10 million people will die by 2030’s

M

Matesrates

Well-known member
According to a climate report out today if greenhouse gases are not reduced by 30%. 400 million people will be unable to work outside due to extreme heat as well. Food production will be reduced by 50% by 2050.

So what are they going to do? Obviously what we do on our small island won’t matter a jot unless the big carbon emitting nations like China and America take action.
 
Matesrates said:
According to a climate report out today if greenhouse gases are not reduced by 30%. 400 million people will be unable to work outside due to extreme heat as well. Food production will be reduced by 50% by 2050.

So what are they going to do? Obviously what we do on our small island won’t matter a jot unless the big carbon emitting nations like China and America take action.
Click to expand...
The planet simply can’t cope with the number of people. Population growth is out of control. Reducing population impact , curbing emissions etc is important BUT it is only a short term measure. At some point , like it or not, world population growth HAS to be slowed.
 
Matesrates said:
They’re apparently potty training cows now to cut emissions. They have to go into a barn to poo. 🤨
Click to expand...
World scientists are now revising their findings on methane emissions from cattle. They have calculated methane affects on the Ozone on the same basis as carbon etc but there is a general acceptance that this isn’t the case and methane isn’t as damaging as previously thought. During the lockdowns the greenhouse effect reduced as humans stopped travelling( we all noticed it) BUT cows continued to fart.
 
I’m clearly not an expert, but I can’t help but wonder how the environment coped with millions of ‘natural’ cattle 150 years ago - the buffalo plains in the USA for example. Before the world had the means of killing and butchering cattle for the food chain on an industrial scale.

I’d honestly like to see the research into the wider impact of an industrial food chain - deep-sea shipments of goods, air freight etc - as we’ve all become used to non-indigenous foodstuffs.

Whereas we’ve been burning fossil fuels on a mass scale for far less time, with the current level of intensity really only relevant to the the last 25 years as the demand for petrol, diesel, jet fuel, bunker fuels, petrochemicals and plastics has grown massively. And as the next ‘phase’ in the game is to focus on the petrochemical side to maintain the value of crude as electric vehicles replace the combustion engine there’s really no obvious slowdown in ‘use’ of fossil fuels. China even has coal to chemical facilities.
 
straightatthewall said:
I’m clearly not an expert, but I can’t help but wonder how the environment coped with millions of ‘natural’ cattle 150 years ago - the buffalo plains in the USA for example. Before the world had the means of killing and butchering cattle for the food chain on an industrial scale.

I’d honestly like to see the research into the wider impact of an industrial food chain - deep-sea shipments of goods, air freight etc - as we’ve all become used to non-indigenous foodstuffs.

Whereas we’ve been burning fossil fuels on a mass scale for far less time, with the current level of intensity really only relevant to the the last 25 years as the demand for petrol, diesel, jet fuel, bunker fuels, petrochemicals and plastics has grown massively. And as the next ‘phase’ in the game is to focus on the petrochemical side to maintain the value of crude as electric vehicles replace the combustion engine there’s really no obvious slowdown in ‘use’ of fossil fuels. China even has coal to chemical facilities.
Click to expand...
Good post. Time to have serious conversation on the media, would help, instead of headline grabbing discourse.
 
I think the 'insulate our homes' demo has it dead right.

Why aren't the government insisting every new home built is energy self sufficient, by compulsory installation of heat sumps or solar panels? Its not as though they have to pay for it as the cost is passed on to the home owner. Generous subsidies should be the order of the day for retro fitting to existing homes. The saving in power bills will be ploughed back into the economy.

Let cows fart I say.
 
Simple solution is that we all become Vegans and no need for cows.
Thats what 5he do gooders are saying
Then the fart methane we emit from eating the likes of sprouts etc will be even worse.
 
Max of 2 children allowed per woman. If one dies you can replace.

Might read as harsh and callous but would gradually shrink the world population as many can’t have kids and many don’t want kids.

