Still missing the point….
This thread is about climate change. If you want me to change my behaviour to stop **that** happening then don’t try and persuade me by using examples of things that are in fact caused by changes in land use, habitat loss, pollution, over population, predation pressure or myriad other non climate related factors.
And if you care about the natural environment then solving these other things should be of far greater importance to you in the short term than stopping people using fossil fuels.
@crosshair - the oceans are warming up due to climate change and the sandeels are struggling, hence their numbers are declining. Puffins and other seabirds eat sandeels and due to their declining numbers the seabirds are in decline too.
That is definitely attributed to climate change - how does your better land management approach solve that problem?
And if you care about the natural environment then solving these other things should be of far greater importance to you in the short term than stopping people using fossil fuels.
they are not mutually exclusive, given the latter would be beneficial to the former.
So obviously I have less personal experience of that issue but I do wonder if the effects of any (apparent) shift in their range are intertwined with the impact of EU supertrawlers that hoover them up for fishmeal…..
If climate change is the sole issue then I’m guessing no environmentalists are calling for fishing bans….. Oh wait…. 😉
“ A call for evidence by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year found that the industrial fishing of sandeels could be negatively affecting the populations of some of the UK’s most beloved and endangered species, including puffins and kittiwakes.”
All these issues are complex and need to be better evidenced.
@klunk No they are not but one is cheap and quick and the current proposals for the other are expensive and damaging.
The biggest problem I see in the Sandeel story is that of a Brexit benefit (control of our own fish stocks and marine habitats) being squandered.
Even the RSPB agrees 🤣
New post-Brexit fisheries powers mean the UK can fight for its seabirds. It now needs to close UK waters to commercial sandeel fishing or, at the very least, drop catch limits so more fish are available for our seabirds.
So stopping hard working Dean, Sarah or Steve from going to Greece in a plane for their hols “cuz Puffins!!!” might be overkill when some effective governance could solve the problem….
Still missing the point….
This thread is about climate change. If you want me to change my behaviour to stop **that** happening then don’t try and persuade me by using examples of things that are in fact caused by changes in land use, habitat loss, pollution, over population, predation pressure or myriad other non climate related factors.
^^^ Exactly this - and it's not REALLY what you and I think but what the electorate think ^^^
We are damaging the environment in almost all possible ways, even in the UK, but we can do something about it.
We could ..OR we could mitigate climate change.
Thanks to the environmentalist lobby we can't do BOTH anymore, that ship has sailed.
Equally the majority of the electorate need a simple goal. Diluting one with the other just waters down the lot.
Sometimes I wonder if the environmental groups are just so used to lying and denying science they don't believe climate change is real.
It seems to me that some organisations are so wrapped up in what they don't want for non factual reasons they can't focus on the possible.
Also, if the ‘record temperatures’ are in fact that- then almost every native species should go extinct right? It is evolutionarily inefficient to be able to cope with extreme temperature variation and yet everything is coping just fine- almost like they’ve seen it all before.
It depends what you call "native species"... lions and hippo's are "native" but they died out due to climate change along with the majority of their ecosystems.
We also had cold adapted species but they died out due to climate change.
What we have now since Dogger disappeared are the temperature resilient or introduced
The West European hedgehog or common hedgehog, is native to Europe from Iberia and Italy northwards into Scandinavia and into the British Isles.
Plenty of species live in wide temperatures, Orcas as one example can swim to any zone. Not to mention the migratory birds that live from Africa to Scandinavia.
Introduced species such as the European Rabbit thrive from the Australian Outback to Northern Scotland.
You're not a very good troll despite your thoughts to the contrary
Well quite. We generally consider the last ice age to be a good cut off in the native/non-native debate for that very reason.
Arguing the toss over whether the UK temp range extends from -27 to +40 degrees or -29 to +42 degrees in any given decade when that is well within the comfortable sphere of existence for all our flora and fauna just seems laughable.
crosshair
Arguing the toss over whether the UK temp range extends from -27 to +40 degrees or -29 to +42 degrees in any given decade when that is well within the comfortable sphere of existence for all our flora and fauna just seems laughable.
well there are 2 sides...
If we look at Rabbits in Australia for example we can see they are resilient but we can also see they compete for resources with humans and native species.
The other side is species are forever competing with each other and humans as yet another species so why does it matter if a few disappear or become less common. Sure Red Squirrels are cute but if they are replaced by grey does it really matter in the vast scheme of things? I mean, if we could flick a switch and kill every grey squirrel in the UK or Rabbit in Australia should we?
