@ayjaydoubleyou, I don't mean to vilify the youth, I'm prob not communicating well
I think the problem is that the ways which (a large proportion of) youth do consume more than past generations are extremely visible
Fast fashion is an example of that -- social media has helped reduced fashion cycles down to weeks rather than seasons (or longer), making clothing part of the weekly shop
It's the visibility of this kind of consumption that makes it easy to point fingers at the youth -- I don't think that's justified, though
Ah, you're comparing todays youth to the youth of yesteryear. I thought it was in comparison to the current older generations right now.
Thats a bit of a differnet arguement, although it does involve the same people.
I feel I'm just confusing myself now...
@ayjaydoubleyou, when you put it that way I don't know what I am comparing to what
Those people that say young people can't afford houses because avocado and toast -- that's the older generation I'm thinking of
when you put it that way I don’t know what I am comparing to what
The root of the argument is whether having a smaller population is good for preventing climate change, and if refusing to have kids achieves that. Not having kids results in a popultion skewed towards the older demographic. Aside from the negative economic and social effects, I don't think it's very good for the climate either because older people consume more resources (health care?) and hence more carbon, but they also obstruct the solutions by voting for reactionary idiots. We need more younger people and fewer older people. Not having kids achieves the opposite.
I don’t think it’s very good for the climate either because older people consume more resources (health care?) and hence more carbon, but they also obstruct the solutions by voting for reactionary idiots. We need more younger people and fewer older people. Not having kids achieves the opposite.
what is age related and what is generational?
In say 20 years will you become an anti immigrant, anti green, tory voting bag of misery?
In say 20 years will you become an anti immigrant, anti green, tory voting bag of misery?
Not a chance. I'm getting more radical and leftwing the older I get.
I'm a pensioner and I am more adamant about socialism, green issues and rejoin than ever. I know no one who has got more right wing as they aged.
Looking at the demographic breakdown of voting, some people (a large number across the country) must have done.
I think this tendency was stronger in the past than it is now. IIRC average age of tory voters is rising which means few new tory voters
To the OP: you might want to read the novel 'The High House' by Jessie Greengrass, which covers the substance of your original post. It avoids the post apocalyptic Mad Max tropes common to this theme. Interesting book, better than some of the rubbish in this genre.
For me, the fact that cars now, in the form of SUVs, are getting heavier, more dangerous, larger and less efficient overall each year and yet more and more popular, speaks to the fact that if you leave it to individuals the vast majority willl not only favour their own convenience above anything else, but rigorously defend this type of behaviour with inane excuses and whatabouttery.
You could argue the same about fast fashion, upgrading your phone each year, eating a diet high in red meat, simply because you like the taste, etc, so to my mind it seems pointless to argue or blame. Using this example to reflect on larger trends in 21st century consumer society, nothing screams "I don't give a ****" like a Range Rover Vogue, yet they're widely esteemed as symbols of status, power, and success, rather than vanity, greed and shame, and they seem to be very popular 'luxury' vehicles. You can blame these people I suppose, but it's futile in a system which endorses and encourages this type of behaviour, so I'm unsure there's much point talking about having children or not having children, or going to Primark or not. Most of us are lazy, selfish, short-sighted and ignorant and will generally always favour our short-term interests and feel that we are not bad people.
I posted the thread because I wanted to know specifically how long we 'have left', so to speak, but I still feel none the wiser. My sister, for example, is looking to buy a house in Dubai. Is that even a good idea? How long before the Gulf largely becomes uninhabitable? Will the planet be able to support 9 billion humans by 2100 with four-to-five degrees of warming? Long-term, should I be planning on retiring to the highlands rather than southern Spain (around 2050)?
The whole concept of Dubai is way above Range Rovers in this conversation. Depending on your age you’ll likely be fine. The next generation is going to be ****ed. God only knows what the one after will be facing.
Fine as long as we reduce the number of old people rather than the young by refusing to have kids.
No you need to get rid of the youngest first from a climate perspective s they will have bigger environmental footprints in the future as they will be around for longer. Yes in theory the young will have a lighter environmental touch but I see very little evidence of this actually happening
I posted the thread because I wanted to know specifically how long we ‘have left’, so to speak, but I still feel none the wiser.
a small number of decades would be my guess. its only a guess. Climate change effects are obvious now - how unpleaasant its going to get and how quickly is very much a matter of debate
its food thats going to be our main issue in the UK - 20 years adn I think real food shortages will start
Will the planet be able to support 9 billion humans by 2100 with four-to-five degrees of warming?
