Extinction Rebellion Ireland

gozunda wrote: »

Exactly. There's a need to think that one trough though...

As long as there are a breeding human pair on some island somewhere, global warming was a con

Harika wrote: »

So what about us humans going extinct?

Might as well be extinct if the hypocriteical fanatics that comprise ER got their way. Who wants to be a serf in their heavily restrictive neo-feudal world?

Akrasia wrote: »

Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon. If climate change isn't tackled, a huge number of animal species will be lost to extinction directly because of climate change and there will be large areas of land where humans can no longer live due to oppressivel heat and water shortages.

"Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon

"Sillyness"? of whose "belief"?
The first thing is - an opinion that humans are going to be variously wiped out is being proposed variously by the XR protest movement - along the lines of extinction is just around the corner and as suggested by official banners proclaiming "are we the last generation" etc etc

However the article you linked in support of the idea of the "Sixth Great Extinction" doesn't mention humans not "go(ing) extinct any time soon" however it does point to the dangers of mass overpopulation and this as a threat leading to the extinction of animals.

Interestingly the earth has already lost many species of animals and as the article you linked to details - that has been put down to erosion of habitats etc with the overriding issue being the planet being overpopulated by humans.

Wildlife is dying out due to habitat destruction, overhunting, toxic pollution, invasion by alien species and climate change. But the ultimate cause of all of these factors is “human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption

The article detailing the reseach of Prof Gerardo Ceballos also states that:

Nearly half of the 177 mammal species surveyed lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015 ..

A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is under way and is more severe than previously feared, according to research

The time to act is very short,” he said. “It will, sadly, take a long time to humanely begin the population shrinkage required if civilisation is to long survive, but much could be done on the consumption front and with ‘band aids’ – wildlife reserves, diversity protection laws – in the meantime

To summarise that article is about effects of overpopulation on an already stretched planetary system

The article finishes by quoting another scientist as saying

“Show me a scientist who claims there is no population problem and I’ll show you an idiot.”

gozunda wrote: »

"Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon

"Sillyness"? of whose "belief"?
The first thing is - an opinion that humans are going to be variously wiped out is being proposed variously by the XR protest movement - along the lines of extinction is just around the corner and as suggested by official banners proclaiming "are we the last generation" etc etc

However the article you linked in support of the idea of the "Sixth Great Extinction" doesn't mention humans not "go(ing) extinct any time soon" however it does point to the dangers of mass overpopulation and this as a threat leading to the extinction of animals.

Interestingly the earth has already lost many species of animals and as the article you linked to details - that has been put down to erosion of habitats etc with the overriding issue being the planet being overpopulated by humans.



The article detailing the reseach of Prof Gerardo Ceballos also states that:



To summarise that article is about effects of overpopulation on an already stretched planetary system

The article finishes by quoting another scientist as saying

“Show me a scientist who claims there is no population problem and I’ll show you an idiot.”

Overpopulation and wasteful consumption are both big problems too, but not too many people live on coral reefs.

With overpopulation and over consumption, we are reducing the abundance of life on our planet. With climate change, we are reducing the capacity of the planet to sustain complex biological systems. Overpopulation is an extremely complex issue that has no clear solution and no obvious road-map to implement whatever changes would be required. One thing I can guarantee is that the same people who complain about increasing taxes to pay for climate change would also complain about increasing taxes to pay for the kinds of development aid necessary to reduce population growth in the 'developing' world.

Would you support huge increases in funding to Africa and Asia to change the the cultural, religious and economic factors that lead them to have large and unsustainable families?

Climate change on the other hand is an issue that can be much more easily nailed down as a scientific problem. It is an issue that has a known cause, and a known solution (even if the means to arrive at that solution is still uncertain) that will continue to get worse for centuries and has the potential to spiral completely out of control if we do not act immediately.

And on top of that, addressing the problem of climate change could be done in conjunction with addressing overpopulation and over-consumption at the same time. Declaring a climate emergency and committing to spend the resources required to solve climate change will necessarily include measures to reduce population growth and over consumption.

