Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

ForestFire wrote: »

But a two child policy would at least halt the population increase and reduce it over time. But I cannot see how it's possible to get a worldwide agreement to implement this or anything like it from governments, never mind the citizens

Unintended consequences of the one child policy in China:

As sons were generally preferred over daughters, the overall sex ratio in China became skewed toward males. In 2016 there were 33.59 million more men than women.(There's usually more women in a society than men, since women live longer so this number underestimates the actual effects)
Because of the preference for sons, there was a rise in the number of abortions of female fetuses.
The number of female babies killed, abandoned, or placed in orphanages increased as a result of the policy.
In families that already had one child, the births of additional children—in violation of the one-child policy—were often undocumented, leading to many problems later on for those children as they struggled to receive an education or find work.

ForestFire

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

I don't think it will be that sudden a change, where nobody turns up at work at the local power station in the morning

But a two child policy would at least halt the population increase and reduce it over time. But I cannot see how it's possible to get a worldwide agreement to implement this or anything like it from governments, never mind the citizens and their SW (CASH;)) rights, and again the impacts on the economy and an aging population.

Then say for example Russia does not sign up, and they start to develop faster that the rest of us, and there population grows and they see all that nice low populated land to the west, in decline and just begging for "help".

StinkyMunkey

As with everything in life, it always has to slap someone hard in the face before they will believe it. Hundreds of years from now, kids will be taught about the eejits who denied climate change was man made.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

What if we are on the cusp of a technological advancement that will solve all our problems?

Our streets were quite literally filled with horse manure before cars, it was building up everywhere and it looked like our society could no longer function. Along came technology(cars) and solved our environmental disaster.

"In 1900, [....]a staggering total of over 50,000 horses transporting people around the city(London) each day.[...]The main concern was the large amount of manure left behind on the streets. On average a horse will produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day, so you can imagine the sheer scale of the problem.[...]Each horse also produced around 2 pints of urine per day[...]But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day.."

This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

I saw something earlier about making domestic pet food from insects. There are billions of cats and dogs being fed meats and there are luxury lines of meats etc which just seems ridiculous.

Say my name

Anyone suggest get rid of the horse racing industry yet?
Such a waste horses bred for racing and the gambling industry, taking up so much land that could be used for food production. Not to mention all that fossil fuel burned by horses travelling around the country and around the world. And then you have the same emissions as cattle only out their back end. So yea ban the thoroughbred.

With all the infrastructure we have now, how could you decrease the population dramatically without things just exploding from not being looked after and power plants blowing up etc. I wonder how you could rewind development.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

bizarre statement

the single biggest thing a person can do to actually effect change, and results are exponential.

what possible issue could you raise with the suggestion?

IMO anyone who turns their face from this needs to ask themselves whether they care about the environment at all, or whether they have an unhealthy vested interest in humanity

all well and good to care about humanity but one could never convincingly argue that there wasnt ~too much~ of it

a planet of two billion, with appropriate advances in technology. if one really believed in man-made climate change, whats the possible objection?

No wait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnsore_Point

Christy Moore etc.
Funny how they've no problem with the burning of our peatlands though which seems to be far more destructive.

Kimsang wrote: »

Certainly the left as a homogenous group are not opposed to it, but the only opposition I see to it comes from people on the left, maybe I'm wrong.

I think there were lots of protests about it in Ireland in the 70s but it was more God bothering types than hippies

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are the left opposed to it? I think Ireland in general is anti nuclear, would all Irish parties be opposed? Also does our population warrant having a station? I thought I read somewhere it wouldn't suit Ireland even if we wanted to build one.

Certainly the left as a homogenous group are not opposed to it, but the only opposition I see to it comes from people on the left, maybe I'm wrong.

recedite wrote: »

One nuclear station, plus decentralised wind and solar farms, plus feed in tariffs for home microgeneration, plus Spirit of Ireland built by the state to store off peak power, and the job is mostly done.
A few small gas turbine generating stations near cities just to top up.

Think Spirit of Ireland is toast. Bit of madcap idea anyway.

recedite

One nuclear station, plus decentralised wind and solar farms, plus feed in tariffs for home microgeneration, plus Spirit of Ireland built by the state to store off peak power, and the job is mostly done.
A few small gas turbine generating stations near cities just to top up.

Kimsang wrote: »

Imagine how cheap nuclear would be if it didn't need such tight security(for obvious reasons).

I really don't get the lefts opposition to nuclear. Its so much cleaner for the environment.

Are the left opposed to it? I think Ireland in general is anti nuclear, would all Irish parties be opposed? Also does our population warrant having a station? I thought I read somewhere it wouldn't suit Ireland even if we wanted to build one.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Molton salt reactors.. proven to be a highly stable way to harness nuclear power. The ecohippy windmill tilters would nimby any such proposal and development into oblivion however.

Imagine how cheap nuclear would be if it didn't need such tight security(for obvious reasons).

I really don't get the lefts opposition to nuclear. Its so much cleaner for the environment.

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but as another poster mentioned, it really would need drastic change to have any sort of impact and drastic change would lead to loss of life.

I still see future technology as being our only way out of this mess, a cheap co2 scrubber or new battery , fusion power as others mentioned(although we can create a 'sun' the problem is making a container to hold it).

A lot of the issues have been addressed already in fusion, including the "container", but not the longevity of a reaction. Think 70s is the longest to date.

Jimmy Garlic

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but as another poster mentioned, it really would need drastic change to have any sort of impact and drastic change would lead to loss of life.