NO to put it simply - unless radical change in the next few years then many billions will die. BY 2100 I see human population in millions not billions and subsitance farming in the high arctic
Long-term, should I be planning on retiring to the highlands rather than southern Spain (around 2050)?
Yes - southern spain is going to become a total desert and people will be moving from it
You might have noticed I am pessimistic. Others will have a different view
How long before the Gulf largely becomes uninhabitable?
It never really has been apart from a small number of members of mainly nomadic tribes living on trade. It is totally dependant on imports and A/C provided by oil.
I wouldn't move to southern Spain now, however, Galicia is one of the places to go. Watching TV in Spain business people in Granada were commenting on how tourism is declining in the high season as people are fleeing the heat. 45°C in Granada, 25°C in Galicia in early July this year.
There was a TV report on changing patterns in France. Demand for second homes in Brittany is very high but the Mediterranean is losing its appeal, especially departement 66 - too hot in Summer.
Having lived through some recent storms I'm wary of anywhere on the sea front or too low and near the sea. My new extension is all reinforced to earthquake standards and the roof timbers are all bolted/screwed together and to the masonry to increase storm resistance - SW France for those who didn't know/had forgotten.
I can't say I'm exactly optimistic either tjagain.
Looking at the area which is on fire in Rhodes, how many years will it take for the entire island to be ravaged by wild fires? I'm not a specialist but I can only imagine that for issues like soil retention, landslides, loss of habitat, etc., this could trigger a collapse in its ecosystems. My experience from Spain, where we a had a big fire a year ago due to some idiots with a desposible bbq, is that ecosystems that far south are very fragile and take many decades to recover.
Edukator,
Sure, at the moment, we get fantastic winters down south so will stay there for the time being but would be very wary of buying there. Already seeing significant issues with water loss in the Sierra Nevada. Summer's are generally starting a month early, and finishing a month later. Heatwaves can happen in April/May now, whereas that was unheard of before.
Going back to pre-WW1 much of the land around the Med was managed: olive groves, cork oaks, vines, cereals. Walking/MTBing round the Med you'll find terracing, irrigation systems and houses/shelters asssociated with this type of agriculture. In France the male population that farmed these areas was disproporionately killed in the Great War, they were more used to hardship and less likely to rebel than the townies. After WW1 the areas returned to scrubland with a much higher fire risk. A hard Winter after WW2 killed most of the olive trees exacerbating the problem.
In Spain it was the Franco driven rural exodus that resulted in large areas no longer being maintained. Planting eucalyptus for paper pulp exacerbated the problem.
A rural exodus, no maintainance, unwise choices of trees for artificial forest and you have a tinder box.
@Edukator - 2050 sea level rise for SSP8.5 for France has max 20cm (using the median not 95th percentile). The extra-tropical cyclones we get in Western Europe are not going to be noticeably worse due to CC. In fact the signal from CC is actually very small compared to the very large natural variability of these systems. From a wind perspective it's not going to get any worse in our lifetimes. The science is clear on the wind component.
Anything involving precipitation will be very different. Pluvial and fluvial flooding will get a lot worse but it might be more of a summer phenomena like it is now. Sadly the science is not there yet to distinguish between current wet and dry winter storms.nnevermind the future ones.
The models of the increase in cyclone intensity due to climatic change are being revised, Elshalimo. In the southern hemisphere we've already reached 2080 on the old models and in the northern hemisphere ahead of predictions.
Meanwhile the number of tornados is going through the roof (sorry)
https://www.rms.com/blog/2018/03/23/tornadoes-in-europe
Some of the increase is due to better data collection but the trend is clear.
having lived here since 1987 my personal experience matches the observed trends.
Tornadoes are severe convective storms which are a very different weather phenomena. They are increasing in both severity and frequency across Europe. My previous post was to address your concern around storm surge flooding like Xynthia.
What we are being warned about more and more in France is:
Immersion waves generated by storms of intensity and the risk is increasing exponentially. We have alertes with the weather forecast. Last night the alertes were orange for storms in the Alps, tonight it's orange for heat wave in Corsica. When it's red they mean it, make unwise choices and you'll die.
Over the past few years we've got used to living through and being warned about some kind of weather extreme pretty much all year around. It's not our immaginations:
So, influenced by the US tornado shelters I've integrated the idea into my extension and I wouldn't buy anywhere low lying in St Jean de Luz or Bayonne.