There has been staggering losses of invertebrate populations in the even the most remote places in the world. Invertebrates form the foundation of complex food webs and are necessary for the propagation of many plant species, often co-evolved so that when the insects disappear, those plants are doomed to go extinct too.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397

Akrasia wrote: »

Great news. There were plenty of people who said the sufferagettes were counter productive because they used civil disobedience to force the government to pay attention to them. Non Violent Direct action has a long history of forcing important issues onto the national agenda and forcing governments to act.

When the spectre of war haunted the world in 1914 and again in 1939, people were prepared to invest the resources required to protect themselves from an existential threat to their freedom and way of life.

When America decided it was important to beat the russians to the moon, they spent the equivalent of hundreds of billion dollars to win what was essentially a pissing contest with the USSR. Now instead of spending our resources competing with each other or trying to kill each other, we need global cooperation to make the investments required to transition away from fossil fuels within a generation. Individuals on our own can't do a thing to stop climate change. The most important thing we an do is to use our votes to vote for policy that puts climate change at the top of the agenda, and to attend protests and talk about climate change and raise the issue to that there is constant pressure to force us to keep up the momentum to tackle this issue.

Nice speech. Unfortunately most of that falls into the hole of false equivalence.

Not too sure how many 'people in WW1/WW2 had the choice whether or not to join up, 'invest resources' (sic) or be slaughtered tbh. Some did - most were drafted whether they wanted to or otherwise by the powers at war...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

WW2 and the exploration of space are not comparable to a bunch of people waving flags and claiming we are all about to die.

There's one thing that keeps getting missed on this thread - and in the wider debate about climate change as a whole.

We're supposed to believe that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a grave emergency and that radical action is required right now. We are also supposed to believe that this is not a pretext to allow wannabe dictators to tell other people how to live - i.e. enforce vegetarianism, force people in cars off the road, restrict people's ability to travel around the world etc. Except for the fact that this is EXACTLY what it is all about. I distinctly remember when I changed my position on nuclear electricity from anti to pro, I participated in a thread on nuclear power here, and the comments that I got back from mainstream environmentalists were ... illuminating. Depressing, but nevertheless informative. They went like:

Changing how we generate our electricity is not enough. We need to alter how we live our lives.

1. Are these the same people who turn on xmas lights and drive SUV's?
If so then maybe they should, and maybe we should put them there (force "them" to live in yurts and rely on candlelight).

Rubbish. You are trying your hardest to prop-up that failing system. What lessons would the people have learned? Nothing really. Except to expect and pressure our scientists and governemnts to pull rabbits out of their hats to meet our energy and consumerist desires. You're not clamouring for conservation, you're clamouring for nuclear power to replace oil. Do you have some relationship to the energy sector and/or nuclear power?

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS!
I do not own a car.
I have not flown by plain for years.
I do not burn coal.
I prefer to use blankets to keep warm rather than the heating.
I use energy saving light bulbs and ration my use of electricity.

And lest anyone think this is just a few cranks on a message board from 2006, note that the United States just elected an eco-feminist communist for the first time this last election cycle and the Mayor of New York just came out with a plan to "phase out" processed meats in New York City, starting with people unfortunate enough to have to go to school or work in an NYC municipal building. And of course prisoners in NYC jails, they will have be forced to "go vegan" now because vegan crap is all they're going to get.

As to why there is a "necessity" to do things like force people to go vegan and limit people's freedom to travel, and otherwise force people into artificial deprivation, but the same "necessity" does not extend to changing the conversation with regards to nuclear energy, I am reminded of the words of William Pitt the Younger. It turns out that hundreds of years ago, the young Mr. Pitt predicted precisely this problem - based on his observations of humanity.

Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants; it was the creed of slaves.

Young Mr. Pitt may well have been talking about Bill DeBlasio of New York, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez etc. "Do what we tell you - it is a matter of necessity".