I still see future technology as being our only way out of this mess, a cheap co2 scrubber or new battery , fusion power as others mentioned(although we can create a 'sun' the problem is making a container to hold it).

Molton salt reactors.. proven to be a highly stable way to harness nuclear power. The ecohippy windmill tilters would nimby any such proposal and development into oblivion however.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

it's more realistic for now to say hey let's have less cattle in Ireland, or anywhere in the world, and rewild some of the land, give it back to nature. If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature.
We could still have beef farmers in Ireland, just not every Tom, Dick and Harry outside any urban population having some kind of a herd.
But we would have to cut down on meat, and the amount of meat we export, and that just seems unpalatable to most people.

I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but as another poster mentioned, it really would need drastic change to have any sort of impact and drastic change would lead to loss of life.

I still see future technology as being our only way out of this mess, a cheap co2 scrubber or new battery , fusion power as others mentioned(although we can create a 'sun' the problem is making a container to hold it).

Blueshoe

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We would need some kind of international agreement yes. Well that's the best suggestion ive got apart from trying to end reliance on fossil fuels and cleaner energy etc.

Yes. Definitely an international agreement. But they don't tend to always work. As we know. Things need to get much worse before any real effort is made. I look forward to things getting worse

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

... If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature...

Thelonious - I've no idea why you keep pushing the idea that soya is grown specifically for cattle feed. I know I have detailed this previously But anyways here it is again so as to clarify this.

Just on what animals including beef cattle are fed in this country. Grazing and fodder make up the bulk of what is fed to cattle - over and above this is mostly supplementary type feed. Regarding the idea that soy is grown specifically for cattle worldwide - the fact is the bulk of grain based feed is made up of by-products or waste from human food production..

This from the FAO.

The "study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food."

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html

And that goes for all that soy grown. The soy used in animal feed is largely derived from the primary processing of soy beans for soya oil. After the oil is extracted , what is left over is processed into animal feeds - this includes the outer shell of the soy bean called the husk and the pulp or 'meal' from which the oil has been extracted.

Grassland is so an important carbon sink according to the European Environmental Agency.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

The other important point to remember is that globally - the use of fossil fuels for transport and energy is the No 1 cause of greenhouse emissions. And yet we have the same old fixation on only banging meat by some. Very very odd that imo.

Blueshoe wrote: »

Not happening. Too important for our economy. Unless the biggest polluting countries make a serious u turn I won't be changing anything. Nor will most people when it comes to it

We would need some kind of international agreement yes. Well that's the best suggestion ive got apart from trying to end reliance on fossil fuels and cleaner energy etc.

Blueshoe

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, but Leo can't even say he's cutting down on meat without being ridiculed, never mind asking people to have less children, it's more realistic for now to say hey let's have less cattle in Ireland, or anywhere in the world, and rewild some of the land, give it back to nature. If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature.
We could still have beef farmers in Ireland, just not every Tom, Dick and Harry outside any urban population having some kind of a herd.
But we would have to cut down on meat, and the amount of meat we export, and that just seems unpalatable to most people.

Not happening. Too important for our economy. Unless the biggest polluting countries make a serious u turn I won't be changing anything. Nor will most people when it comes to it

Kimsang wrote: »

I see the argument being why all the blame on meat eaters and farmers, when people that have babies are really doing the biggest harm to the environment. Would you disagree with this point?

I don't disagree with that, but Leo can't even say he's cutting down on meat without being ridiculed, never mind asking people to have less children, it's more realistic for now to say hey let's have less cattle in Ireland, or anywhere in the world, and rewild some of the land, give it back to nature. If we didn't have to grow so much soy and grass etc for animals around the world we could have a lot more land devoted to nature.
We could still have beef farmers in Ireland, just not every Tom, Dick and Harry outside any urban population having some kind of a herd.
But we would have to cut down on meat, and the amount of meat we export, and that just seems unpalatable to most people.

Dr. Bre

Ask not what the climate can do for you - ask what you can do for the climate ..

Blueshoe wrote: »

Are you in politics?
That was a real political zero substance answer

Nah it's a suggestion. It's my thing!:)

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

That was China's entire 1 child policy. :pac:

I don't think anyone here is saying that(correct me if i'm wrong).. The argument is more akin to saying why would you try to clean a wall with a toothbrush while someone is paining it with a paintbrush?

Each human expels about 1/2 tonne of Co2 every year into the atmosphere before you even factor in their carbon footprint. How much Co2 would be offset by switching from eating meat to going vegetarian?

ForestFire

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh anyone suggesting people not have kids for the sake of the climate should be immediately disregarded IMO..

Why, do you not agree that an overall population reduction will help reduce emissions of co2?

Okay maybe no kids is not feasible but why not a 1 or 2 child rule?

Maybe the people who choose not to have kids could sell there slot (OFFSET

) to someone who want an extra child and can afford it.

China had a 1 child policy for a long time and at least there was no kind of mass protest from it that led to anything.

Of course, this policy would probably not fit with capitalism, and we would have to manage an ageing population for a number of years until it rebalanced.

I see this as one Huge step the world could take, but is anyone going to suggest or enforce it?

And I say this from a position that we are told we must act to save the world and this is true, so why not look at extremis measures that are needed.

Also, this may allow me to keep my Sunday peppered filet steak:o

Blueshoe

is_that_so wrote: »

More than you are doing? It starts there.

Are you in politics?
That was a real political zero substance answer