Going back to pre-WW1 much of the land around the Med was managed: olive groves, cork oaks, vines, cereals. Walking/MTBing round the Med you’ll find terracing, irrigation systems and houses/shelters asssociated with this type of agriculture. In France the male population that farmed these areas was disproporionately killed in the Great War, they were more used to hardship and less likely to rebel than the townies. After WW1 the areas returned to scrubland with a much higher fire risk. A hard Winter after WW2 killed most of the olive trees exacerbating the problem.
In Spain it was the Franco driven rural exodus that resulted in large areas no longer being maintained. Planting eucalyptus for paper pulp exacerbated the problem.
A rural exodus, no maintainance, unwise choices of trees for artificial forest and you have a tinder box.
This is fascinating. I've always wondered that the overgrown/negelected terraces in Southern Spain can't be natural but seem not to have been farmed in many years.
Do you have a source or book or something where I could learn more about this?
I don't have single source, I've always taken an interest in economic and social history since studying economics at uni.
The rural exodus and prgressive decline in the maintainance of some rural areas has many causes. Back in the climatic optimum around 6000 years ago areas were populated where now you'll just find signs of habitation in archeological digs. The natural cooling meant that by roman times some areas of northern Europe were pretty inhospitable.
Sometimes the exodus has been a political decision, the highland clearances for example and Franco.
The major rural exodus around much of the Med started with the industrial revolution and changes in agricultural practices. WW1 was another turning point.
Whilst there are trends the point at which areas were abandonned to scrub is variable. In one village we visited in the Tarn the locals confirmed the terraces had been maintained up to WW1. The local war memorial told the story clearly. The age of the trees that had overgrown the terraces were further confirmation - about a hundred years old.
We did the VTT Cap Nore and chatted with the locals. There the problem was the Winter of 1956:
Ainsi, à Mas-Cabardès dans la Montagne Noire, les oliviers étaient autrefois cultivés et il y avait 2 800 pieds sur le territoire de la paroisse avant la Révolution. Ces oliviers furent tous tués lors du grand hiver de 1709, ils furent replantés et gelèrent à nouveau en 1956 et ne furent pas replantés.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vague_de_froid_de_l%27hiver_1956_en_Europe_et_au_Maghreb
The olive tree fields are now scrub land or have become conifer planations with the associated fire risk.
Around St Tropez where I worked years back the story was about the cork oak industry decline:
The scrub and forestry plantaions that replaced the oak went up in flames in a huge fire a few years back.
I found quite a lot of info on the French agriculture ministry site but it's piece meal.
Long-term, should I be planning on retiring to the highlands rather than southern Spain (around 2050)?
You don't need to go as far north as Scotland but Spain is probably not a great idea. Still you have 30 years to see how it goes so there is that.
You can of course still live in very hot places, Las Vegas population is growing and it gets pretty hot there but all depends what other changes happen other than heat. Scotland could just get wetter and windier and be an even more miserable place to live (climate wise) than it is already.
Seems like climate change, climate crisis, climate emergency, is the next thing our media want us to panic about.
Climate change to drive revenue for CNN
And judging by this thread, the propaganda is working!
And this image seems to sum up perfectly where we are with all of this.
Seems like climate change, climate crisis, climate emergency, is the next thing our media want us to panic about.
Climate change to drive revenue for CNN
And judging by this thread, the propaganda is working!
It's amazing how climate change topics on forums encourage people to join a forum and they always seem to be on the same side of the argument!
Deadly global heatwaves undeniably result of climate crisis, scientists show
Forum could do with a feature where you can't post until a month after you join. The climate change denier nutters would not have the patience for that as they need their attention more quickly than that.
Seems like climate change, climate crisis, climate emergency, is the next thing our media want us to panic about.
Climate change to drive revenue for CNN
And judging by this thread, the propaganda is working!
and what about those of us that get our science news from, y’know, scientists, in peer reviewed journals with demonstrable factual evidence?
Not all of us rely on CNN or Facebook for ultra rendered versions of science.
Seems like climate change, climate crisis, climate emergency, is the next thing our media want us to panic about.
Really? I thought that was trans people
edit: sorry, 'trans ideology'
Scientists have been urging the media to panic for decades -- they are only just taking notice
and what about those of us that get our science news from, y’know, scientists, in peer reviewed journals with demonstrable factual evidence?