I think the real issues of climate change are competing for resources - not only the UK or not only humans.
To this extent perhaps killing every rabbit in Australia is more useful (due to competing resources) than every grey squirrel in the UK.
Great, when we do start the killing?
I mean, if we could flick a switch and kill every grey squirrel in the UK or Rabbit in Australia should we?
Of course we should. How can reversing some of the extensive damage caused by humans to the fine balance of nature ever be a bad thing?
As of course are most of the humans on this island archipelago. all you ruddy anglo saxon types, coming over here and colonising our land.
Why is anthropomorphic introduction of species ‘bad’ and natural colonisation ’good’ anyway?
Is it mainly because humans have decided we are ‘supra-natural’ beings?
That’s part of the crux of this crusade too isn’t it. To demonise human impact as if we are no longer part of nature.
Rabbits were imported by the normans as a food source IIRC
Rabbits are non native to the UK as well.
Yup. The question is how damaging are they to the ecosystem where they are nonnative. Grey squirrels certainly are and if rabbits pose a similar threat I would want a switch for them.
As of course are most of the humans on this island archipelago.
No all humans. Homo sapiens did not evolve in Europe, let alone the British Isles.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age. All you Anglo Saxons and Normans are jonny come latelys ie invasive species.
That’s part of the crux of this crusade too isn’t it. To demonise human impact as if we are no longer part of nature.
Can we start the cull with you?
Guys - you are attacking crosshair unfairly here IMO. ease off a bit?
And I got modded for saying there were ‘sanctimonious’ and ‘hypocritical’ posts in this thread 🤣
Literally all I’ve said is we would be better off tidying up the earth and the sea before we concentrate on the atmosphere 🤷🏻♂️🤣🤣
Im not sure blaming the illegal immigrant rabbit population is going to reverse a century of carbon pollution, some of which is directly responsible for the rise in the worlds average temperature.
Reducing consumerism and differentiating between wants and needs would. No one needs 10 push bikes, multiple cars, new clothes every week, a new kitchen every 3 years, 12 pairs of trainers, 2 new phones a year, 3 foreign holidays, 5 TVs, and 4 kids yet we all get sucked in. Tjat we are failing in life if we dont conform and provide all the usual tat for our family
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age
Who taught you art and literature?
Before that you were reduced to grunting as you "painted" using hand prints on cave walls.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age
A newcomer then?
Side-tracked: If I had access to time travel, pre ice age Britain would be on my list of places to visit. It would be just amazing.
...as you were
Side-tracked: If I had access to time travel, pre ice age Britain would be on my list of places to visit. It would be just amazing.
So I am not the only one who thinks that!
I have long thought that a big budget movie set in the ice age, or before, in the northern hemisphere would make a brilliant epic film.
It could be based on normal human interactions but set at a time when wolves, bears, beavers, etc, roamed freely instead of being set in contemporary times. It would be awesome imo!
Pre which ice age? there have been a few.
the UK would have been a very different place for sure. NO rabbits taking over
Crosshair is not saying that if skylarks in x location its all ok and that climate change has no effect on wildlife... but dont let that get in the way a good onslaught
See the pond thread, how many are saying look what i have here since i built my pond, dragon flys toads frogs etc etc..simple example but valid..
Same as the open cast mines that get lanscaped..a few round my way now are amazing..bursting with wildlife that was not there when it was a mine.
Thats all that is being said, im thick as mince but can see the point being made...
Pre which ice age?
Preferably one in which humans existed just to give the film a plot. Humans arrived in Europe about 40k years ago, so before the last one.
To demonise human impact as if we are no longer part of nature.
We have forgotten to be a part of nature and ridden over it. Leaving extensive damage in our wake. We have one planet and therefore should look after it. Not **** it over for financial gain or endless expansion. I see the last few pages have had a focus on land use and change. That’s a contributory factor to biodiversity loss and rolls right back to. You guessed it, anthropogenic climate change.
We should be demonised because we’re a set of utter ****s hell bent on destroying the only home we have.
But everything ‘destroys’ something else to exist.
Even plants are scrambling to shade each other out.
Where do you draw the line? We can’t go back to being nomadic hunter-gatherers (as fun as that would be).
If anything, fossil fuels have been a godsend in terms of allowing more people to exist whilst using **fewer** resources.