2 is enough in this overpopulated world if we are serious about helping future generations.

Of course policing it would be challenging unless the world bought into this ethos
 
Is it really population growth that's the issue or rampant capitalism that perpeptuates needless consumption?

The average garment in Primark will contain a majority proportion of polyester. That polyester is almost certainly coming from a fossil fuel route - crude to petrochemical naphtha or reformate to extracted aromatic hydrocarbons to base chemicals to intermediates to polyester fibers. It's all done on a massive scale. Particularly in China, but also in South Korea and India plus the long-established plants in North America and Europe (albeit where more PET resin is produced for plastic bottles.)

Primark - of course - aren't the only ones and fashion isn't the only industry to look at. Electronic appliances, food packaging, processed wood materials, insulation materials etc. Everywhere you look we have a cycle that encourages waste and new consumption. All of which then supports the global supply chain, which also contributes hugely to CO2 emissions.
 
straightatthewall said:
Is it really population growth that's the issue or rampant capitalism that perpeptuates needless consumption?

The average garment in Primark will contain a majority proportion of polyester. That polyester is almost certainly coming from a fossil fuel route - crude to petrochemical naphtha or reformate to extracted aromatic hydrocarbons to base chemicals to intermediates to polyester fibers. It's all done on a massive scale. Particularly in China, but also in South Korea and India plus the long-established plants in North America and Europe (albeit where more PET resin is produced for plastic bottles.)

Primark - of course - aren't the only ones and fashion isn't the only industry to look at. Electronic appliances, food packaging, processed wood materials, insulation materials etc. Everywhere you look we have a cycle that encourages waste and new consumption. All of which then supports the global supply chain, which also contributes hugely to CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
On a personal level we can all do a lot more to stop the cycle.
I do try to buy second hand things when it is possible, this means that the carbon is already spent and we are not fuelling more carbon emissions. Stuff I have bought second hand includes my car, my bike, my kitchen, most of my clothes, most of my furniture, crockery etc.
I am not sure why this sort of recycling is not promoted more as being green. If we did this sort of thing on a large scale it would put a dent in supply chains. Of course I buy stuff new as well but it is a small contribution.
 
straightatthewall said:
Well obviously one contributes to the other, that's clear. Although are the countries with the fastest growing populations also the ones with the fastest consumption? Population growth in China and India is slowing. Consumption is increasing.
Click to expand...
It's a conundrum.
The way to tackle population growth is to make people rich. But with wealth comes more consumption.

You can't fight nature and if we continue as we are then I predict in coming decades and centuries that there will be a series of natural disasters that may wipe out a lot of the world's population until either extinction or (hopefully) a sustainable equilibrium is found.
 
straightatthewall said:
Well obviously one contributes to the other, that's clear. Although are the countries with the fastest growing populations also the ones with the fastest consumption? Population growth in China and India is slowing. Consumption is increasing.
Click to expand...

They are both an issue, it’s as simple as that. We would still have issues in delivering what might be considered the ‘basic essentials’ for the expanding global population.

Obviously add to that the kind of excessive consumption seen in the US and apply that to a fraction of the global population and you have an issue.
 
Blame cannot be attributable to one political ideology if a world solution is to be found, each must be grown up and accept responsibility.
 
Matesrates said:
I’ve sold a car, so now have one, I walk when I can, eat very little meat, how about you?
Click to expand...
Not trying to be contentious here Mates, selling a car is only relevant if your making less journeys in the transport you use or that transport is fully researched into being less damaging to the planet.Likewise for meat consumption... is the food your now eating really more environmentally friendly?
 
O
Newholland said:
Not trying to be contentious here Mates, selling a car is only relevant if your making less journeys in the transport you use or that transport is fully researched into being less damaging to the planet.Likewise for meat consumption... is the food your now eating really more environmentally friendly?
Click to expand...
yep' doing a lot less journeys by car, only 3,700 miles last twelve months. I think the food I’m eating is more environmentally friendly, however, I’m not an expert, so can’t categorically say it is.