I get your point, but even if they wanted to do their own research, scientific literature isn’t particularly accessible to the general public.
and what about those of us that get our science news from, y’know, scientists, in peer reviewed journals with demonstrable factual evidence?
I believe that there is evidence that the earth's climate is changing, as it always has done, but there is no credible or conclusive evidence that human produced CO2 is the cause, or that indeed any warming of the globe will cause the doom and gloom scenarios you lot seem to be signed up to on here. And these are scenarios mostly predicted by computer modelling I might add. As ever with this sort of modelling, shit in equals even bigger shit out.
Oh and plenty of very credible scientists disagree with the climate doomsday cult narrative.
Forum could do with a feature where you can’t post until a month after you join. The climate change denier nutters would not have the patience for that as they need their attention more quickly than that.
a tad extreme, how about a certain amount of time or post count in the bike forum before being let loose in the cesspit of general chat?
And these are scenarios mostly predicted by computer modelling I might add. As ever with this sort of modelling, shit in equals even bigger shit out.
As a proper actual scientist who posts on here once said - "All models are wrong, some models are useful". Nobody would rely on a model to give a precise answer, and the sensitivity to initial conditions can mean that the end results can vary considerably. However if most runs predict one sort of outcome and a few runs predict a different one, which one do you gravitate towards in your analysis?
BTW have you got any published references supporting your point of view? It'd be interesting to read a well researched, well constructed, robust argument against the general consensus.
Climate change to drive revenue for CNN
That's brilliant! It's all a made up story to drive revenue for news providers........ CNN wasn't making any money until the climate change story came along as there was no news happening anywhere!
Obviously the people behind climate change denying aren't concerned about the financial consequences for the petroleum industry. Money doesn't have an important role to play in the petroleum industry.
I’m still of the view that nothing is going to happen until there is a catastrophic event in a major western country. Clearly the New Orleans floods weren’t bad enough for America to wake up. The Chinese won’t care about loss of life
The Chinese won’t care about loss of life
You wouldn't think that with their attempted zero Covid policy.
If climate change kills it will kill fairly indiscriminately.
I believe that there is evidence that the earth’s climate is changing, as it always has done, but there is no credible or conclusive evidence that human produced CO2 is the cause, or that indeed any warming of the globe will cause the doom and gloom scenarios you lot seem to be signed up to on here.
Oh and plenty of very credible scientists disagree with the climate doomsday cult narrative.
Even if we're not the cause, the effects of this warming cycle on the now massive human population and the land it inhabits will be vast. Should we not try to do something about it? Regardless of whether we're the cause, climate composition is the driver - should we not try to affect our fate? To do otherwise is just idiotic, no?
And these are scenarios mostly predicted by computer modelling I might add. As ever with this sort of modelling, shit in equals even bigger shit out.
As someone who's stock and trade is the use and creation of computer modelling, I really think you should look at the models which underpin this. DICE, Nordhouse, etc. Whilst they're simplistic and make assumptions on microeconomics, their trends have been surprisingly accurate as modelling complexity has increased.
"all models are wrong, but some are useful" - George Box.
An alternative for you - why don't you feed one of these models your data and see what it says?
Oh and plenty of very credible scientists disagree with the climate doomsday cult narrative.
Show me.
See daffy. As daft as you think I am there are much dafter folk around🙄🤣
@busylizzie, I'm sure you do your own research, so perhaps research this thread, then you'll find this argument has been done multiple times already and neither side has gotten anything out of it
neither side has gotten anything out of it
I am not sure that is right. I believe that conspiracy theorists get a lot out of espousing their theories, they feel that it empowers them and puts them in control.
A lot of people, for whatever reasons, do not feel fully in control of their lives. By espousing conspiracy theories they feel more in control because they believe that they are not following the narrative dictated to them.
They believe it makes them "three thinking", and consequently they feel more knowledgeable and less ignorant.
Obviously there is nothing wrong with thinking for yourself and not necessarily accepting everything that you are told, imo everything should be challenged.
The problem occurs when you believe a load of bollocks purely because it is the opposite of what you have been told.
So climate deniers do get something out of this debate, it makes them feel good about themselves. People who support the reality based side of the argument get nothing out of the debate because they are wasting their time arguing with people who are not going to ever accept actual facts.
Although there is obviously the entertainment value of arguing with a conspiracy theorist.
@ernielynch, very true
Well, may be I will leave these here for busylizzie then:
https://heated.world/p/edelmans-climate-cop-out
https://tobaccotactics.org/article/edelman/
Talk about propaganda
