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

https://youtu.be/OwII-dwh-bk The single most important thing with population control is reducing child mortality rates in developing countries. Thankfully the world overall has make massive strides in this across the last 50yrs or so, and as a result families tend to only be 2 children. Religion is a big barrier to reducing family sizes, especially in the likes of predominantly Catholic countries like Nigeria, where access to contraception is discouraged, alongside Islamic countries where women's education levels and rights in general are behind where they should be (and as a direct result they tend to have more babies!).

Any sort of forced 1 child policies will lead to serious social issues, like China tried and had to abandon before.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nothing light-hearted about using such a derogatory term to describe your neighbours. Then again I guess I have a different sense of humour and neighbours I enjoy the pleasure of living near.

And agreed nothing in that odd description of 'light hearted' in having a go at the neigbours . But hey there we are ...

As for a bit of tongue I cheek humour here's a Christmas jumper to go with the thread ...

https://www.popjumpers.co.uk/product/greta-thunberg-how-dare-you/?attribute_colour=Bottle+Green&attribute_size=Medium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So a stringent and blanket tax on anything that emits carbon? Sounds good.

I dont think the poster was referring to carbon. But no matter.

Interesting proposal though for a 'blanket tax on anything that emits carbon'

It has been estimated that:

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change/

Obviously the population figures are a little out of date but you could be on to a winner there - with the idea of taxing people for breathing. I presume that would have an automatic knock on effect with regard to population control as families would seek to minimise the number of children and their emissions...

Instead of aiming for an entire societal change, why don't we first just focus on the fact that we aren't doing anything at a big enough scale at present, about the issue?

Lets just start with the Green New Deal style economic retrofitting and R&D. That presents fairly unambiguous positive benefits - without requiring decimation of standards of living, or other more drastic stuff.

Degrowth and decimation of standards of living are a losing argument, in terms of persuasiveness, anyway - so ditch them and focus on GND style efficiency improvements, to get carbon emissions down and eventually reversing.

Frequent air travel, widespread car use and commuting, increasing consumerism, continually increasing comfort/luxuries and quality of live, continually increasing population - none of this stuff is a climate change problem, if you retrofit the economy and push the R&D, to make this carbon neutral - which is most definitely doable, if it is made a priority and the necessary scale of effort put into it.

KyussB wrote: »

Instead of aiming for an entire societal change, why don't we first just focus on the fact that we aren't doing anything at a big enough scale at present, about the issue?

Lets just start with the Green New Deal style economic retrofitting and R&D. That presents fairly unambiguous positive benefits - without requiring decimation of standards of living, or other more drastic stuff.

Degrowth and decimation of standards of living are a losing argument, in terms of persuasiveness, anyway - so ditch them and focus on GND style efficiency improvements, to get carbon emissions down and eventually reversing.

Frequent air travel, widespread car use and commuting, increasing consumerism, continually increasing comfort/luxuries and quality of live, continually increasing population - none of this stuff is a climate change problem, if you retrofit the economy and push the R&D, to make this carbon neutral - which is most definitely doable, if it is made a priority and the necessary scale of effort put into it.

No we've endlessly gone over that GND stuff tbh. Overpopulation is one of the major drivers of climate change. It needs to be at least discussed by the powers that be. At the moment it's the elephant in the room - taking a very large smelly dump and the that ****e is going just going to get bigger and bigger for at least another century. The estimate is that the human population will almost double around the year 2100. That's going to make our present problems look like peanuts.

gozunda wrote: »

No we've endlessly gone over that GND stuff tbh. Overpopulation is one of the major drivers of climate change. It needs to be at least discussed by the powers that be. At the moment it's the elephant in the room - taking a very large smelly dump and the that ****e is going just going to get bigger and bigger for at least another century. The estimate is that the human population will almost double around the year 2100. That's going to make our present problems look like peanuts.

A GND which pushes us towards a closed-cycle carbon economy solves the population problem.

The GND has been gone over a good bit - but the objections to it boil down solely to ideological objections - and even those objections don't fit, because the GND can easily be undertaken to promote capitalistic goals - in fact, it's the very best chance Capitalism has, of overcoming the threat climate change poses to its very existence.

So - to put it particularly bluntly/crudely - we're not going to stop people fucking and producing babies, that is the least realistic idea of all - we as a species are capable of being very resourceful/intelligent, and we are more than capable of arresting our contributiion to climate change, while maintaining our rate of social/economic/technological/etc. progress - but only if we make that our priority, which presently, we are not making our priority.

KyussB wrote: »

Both CO2 and Methane have a limited lifespan in the atmosphere - Methane is about 9-10 years, CO2 is about 100 years.Methane is in the atmosphere 10x less an amount of time as CO2 - but is between 30-84x as bad as CO2, in terms of being a greenhouse gas - meaning that over both their respective lifetimes, methane is way more potent than CO2.This is why you don't pick your research, from a source that has a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion - i.e. a source that receives funding from agricultural bodies, who have a financial interest in downplaying the contribution of methane, as a greenhouse gas.

