How are we feeling about climate change, (can't be bothered?)?

oldpop said:
Interesting
Click to expand...
Here's an "off the wall" suggestion you may find interesting, (what we're looking for here of course!), hows about folks stop using so many products to keep them smelling sweeter than a rose, and just rely on good old soap and water, as mankind did for millennia?

We may all feel good when wearing the latest parfum, but if they take eons to breakdown in the water courses or sea, time to call a halt surely(?).

All in favour say "Aye"!

(btw you may have heard the saying, "Live more simply so that others can simply live" - that's our motto or mantra, to be slipped into every conversation if possible, as per:

Social discourse question: "How are you today"?

Response: "Fine, living more simply every day"! (y)🤠
 

I believe that climate change is happening and is something for the well to do people to talk about. I also believe that there are people all over the world that are hungry and poor just looking for food, a place to live in, living in a existance that would be shorter than the effects of a climate change.
 
Lawrence00 said:
Click to expand...
A comedian the right man to listen to when it comes to "saving endangered species" do you think?
A great man called Gerald Durrell, who set up Jersey zoo in the UK, and with his second wife Lee produced many television programmes about animals, and he was the author of "My family and other animals", one of the first books my brother enjoyed reading, but I came to later, (the "Durells" being notable authors).

As you can see I greatly admired this guy, who helped reintroduce the "Round Island Skink", a lizard important in maintaining an ecosystem once the rats man had introduced were removed (/killed).

I gave up watching your comedian friend after he made his remarks about endangered species, but I don't doubt we'll all need comedians like him to keep us going, as we've so little in terms of practical ideas to really " save the planet", (should it be necessary, "or for arguments sake"). :)
 
I am concerned about climate change for the people who will get hurt or die when things get really bad. I think it is the world's responsibility to do things now that will minimize its effects. Unfortunately, I suspect that if there is money to be made, this won't happen. I hope I'm wrong.
 
So if the ocean levels are rising precipitously, how come politicians are still buying ocean side homes? Is the climate changing? Sure. Just like it’s done forever. Not entirely sure my carbon footprint has anything to do with it. We’re visiting Key West next week. I’ll let you know if the locals are fleeing. 🙄
 
CarolfromTX said:
So if the ocean levels are rising precipitously, how come politicians are still buying ocean side homes? Is the climate changing? Sure. Just like it’s done forever. Not entirely sure my carbon footprint has anything to do with it. We’re visiting Key West next week. I’ll let you know if the locals are fleeing. 🙄
Click to expand...
One point of view obviously, (though I'd guess a slightly less than majority view worldwide nowadays,....?,).
That said, as the thread title and OP asserts I'm one who may take a different view to yours, but am inclined to do very little about it, as other aspects of my life seem to be crowding out thoughts of possible man made global warming, and this is therefore an indictment of someone like me, over anything you might be guilty of, (such as disdain for those like my late father, who saw signs migratory birds were arriving on his farm earlier than they used to when he was a boy, when he was aged eighty, twenty years ago, and this convinced him people like you were wrong!).
 
Last edited:
CarolfromTX said:
So if the ocean levels are rising precipitously, how come politicians are still buying ocean side homes? Is the climate changing? Sure. Just like it’s done forever. Not entirely sure my carbon footprint has anything to do with it. We’re visiting Key West next week. I’ll let you know if the locals are fleeing. 🙄
Click to expand...

Sure, the change, from year to year, is almost unnoticeable. However, come back in another 100+ years, and half the world's low lying coastal areas may be flooded. It has taken centuries for the climate to warm to the point where it is becoming a threat....and if human activity were to suddenly cease, it would take centuries to reverse this trend. I doubt seriously that anything of significance will be done in time to make any real difference.
 
CarolfromTX said:
Again, the climate is changing, maybe, because that is what climate does. It has always changed. I seriously doubt man has much impact.
Click to expand...
I hope you don't mind my saying this, but on this thread we've discovered your views on climate change already, very succinctly put too, so why the need to repeat them without adding anything to the discussion in doing so, (or giving reasons why you might believe you know better, than as I've said my own father, or a host of others?)?
 
CarolfromTX said:
Again, the climate is changing, maybe, because that is what climate does.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the climate would be changing with or without us. The earth's climate has never been stable.
CarolfromTX said:
I seriously doubt man has much impact.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and so do most climate scientists. The earth is warmer as the result of our impacts. Exactly how much is not quite as clear. And forecasting the future is even harder.

The problem comes in figuring what, if anything, we could or should do about it. I am skeptical that we can change much, in my case just getting ready for it. I sold my waterfront home in Florida, in part, because of my concerns over rising sea level, so at least one person has...

I think most of the proposals put forward by our politicians are more about grandstanding than any real understanding of the problem.
 
The ice on Greenland and Antarctica is melting at an increasing pace. If Greenland became ice free, it would raise the oceans by 20 feet....a total melt of Antarctica would cause an ocean rise of over 200 ft. Were such events to occur, the US would lose 17% of its land mass....primarily along the Gulf and East coasts. This would displace over 100 million people, and inundate trillions of dollars worth of property.