Problem is, whatever we do as individuals in this country will have little impact, governments around the world need to sort this out, and as I said earlier, the likes of America and China, not to mention India and Pakistan, will have to be persuaded to get on board, otherwise we’re doomed by the sound of it.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Personally I’ve cut my carbon footprint by more than 60%. I’d expect to have a negative footprint within the next 5 years 👍
Click to expand...
Definitely the way to go in the short term, I’m uncomfortable with so called carbon trading, reduction has to be the goal, which will necessitate big changes for all of us.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
On a personal level we can all do a lot more to stop the cycle.
I do try to buy second hand things when it is possible, this means that the carbon is already spent and we are not fuelling more carbon emissions. Stuff I have bought second hand includes my car, my bike, my kitchen, most of my clothes, most of my furniture, crockery etc.
I am not sure why this sort of recycling is not promoted more as being green. If we did this sort of thing on a large scale it would put a dent in supply chains. Of course I buy stuff new as well but it is a small contribution.
Click to expand...
One reason is most people want the latest trend another being there are a great many people who are a little snobbish about second-hand goods hence the trendy phrase "Pre-Loved".
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
They are both an issue, it’s as simple as that. We would still have issues in delivering what might be considered the ‘basic essentials’ for the expanding global population.

Obviously add to that the kind of excessive consumption seen in the US and apply that to a fraction of the global population and you have an issue.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing that they're both an issue. A slower population growth rate in India versus Syria (for example) means little when you're talking about a population of 1.4 billion...The excessive consumption seen in the US is also the model or the 'aim' for countries like China and India where the growing middle class see 'having things' as a sign of achievement. After all, that's how it is in the USA and other rich countries (including the UK).

As I said, 'we' consume at ludicrous levels of excess and waste things without a second thought. The energy consumption and CO2 implications of such behaviour is not only unsustainable but also disgraceful in its concept. The every day world is full of utterly useless and pointless objects and 'stuff' that exist solely to keep economies moving, whilst providing zero benefit.

Newholland - I would argue that it consumption is about political ideology. It's all about wanting more ALL THE TIME. Wanting more than your neighbour. Wanting to be richer than the next country. Maintaining an endless cycle of money movement to grease the wheels and sustain a system. To bring change to that, you have to create a negative scenario for those that currently benefit the most from the system. That can only happen if there's a political will that is supported by the populous. IMO.
 
Newholland said:
Definitely the way to go in the short term, I’m uncomfortable with so called carbon trading, reduction has to be the goal, which will necessitate big changes for all of us.
Click to expand...
I’m not trading… I’ve planted around 500 trees and maintain a further 1500 mature trees. Property is semi off grid and will install Ground Source Heat Pumps and insulate throughout to modern standards.
 
Newholland said:
The planet simply can’t cope with the number of people. Population growth is out of control. Reducing population impact , curbing emissions etc is important BUT it is only a short term measure. At some point , like it or not, world population growth HAS to be slowed.
Click to expand...
Population growth is not “out of control”, this gets stated all the time but is wrong if you look at the data. Population growth already HAS been slowed. It’s been slowed for over 30 years.

Population growth has fallen every year since 1987, where it was 1.8%. The number of children in the world as a total has stopped increasing. It’s now at a long flat peak and it will go down again.

The population will peak at around 11 billion by 2100 before decreasing again. Some balk at this figure, but we’ll already be at 8 billion in 3 years. That’s a growth of 3 billion over the next 75 years, compared to growth of 5 billion from the last 75 years. This is the UN’s estimate, some estimate lower.

