population is the problem) is basically sound, but you need to go back to the books for your global warming cobblers - the nonsense above about the tundra being a point in case. The tundra is currently a massive store of CO2 and methane, much of which will be released by global warming - postive feedback. Positive feedbacks such as this (e.g. 2 - reduced snow cover in the high latitudes, particularly of the northern hemisphere, reduces the planet's reflectivity (albedo), so increasing the warming effect) are the thing that will really cause things to move far more quickly than the optimists would hope.

And as for Niggle...for f's sake man (or woman), try to actually read what Richard J is telling you and stop watching the Good Life. He's quite right - our current agricultural systems are hugely oil dependent, not least because most of the pesticides and fetilizers that allow the current yields are energy intensive and / or oil based....

In reply to frosto:

Thank you for reviving this thread with a sensible post.

I'll buy the next round.

NO not Budweiser.