Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

So what happen to global warming? cos I 'm fecken' Freezing

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Population control and habitat preservation will be more beneficial than carbon trading (tax) etc.

    For once I agree with you.
    Habitat yes.
    Carbon Tax yes.


    I don't agree with you on pop control though as most populations in the world are either flattening out or going into decline. Except, ironically, the places that are going be most affected by GW e.g Africa.


  • #53
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    There is going to be a serious difficulty with habitat preservation though.
    If we go "green" then many habitats will inevitably be destroyed. That'll be up to the public go "green" or go "Nuclear". Neither will be pretty but unfortunately they will be necessary unless some genius figures out a different way to harvest energy.


  • #54
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Malty_T wrote: »
    For once I agree with you.
    Habitat yes.
    Carbon Tax yes.


    I don't agree with you on pop control though as most populations in the world are either flattening out or going into decline. Except, ironically, the places that are going be most affected by GW e.g Africa.
    Really? BBC did a doco on how many people can earth support. He had populations exploding in most countries, especially in African countrys Niger is set to tripple, with only countries like Germany in decline. There's certainly no decline in Irish and UK populations. They where estimating 15billon by mid century, 3 billion within the next 10 years, that's more than the population of Europe, north and south America combined.

    Although if peak oil hit's none of this stuff will matter, the population will colapse and CO2 will no longer be a problem.


  • #55
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Really? BBC did a doco on how many people can earth support. He had populations exploding in most countries, especially in African countrys Niger is set to tripple, with only countries like Germany in decline. There's certainly no decline in Irish and UK populations. They where estimating 15billon by mid century, 3 billion within the next 10 years, that's more than the population of Europe, north and south America combined.

    Although if peak oil hit's none of this stuff will matter, the population will colapse and CO2 will no longer be a problem.

    Well Worth a read (read the entire series of population if you got time)
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.500-population-enough-of-us-now.html
    wiki wrote:
    The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 87.8 million per annum in 1989, to a low of 74.6 million per annum in 2003, after which it has been rising again, to 76.6 million per annum in 2007, and 77.0 million per annum in 2009. The growth rate is expected to peak in 2010 at 77.2 million per annum, then decline steadily to about 43 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.3 billion. Growth remains high especially in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. [7]

    BBC seemed to have been pulliing numbers out of their arse! :)


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ScumLord wrote: »
    There's certainly no decline in Irish and UK populations. They where estimating 15billon by mid century, 3 billion within the next 10 years, that's more than the population of Europe, north and south America combined.

    Although if peak oil hit's none of this stuff will matter, the population will colapse and CO2 will no longer be a problem.
    Population growth in most of the west is mostly a product of immigration, the mative population is declining! the collapse of modern agriculture (when the oil does run out) will collapse the population.


  • #57
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Population growth in most of the west is mostly a product of immigration, the mative population is declining! the collapse of modern agriculture (when the oil does run out) will collapse the population.

    Oil is far from gone though it'll just be hard to drill. As long as Engineers figure ways to mine it the population won't collapse. 2020 is the projection for when production will lag decline, but it's not all doom and gloom yet we're still discovering new ways to drill oil and squeeze the wells dry more efficiently than could be done 30 years ago. I'll wait and see, but I think we're going to be extending that window. Eitherway 2020 is worse case, but population collapse is not predicted.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Well Worth a read (read the entire series of population if you got time)
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.500-population-enough-of-us-now.html



    BBC seemed to have been pulliing numbers out of their arse! :)

    Doesn't really who's estimation (guess) you use, the issue is that population will eventually outstrip the earth's ability to support it.


  • #59
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Doesn't really who's estimation (guess) you use, the issue is that population will eventually outstrip the earth's ability to support it.

    Actually that's not true.
    It's not a simple as you are making it out to be.
    Resource wise the US is the by far the biggest population in the world and I think that's how we should measure populations, if the US stop being so bloody wasteful we'd have far more supply for everyone. The issue is that idiots don't plan ahead and just consume what's in front of them without considering the long term consequences.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Actually that's not true.
    It's not a simple as you are making it out to be.
    Resource wise the US is the by far the biggest population in the world and I think that's how we should measure populations, if the US stop being so bloody wasteful we'd have far more supply for everyone. The issue is that idiots don't plan ahead and just consume what's in front of them without considering the long term consequences.
    Ultimately, either the US would have to export huge amounts of food to Africa/Asia or there will be mass migration from the "hungry" countries to the "breadbasket" ones.
    What chance of either of those situations happening without a major fight.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Well Worth a read (read the entire series of population if you got time)
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.500-population-enough-of-us-now.html



    BBC seemed to have been pulliing numbers out of their arse! :)
    The BBC documentry (one of Attenborough's, that man is a legend) did show population growth as a double edged sword. While others saw the industrial age and oil as the catalyst for the growth (which it most certianly was) bt BBC also highlighted the fact we control our death rates now, something we didn't really do all that well even 60 years ago. This has had a huge effect on the numbers because we're simply not dieing. Most teenagers around today will live to see their grandchildren. This was the reason for their estimated 9 billion people. They had numbers like if everyone lived like Americans the earth could support only 1 billion people, whereas if we lived like ethiopeans we could support 15 billion.

    EDIT: Pretty much the same info as in your link except their convinced the worlds populaation will increase.


Advertisement