The population problem will, and already is solving itself, the problem the world faces is that the population growth will continue in places like Africa, where countries are rapidly developing. Asia and Africa already dwarf Europe and North America in terms of population, something that will continue to increase. The problem is those populations use a fraction of the energy on a per capita basis than western countries, but as they continue to develop, their energy usage will increase and the world will not be able to cope.

The problem is they want a life like ours, and who are we to deny it to them? That’s why if we’re serious about this the West needs to take the lead and cut a path forward for developing countries to follow, allowing them to continue to develop but in a more sustainable way than we have. China is a different beast but if we can find a way to make it not only economically viable, but economically beneficial to be sustainable, we could win them over too.

I’m not an environmental expert so whilst I can identify the problem and see where the answer lies, I’m not sure I know what the exact answer is. Part of me thinks it will need a fundamental rethink of how our economy works, to ensure that sustainable practices are rewarded, on every level, individual, company, national and international.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not trading… I’ve planted around 500 trees and maintain a further 1500 mature trees. Property is semi off grid and will install Ground Source Heat Pumps and insulate throughout to modern standards.
Click to expand...
That’s impressive, obviously beyond the means of most of us though.
 
straightatthewall said:
Not disagreeing that they're both an issue. A slower population growth rate in India versus Syria (for example) means little when you're talking about a population of 1.4 billion...The excessive consumption seen in the US is also the model or the 'aim' for countries like China and India where the growing middle class see 'having things' as a sign of achievement. After all, that's how it is in the USA and other rich countries (including the UK).

As I said, 'we' consume at ludicrous levels of excess and waste things without a second thought. The energy consumption and CO2 implications of such behaviour is not only unsustainable but also disgraceful in its concept. The every day world is full of utterly useless and pointless objects and 'stuff' that exist solely to keep economies moving, whilst providing zero benefit.

Newholland - I would argue that it consumption is about political ideology. It's all about wanting more ALL THE TIME. Wanting more than your neighbour. Wanting to be richer than the next country. Maintaining an endless cycle of money movement to grease the wheels and sustain a system. To bring change to that, you have to create a negative scenario for those that currently benefit the most from the system. That can only happen if there's a political will that is supported by the populous. IMO.
Click to expand...
In reply to the second part of your post directed to me. Totally agree, greed and excessive environmentally damaging consumption must be addressed but they are prevalent across all political ideology, all be to a greater extent amongst the countries you’ve highlighted. However people in countries with different political systems to ours or the US for example, aspire to reach such wealth. People in this country who are totally opposed to this government and it’s ideals want more money to consume more. All must accept responsibility and all must work together. It’s a massive ask but it must happen.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not trading… I’ve planted around 500 trees and maintain a further 1500 mature trees. Property is semi off grid and will install Ground Source Heat Pumps and insulate throughout to modern standards.
Click to expand...
Didn’t say you were, I meant generally, apologies if it came across badly.
 
BWseasider said:
Population growth is not “out of control”, this gets stated all the time but is wrong if you look at the data. Population growth already HAS been slowed. It’s been slowed for over 30 years.

Population growth has fallen every year since 1987, where it was 1.8%. The number of children in the world as a total has stopped increasing. It’s now at a long flat peak and it will go down again.

The population will peak at around 11 billion by 2100 before decreasing again. Some balk at this figure, but we’ll already be at 8 billion in 3 years. That’s a growth of 3 billion over the next 75 years, compared to growth of 5 billion from the last 75 years. This is the UN’s estimate, some estimate lower.

The population problem will, and already is solving itself, the problem the world faces is that the population growth will continue in places like Africa, where countries are rapidly developing. Asia and Africa already dwarf Europe and North America in terms of population, something that will continue to increase. The problem is those populations use a fraction of the energy on a per capita basis than western countries, but as they continue to develop, their energy usage will increase and the world will not be able to cope.

The problem is they want a life like ours, and who are we to deny it to them? That’s why if we’re serious about this the West needs to take the lead and cut a path forward for developing countries to follow, allowing them to continue to develop but in a more sustainable way than we have. China is a different beast but if we can find a way to make it not only economically viable, but economically beneficial to be sustainable, we could win them over too.