I’m not even convinced 7 billion nomadic hunter gatherers would have less environmental impact given the acreage of land the remaining tribes need to exist.
Where do you draw the line?
Unsustainable lifestyles, so the line has long gone. I’m just encouraging my kids to play Fallout 4 as a future lifestyle simulator.
How are you getting fewer resources used from the introduction of fossil fuels? We consume a lot more resources than we need. A hell of a lot. Fossil fuels and the products they produce play a huge part in this. How much unnecessary plastic shite do you have in your house? So your argument doesn’t really work.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/superconductor-breakthrough-electricity-power-paper-b2382711.html
I predict that ebikes are about to be taken to the next level, as is electricity transportation.
Surely constructing things out of oil that was locked away in the ground is actually more sustainable than cutting down wood to build things 🤷🏻♂️
(And the unlocked co2 is then freed up to green up the planet ♻️) 🤣
Presumably your kids were playing an imaginary, mime version of Fallout 4, not wasting electricity on an unnecessary electronic device 😉
It’s always other people’s consumption that people highlight as an issue…..
But everything ‘destroys’ something else to exist.
Even plants are scrambling to shade each other out.Where do you draw the line?
I am not sure that you fully appreciate the potential consequences of anthropogenic climate change if you are comparing it with plants scrambling to shade each other out.
You are suggesting that it is difficult to know where to draw the line between plants scrambling to shade each other out and the melting of the polar caps, collapse of the Gulf Stream, etc. as if they are all perfectly normal natural phenomenons.
My kids don’t play Fallout 4 and I don’t own a PlayStation. I was being sarcastic and you’re being a piss poor troll by pretending you don’t know the difference between mining and drilling for fossil fuels or cutting down trees. Any idea of how bad the cement industry is?
I do what I can, try educate others and have recently changed jobs in to the field of sustainability. But it’s nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Butterfly effect innit 😉
The point I was actually making is that it’s nobody’s right in a free and equal society to tell another person that their consumption is the problem if you haven’t 100% eliminated your own.
Hence my original post about the lack of inspirational ‘this is how I’m tackling climate change’ threads.
The alternative would require veering into eugenics and ethnic cleansing territory!
The point I was actually making is that it’s nobody’s right in a free and equal society to tell another person that their consumption is the problem if you haven’t 100% eliminated your own.
That would be impossible to do outside of committing suicide. Even then disposing of the corpse would take up resources. How’s about forming a sensible point or response. Say reducing consumption to around five tonnes of carbon each year?
And bless you for thinking we live in a free and equal society.
No- the corpse would free up some nutrients for something else to exist. Proper recycling.
What if I buy the carbon allowance from ten starving African orphans? Can I have fifty five tons then please?
Ie it still wouldn’t work. Like communism.
Carbon allowance? That’s not how it works. You’re just being a massive dickhead now so I’m leaving it here. Also corpse disposal would take resources. You’re thinking of decomposition. I appreciate that it’s a big word so may confuse you.
No- you have no right to set the limits of anyone else’s consumption.
You can try and inspire them or persuade them but to force them requires setting limits.
Would they be based on basal metabolic rate? Only allow people who can exist on less than 900kcals a day to survive?
Stop letting people over a certain height and weight breed?
Kill anyone who starts accumulating body fat?
Yeah ain’t gonna happen.
Change needs to come from the production end. Green tech needs to allow people to consume as much or even more with less emissions. As I say- nuclear power and almost infinite free electricity would be a good starting point.
As much as crosshair is being a ****, he's right about production. Our personal carbon footprint (a concept invented by BP btw, to shift blame) is pretty marginal compared to that of industry. HOWEVER, the industry is there to serve us, people. The reason the petroleum industry is a massive shit is because we keep using their products. Same with construction, cement manufacture makes up a huge percentage of CO2e emissions, but while people want huge underground parking structures, it's going to continue. It seems like a chicken/egg situation, but it isn't really. Remove demand, change behaviour or simply demand better from the companies responsible. Governments need to be on board and force policy.
Trouble is, climate change is too big. It's too much to even think about and grasp. There's nothing tangible in it, so getting people on board is hard, and suggesting changes to someone's precious little routine, or disrupting their commute, or denying them something only has the apparent effect of making things worse by harbouring resent. People are lazy as **** and stuck in their ways, we essentially had it too easy for too long.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age. All you Anglo Saxons and Normans are jonny come latelys ie invasive species.
You must be able to trace your family back a long way.