None of us alive today will see such a disaster, but those living in future centuries may be in a different world.

This rise in global temperatures has begun with the "industrial revolution", and is continuing to increase as the population expands, and more pollutants are released into the atmosphere. Combine that with "normal" changes in the Earths warming and cooling cycles, and the future does not look very good for future generations.
 
grahamg said:
Now I've deliberately chosen a provocative title here, but the critical element implied or stated, ("can't be bothered?"), I'm really saying as a way of criticising myself!!!!

Its just too easy to put your hands up and say or think, "What can I/We do"? (either because the whole issue seems too big to think about right now, or else other troubles in my life are crowding out thinking about such a fundamental issue).
Click to expand...
Since I probably have less than two decades left on the planet, I can see clearly that modern life is unsustainable. We can't continue with the current (and growing) population without excessively using fossil fuels. Populations survive on food that is grown thousands of miles away. This supply chain requires huge numbers of trucks and trains, which eat fossil fuel. Theses giant carriers cannot simply be switched over to solar power. Our food is grown with fossil fuel powered machines. We in America take the availability of food for examples but a quick look at labels tells you how far it traveled to reach your table.

Even if you do nothing about global warming, it's clear that this distribution model cannot go on forever. In the old days towns were in the center of agricultural areas to provide food. Many conqueror took a city by separating it form the farms and starving it out. Those were towns of hundreds residents. Today we have built cities with millions of residents, depending on a global supply chain. Any interruption in the flow of fossil fuel and we have urban famine.

I wish that I saw a workable solution for this problem. I don't think that anybody does. We are overpopulated and over-urbanized. I can't see how it is possible to stop climate change given this reality. Worse, I don't see how this reality can be sustained.

Of course, there could be the Star Trek models of replicators and transporters. But somehow that seems to far in the realm of science fiction.
 
Don M. said:
The "emphasis" seems to be on Fossil Fuels. However, with the increasing global droughts, the Forest Fires are probably releasing more "pollutants" into the atmosphere than all the cars, trucks, power plants, etc., combined. Then add in the millions of tons of Methane that are locked into the Permafrost, and ocean depths...which are being released increasingly into the air, and I seriously doubt that Anything can be done to reverse these conditions. Increased "regulations" will only drive consumer prices substantially higher, and make life miserable for millions.

Those living in coastal areas, only a few feet above current sea levels, are living on borrowed time. Those living in drought prone areas, surrounded by drying/flammable vegetation, are just one lightning strike away from losing everything.
Click to expand...
I agree. The political will to tackle the problem (in even the smallest way) is not there. When prices start doubling the population will vote in a less green candidate. This week, we have seen what happened in the UK with reduction of long haul trucks. The government immediately moved to get them back on the road. This same government is making long range promises to severely reduce fossil fuel usage. But of course, all of those truck are running on fossil fuel. Do you see the contradiction?
 
Daytona Al said:
I agree. The political will to tackle the problem (in even the smallest way) is not there. When prices start doubling the population will vote in a less green candidate. This week, we have seen what happened in the UK with reduction of long haul trucks. The government immediately moved to get them back on the road. This same government is making long range promises to severely reduce fossil fuel usage. But of course, all of those truck are running on fossil fuel. Do you see the contradiction?
Click to expand...
Trains and trucks can be powered by electric motors and batteries charged with power generated by clean energy sources such as wind and solar power. In the near future, electric vehicles will be cheaper to operate than those run on fossil fuel. It's just a matter of a few years before the price of batteries is low enough and charging of them is fast enough to make fossil fuel powered vehicles obsolete.
 
Irwin said:
The primary contributor to greenhouse gasses is the burning of fossil fuels, and we're slowly being weened off them with the advancement of electric vehicles. Soon, EVs will be ubiquitous, despite the fact that politicians in the pocket of big oil are doing everything they can to stop that from happening. The bare minimum they should do is to let it happen on its own instead of putting up barriers. It can happen more quickly with tax incentives and money for development.

Personally, I try to recycle everything I use that can be recycled. What really pisses me off is, every time there's a disaster, the government ships in pallets full of bottled water, which is a huge amount of plastic waste. Why can't they fly in large water storage tanks and pass out gallon containers instead?
Click to expand...

So what are you going to do about the big problem, which is coal-fired plants used to generate electricity in China and India? Last year alone, China brought something like 184 new coal fired plants online. The West is working hard to decarbonize but these countries are increasing, not decreasing, their carbon emissions.
 
I believe in climate change. I don't believe in most of the solutions offered up by climate activists. We're stuck with fossil fuels for a while and it's going to take a long time (longer than 2050) to make the transition to renewables. And no one is really tackling other issues, including deforestation of the Amazon in Brazil.
 
JimBob1952 said:
So what are you going to do about the big problem, which is coal-fired plants used to generate electricity in China and India? Last year alone, China brought something like 184 new coal fired plants online. The West is working hard to decarbonize but these countries are increasing, not decreasing, their carbon emissions.
Click to expand...
We need to get our own house in order before we can tell other countries what to do. Otherwise, we're hypocrites. But once that happens, we can impose sanctions on countries that act irresponsibility.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top