I’m not an environmental expert so whilst I can identify the problem and see where the answer lies, I’m not sure I know what the exact answer is. Part of me thinks it will need a fundamental rethink of how our economy works, to ensure that sustainable practices are rewarded, on every level, individual, company, national and international.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. You’ve hit the nail on the head re population growth in certain countries who are aspiring to reach our types of lifestyle. World discussion is needed . The 3 billion you refer to is better than 5 but it’s 3 billion too many, collectively we can act .
 
straightatthewall said:
Not disagreeing that they're both an issue. A slower population growth rate in India versus Syria (for example) means little when you're talking about a population of 1.4 billion...The excessive consumption seen in the US is also the model or the 'aim' for countries like China and India where the growing middle class see 'having things' as a sign of achievement. After all, that's how it is in the USA and other rich countries (including the UK).

As I said, 'we' consume at ludicrous levels of excess and waste things without a second thought. The energy consumption and CO2 implications of such behaviour is not only unsustainable but also disgraceful in its concept. The every day world is full of utterly useless and pointless objects and 'stuff' that exist solely to keep economies moving, whilst providing zero benefit.

Newholland - I would argue that it consumption is about political ideology. It's all about wanting more ALL THE TIME. Wanting more than your neighbour. Wanting to be richer than the next country. Maintaining an endless cycle of money movement to grease the wheels and sustain a system. To bring change to that, you have to create a negative scenario for those that currently benefit the most from the system. That can only happen if there's a political will that is supported by the populous. IMO.
Click to expand...


I think the concept of ‘abundance = success’ is locked into the human condition. We have always collected and displayed our ‘things’ and if you go back to basics, it’s part of a standard courtship ritual and driven by the need to procreate and attract the best partner.

Obviously capitalism (consumerism) has taken things to a whole new level, but it’s quite how you climb down from the situation we find ourselves in that presents the problem.

Where do you go with it all?

I mean for years I assumed that everyone must feel the same as me about it… I.e. you realise that it’s all just absolute bullshit and that you’ve probably wasted most of your life chasing some imagined state of ‘happiness’ that will eventually materialise the more shit you manage to accumulate…. Of course the opposite is true. However I read comments on the other thread from malced and realise that people are fully bought up into this shit….

I mean you only have to look in the BFC Club shop and feast your eyes on the amount of utter shit that is available to purchase and lumber on some poor unsuspecting relative….. “There you go Dave, I got you a BFC themed squeezy stress ball to go with your matching BFC ruler and pencil case, so you can stick it in a cupboard with all your other useless plastic shit”

I dunno, maybe Dave finds measuring his penis stressful, but you get the point!
 
It's too late anyway and capitalism won't change beyond some half arsed publicity stunts.

We've fucked it, probably better to just accept our fate as a species.
 
Newholland said:
Didn’t say you were, I meant generally, apologies if it came across badly.
Click to expand...
No it’s a fair point though…. There are people who just look at it as a transactional decision, rather than actually doing anything positive to reduce consumption.

It obviously presents big challenges for farming of course.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I think the concept of ‘abundance = success’ is locked into the human condition. We have always collected and displayed our ‘things’ and if you go back to basics, it’s part of a standard courtship ritual and driven by the need to procreate and attract the best partner.

Obviously capitalism (consumerism) has taken things to a whole new level, but it’s quite how you climb down from the situation we find ourselves in that presents the problem.

Where do you go with it all?

I mean for years I assumed that everyone must feel the same as me about it… I.e. you realise that it’s all just absolute bullshit and that you’ve probably wasted most of your life chasing some imagined state of ‘happiness’ that will eventually materialise the more shit you manage to accumulate…. Of course the opposite is true. However I read comments on the other thread from malced and realise that people are fully bought up into this shit….