Ah fek off with that type of rubbish (which funnily enough appears to be the position on any point you disagree with!). Yes I know the science of methane and its role in the atmosphere. It's an area in which I am qualified. But yeah we can all copy and paste. Thus is new reseach and the findings are robust. Just to reiterate the research was conducted by IPCC researchers based in Oxford as already detailed. If you dont like their findings then perhaps you should point that out to the same IPCC scientists who you believe "have "a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion". :rolleyes:

Clearly didn't either read the findings as were reported and linked by the BVA or given the benefit of the doubt perhaps didnt understand them. But no matter.

Jesus but there's ****e in this thread

gozunda wrote: »

Ah fek off with that type of rubbish (which funnily enough appears to be the position on any point you disagree with!). Yes I know the science of methane and its role in the atmosphere. It's an area in which I am qualified. But yeah we can all copy and paste. Thus is new reseach and the findings are robust. Just to reiterate the research was conducted by IPCC researchers based in Oxford as already detailed. If you dont like their findings then perhaps you should point that out to the same IPCC scientists who you believe "have "a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion". :rolleyes:

Clearly didn't either read the findings as were reported and linked by the BVA or given the benefit of the doubt perhaps didnt understand them. But no matter.

Jesus but there's ****e in this thread

That's not what the IPCC researchers say - that's what the British Veterinary Assocation say (the guys with a financial interest in playing down methane emissions...) - and they are erroneously citing the climate scientists as taking the same position, when they don't (the scientists take the some position, as what I cited).

Read your sources properly.

If you're such a 'skeptic', then why the fuck aren't you remotely skeptical of sources having a financial interest in the conclusons they draw?

KyussB wrote: »

That's not what the IPCC researchers say - that's what the British Veterinary Assocation say (the guys with a financial interest in playing down methane emissions...) - and they are erroneously citing the climate scientists as taking the same position, when they don't (the scientists take the some position, as what I cited).Read your sources properly.If you're such a 'skeptic', then why the fuck aren't you remotely skeptical of sources having a financial interest in the conclusons they draw?

Lol , yes the reported findings of the research undertaken by the IPCC scientists in Oxford support that methane emissions from livestock are not contributing to climate change when all of data is included. The findings are provided in the links included. And as detailed the science is robust. Your personal and unqualified take on the article is in error btw. I'm unsure how a personal (and If you dont mind I would say biased) opinion is somehow more relevant than professionals? The BVA are simply reporting the findings of the research. Sorry if that doesn't suit the agenda - but there we go.

This from the Oxford review document linked in that article

Summary

The conventional Global Warming Potential (GWP) can be misleading when applied to methane emissions, particularly when these are being reduced. A revised usage of GWP, denoted GWP*, which uses the same metric values interpreted in a new way, provides a more accurate indication
of the impact of short-lived pollutants on global temperature.
Of particular importance for ruminant livestock farming are the following observations:

• Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant
methane emissions cause little additional warming...

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Climate-metrics-for-ruminant-livestock.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja1d26op_mAhVHXhUIHbLlCw4QFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0G0Eso8QVPNcIyq_lLKH2Y

Maybe you could explain why your comments constantly attack any sources you don't agree with - but universaly fail to give any sources whatsoever for the non stop promotion of the usual GND verbage. Odd no?

Anyway here again is the report on the most recent reseach on this issue.

New science, by a global team of IPCC researchers based at Oxford University, shows categorically that methane from Britain's ruminants is not causing global warming – instead ruminants provide a viable pathway to net zero emissions from UK agriculture by 2030. 

KyussB wrote: »

You deliberately stopped at the first bullet point, to misrepresent the research - the same as the BVA did - and you're engaging in selective interpretation of what it says:

Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant methane emissions cause little[ additional warming. In contrast, every tonne of CO2 emitted causes approximately the same amount of warming whenever it occurs.

Gradually declining methane emissions of 10% over 30 years, equivalent to halving over about 200 years (e.g. through efficiency savings), cause no additional warming

Faster reductions in methane emissions lead to cooling, presenting an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions, although net emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide still ultimately need to be reduced to zero to stabilize global temperatures.

Increasing methane emissions cause very substantial warming, equivalent to very large emissions of CO2, but only while those increases are occurring.

TLDR - no, you can't keep belching out an increasing rate of methane, without that significantly contributing to global warming - that directly contradicts the actual science linked, which the BVA deliberately reinterpreted as stating the opposite.

Indeed TDLR! Lol.

I presume you followed the link provided? Good. The following paragraphs were indicated thus (...) as per standard notation and linked funnily enough. They also support the research and also make additional findings. The fact that you do not understand the research is clear. And no you can't pull bits out of those individual paragraphs to try and come up with your own viewpoint.

To reiterate and keep it simple (as I understand you do not have any experience or knowledge in this field) - the new findings clearly show that extensively reared livestock systems such as we have in the UK and in Ireland are not 'belching out an increasing rate of methane' (sic) rather they are part of an existing cycle and also provide a means to absorb additional emissions in that they also provide present an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions etc. It is also strongly noted that increases in emissions cause warming only whilst those emissions are increasing. The key finding being that reseach shows that "Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred". In the case of cattle for example this is when cattle were first farmed and because of that "constant methane emissions cause little additional warming".

Quite incredible that you believe fully qualified professionals take second place to your personal opinion and evidently flawed interpretation. But hey doesn't really matter - I'll stick with the science thanks.