We've allowed the debate on energy to be dominated by people like those I quoted from that old thread and it has made things worse, not better. Not only have we failed miserably to reduce carbon emissions, but we've destabilised our power grid and killed god knows how many bats. Not to mention wasting so much money on stupid, unreliable and damaging "renewables" that we've squandered opportunities to do something meaningful and useful.

Because in the real world, CO2 emissions from things like electricity generation can only be reduced if your country is lucky enough to have lots of hydro-power or geothermal, and/or your country uses lots of nuclear electricity.

In the real world, right now as I am writing this post, France is currently emitting 25g/kwh for the electricity that it produces, not only that but it exports power to every single one of its neighbors, reducing their CO2 g/kwh figures as well.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR
The reason? They use nuclear power. And it's been the same story in France, every single day since some time late in the last century.

Every. Single. Day. For at least the past 25 years.

By contrast, right now Ireland is emitting over 400g/kwh and Germany, well they seem to be having a really good night emitting only 292g/kwh - more than a full order of magnitude worse than France.

IF the threat of Climate Change is so grave, then doing anything other than what France is doing is inexcusable. Remember, Ireland's energy policies have been written by mainstream environmentalists since the days of the Carnsore Point protests back in the '70s. This is the result. Same in Germany, seem they are "uber woke" about everything over there and that includes handing the right to make their energy policies over to the likes of their Green parties and Greenpeace. The results are enormous costs for unreliable and environmentally destructive "renewables".

If "action" really is "necessary" I am more than happy to help, but I expect the mainstream environmental movement to start making sacrifices before they ask me to do so. I expect them to do the following:

1. Admit that their policies are (at best) an abject failure.
2. Admit that they've spent the last half century lying about nuclear power.
3. Then demonstrate actionable, full throated, unequivocal and verifiable support for the wholesale development and deployment of nuclear energy.

When they (Greenpeace, world Green parties, every journalist who has ever lied about a wind farm project by saying "this wind farm will power X thousand homes") begins making ideological sacrifices, I'll be happy to meet them half way and make sacrifices in my own quality of life.

Until then, whether I drive or cycle, eat meat or vegan soy protein won't make a difference if eco-fruitcakes insist on burning gigatons of fossil fuels for no reason - which is exactly what they are doing. In that situation all I can do is point out how - at best - stupid and irresponsible these policies are.

SeanW wrote: »

There's one thing that keeps getting missed on this thread - and in the wider debate about climate change as a whole.

...

Until then, whether I drive or cycle, eat meat or vegan soy protein won't make a difference if eco-fruitcakes insist on burning gigatons of fossil fuels for no reason - which is exactly what they are doing. In that situation all I can do is point out how - at best - stupid and irresponsible these policies are.

It has been suggested that turning off all the fossil fuel energy generation plants tmrw or even in the short term without developing alternative technologies first would most likley propel most western economies (minus France as you point out) straight back to the stone age. Those countries not signed up to doing so such as the US and most importantly China would continue on their merry way - producing as much emissions as they like and selling the rest of us the products of their continued fossil dependent industrialisation - (funnily enough) such as "green energy products" :rolleyes:

With regard to individual responsibility - it has been suggested that for the purposes of " Individual consumer choices - the top (three) actions you can take to cut your own emissions, in order of impact, includes having fewer children (equaling, for someone in a rich country, an estimated 58.6 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per child, per year), living car-free (about 2.4 tons per year) and avoiding air travel (about 1.6 tons per round-trip transatlantic flight)."

So not only will the most enlightened countries be propelled straight back to the stone age - those countries with already declining populations will successfully wipe themselves out leaving the not so meek to inherit the earth. An interesting conundrum I think ....

Baby steps, and I think decades in the future people will think why there was no consensus to do more to preserve the planet for future generations.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Wicklow County Council has followed suit. :pac::pac::pac:

Yet in Arclow they are pumping raw sewage into the river/sea..
its just a propaganda move to show how progressive they are to deflect from their own dirty practices.