I mean you only have to look in the BFC Club shop and feast your eyes on the amount of utter shit that is available to purchase and lumber on some poor unsuspecting relative….. “There you go Dave, I got you a BFC themed squeezy stress ball to go with your matching BFC ruler and pencil case, so you can stick it in a cupboard with all your other useless plastic shit”

I dunno, maybe Dave finds measuring his penis stressful, but you get the point!
Click to expand...
Dave does...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No it’s a fair point though…. There are people who just look at it as a transactional decision, rather than actually doing anything positive to reduce consumption.

It obviously presents big challenges for farming of course.
Click to expand...
Farming is used to facing challenges, as far as climate change goes , we face it literally every day, we can be part of the solution and must be👍
 
10 million isn’t enough, needs to be 30 to 40 times that number and the planet might have a chance. We need a world war, a massive pandemic or we bring back death penalty for any offence. Humans are the disease killing the planet and they need to be drastically reduced in number.
 
Jefflynnessongsheet said:
10 million isn’t enough, needs to be 30 to 40 times that number and the planet might have a chance. We need a world war, a massive pandemic or we bring back death penalty for any offence. Humans are the disease killing the planet and they need to be drastically reduced in number.
Click to expand...
1631720433210.png
 
straightatthewall said:
Is it really population growth that's the issue or rampant capitalism that perpeptuates needless consumption?

The average garment in Primark will contain a majority proportion of polyester. That polyester is almost certainly coming from a fossil fuel route - crude to petrochemical naphtha or reformate to extracted aromatic hydrocarbons to base chemicals to intermediates to polyester fibers. It's all done on a massive scale. Particularly in China, but also in South Korea and India plus the long-established plants in North America and Europe (albeit where more PET resin is produced for plastic bottles.)

Primark - of course - aren't the only ones and fashion isn't the only industry to look at. Electronic appliances, food packaging, processed wood materials, insulation materials etc. Everywhere you look we have a cycle that encourages waste and new consumption. All of which then supports the global supply chain, which also contributes hugely to CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
There's also the Insta generation who can't be seen wearing the same outfit twice. Brand new clothes disposed of after an evening out.

Consumption at its worst.
 
Wizaard said:
There's also the Insta generation who can't be seen wearing the same outfit twice. Brand new clothes disposed of after an evening out.

Consumption at its worst.
Click to expand...
It's not just fashion. The built-in obsolescence for appliances and tech-goods is another massive issue. What happens to all those old handsets and TV's that go from being cutting edge to out of date within a few years? And cheap (and shit) furniture made from all kinds of MDF, man-made wood products and PU foams that use lots of crude derived materials.
 
Chunkylad said:
Max of 2 children allowed per woman. If one dies you can replace.

Might read as harsh and callous but would gradually shrink the world population as many can’t have kids and many don’t want kids.

2 is enough in this overpopulated world if we are serious about helping future generations.

Of course policing it would be challenging unless the world bought into this ethos
Click to expand...
“Per Woman” do you mean a man could still father 10 children say, as long as its by 5 different women, Boris Johnson way ahead of you there, just like Thatcher was an environmentalist by shutting all the coal mines down!
 
Bottle said:
“Per Woman” do you mean a man could still father 10 children say, as long as its by 5 different women, Boris Johnson way ahead of you there, just like Thatcher was an environmentalist by shutting all the coal mines down!
Click to expand...
Yes.
The ladies will have the control here - they’ll have to choose their partners as it’s the only way it can be managed correctly. 2 kids per woman
 
Chunkylad said:
Yes.
The ladies will have the control here - they’ll have to choose their partners as it’s the only way it can be managed correctly. 2 kids per woman
Click to expand...
So your girlfriend/s.o./wife says to you “Yes of course I want to have a child with you, but just the one for now, just in case, you know, just in case Boris comes a knocking!” - watcha gonna do then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top