IPCC report 2021; analysis, discussion, and are we fucked?

[danny la rouge]

I think

I think this should be seized as an opportunity to try and smash this system. We don't really have a choice if we want to survive

All ideas gratefully received.

 

[glitch hiker]

All ideas gratefully received.

"Lawyers Guns and Money"

Failing that, class consciousness and a healthy penchant for revolution since the world's on its arse

 

[bluescreen]

Yup. We’re not going to capitalism our way out of this.

It's not as if it's one of many problems facing us. It is the existential problem.

 

[bimble]

Have noticed something: The people who actually know about this stuff, those who have a clear grasp on what exactly is going on and what interventions would if implemented avert the worst, they are not wasting their time wallowing in despair. So i reckon if i learn more i might become less useless.

 

[danny la rouge]

Have noticed something: The people who actually know about this stuff, those who have a clear grasp on what exactly is going on and what interventions would if implemented avert the worst, they are not wasting their time wallowing in despair. So i reckon if i learn more i might become less useless.

Indeed. Do you twit?

 

[danny la rouge]

The IPCC AR6 WG1 Report: A Teachers’ Guide

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the long awaited Working Group 1 report of it’s 6th Assessment. We need to remember this date. It will be the day history looks b…

geogramblings.com

 

[bimble]

if we get a new climate emergency forum, it would be nice to have a 'good news' thread in it.
Like for instance just stumbled upon this, which is pretty brilliant.

New maps reveal heat stored in Britain’s abandoned coal mines

The British Geological Survey and Coal Authority have released maps that for the first time reveal the extent to which heat is stored in Britain’s abandoned coal mines.

www.gov.uk

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

no, it’s not overpopulation, it’s unequal wealth and resources that are the problem

Look, I don't want to bang on about this, but I can't just let it go. Every human on the planet eats, drinks, shits, wears clothes, lives in some kind of dwelling, uses some kind of transport, spends all day doing stuff which uses up resources and living space which other organisms might use. This is not news. The more of us there are, the more trouble we create. If we all did things in as green, ecological and non-destructive a way as we possibly could, we would still be displacing other species at a rate of knots, altering our environment in negative ways, just as we did unknowingly in earlier times when our population was so much smaller.

It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?

Just imagine a world where there were 7 billion chimpanzees, without any fossil fuel use at all. Would that be feasible or sustainable? Now substitute humans for chimps and add in our technologies.

 

[NoXion]

Look, I don't want to bang on about this, but I can't just let it go. Every human on the planet eats, drinks, shits, wears clothes, lives in some kind of dwelling, uses some kind of transport, spends all day doing stuff which uses up resources and living space which other organisms might use. This is not news. The more of us there are, the more trouble we create. If we all did things in as green, ecological and non-destructive a way as we possibly could, we would still be displacing other species at a rate of knots, altering our environment in negative ways, just as we did unknowingly in earlier times when our population was so much smaller.

Which is why focusing on so-called "overpopulation" is an absolute garbage way of looking at the problem. It focuses on people as the problem, rather than pollution.

 

[Flavour]

Fuck off Kevbad the Bad

 

[LDC]

It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?

Yeah, no idea, you totally got me.

 

[andysays]

Look, I don't want to bang on about this, but I can't just let it go. Every human on the planet eats, drinks, shits, wears clothes, lives in some kind of dwelling, uses some kind of transport, spends all day doing stuff which uses up resources and living space which other organisms might use. This is not news. The more of us there are, the more trouble we create. If we all did things in as green, ecological and non-destructive a way as we possibly could, we would still be displacing other species at a rate of knots, altering our environment in negative ways, just as we did unknowingly in earlier times when our population was so much smaller.

It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?

Just imagine a world where there were 7 billion chimpanzees, without any fossil fuel use at all. Would that be feasible or sustainable? Now substitute humans for chimps and add in our technologies.

I don't really want to pursue this overpopulation argument too far, but it might be worth pointing out that the reason the human population had risen to the level it has is precisely because of human technologies, from agriculture through the industrial revolution and beyond.

There is no way chimpanzees could ever have achieved a global population of 7 billion, anymore than humans could have done so had they remained as hunter gatherers.

So it's somewhat ironic that all that technological progress which enabled us to achieve so much is now looking like it will be our downfall if we don't find ways of doing without much of it.

 

[NoXion]

I don't really want to pursue this overpopulation argument too far, but it might be worth pointing out that the reason the human population had risen to the level it has is precisely because of human technologies, from agriculture through the industrial revolution and beyond.

There is no way chimpanzees could ever have achieved a global population of 7 billion, anymore than humans could have done so had they remained as hunter gatherers.

So it's somewhat ironic that all that technological progress which enabled us to achieve so much is now looking like it will be our downfall if we don't find ways of doing without much of it.

The development of technology also means that the Earth's "carrying capacity" is an elastic rather than static property. Today's population could never be supported with medieval or even pre-Green Revolution agriculture.

 

[andysays]

The development of technology also means that the Earth's "carrying capacity" is an elastic rather than static property. Today's population could never be supported with medieval or even pre-Green Revolution agriculture.

Yeah, that was kind of the point I was trying to make, though you've made it better than I did

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Fuck off Kevbad the Bad

Ah yes. That old intellectual response.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ah yes. That old intellectual response.

so often 'fuck off' is the first refuge of the scoundrel

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Yeah, no idea, you totally got me.

Answer: not as different as we think

 

[smmudge]

Others have already mentioned their attempt to shift blame with the carbon footprint idea; I expect that kind of tactics to also intensify.

And imagine if all the consumers overnight decided to ensure we live a completely carbon neutral lifestyle. Corporations and industries, shareholders, stock markets and governments would all shit themselves, then probably spend a lot of time and money getting everyone to do things that burn fossil fuels again.

 

[Orang Utan]

I don't really want to pursue this overpopulation argument too far, but it might be worth pointing out that the reason the human population had risen to the level it has is precisely because of human technologies, from agriculture through the industrial revolution and beyond.

There is no way chimpanzees could ever have achieved a global population of 7 billion, anymore than humans could have done so had they remained as hunter gatherers.

So it's somewhat ironic that all that technological progress which enabled us to achieve so much is now looking like it will be our downfall if we don't find ways of doing without much of it.

I suppose if one was to be fatalist about it, the proliferation of technology and the consequential impact on other living things and the environment could be viewed as a natural but inevitable consequence of the evolution of the most successful animal on the planet.

 

[bimble]

Really good, NoXion’s link above. I knew none of this.

The devious fossil fuel propaganda we all use

“This is one of the most successful, deceptive PR campaigns maybe ever.”

mashable.com

 

[LDC]

Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.

Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism and to serve its needs, so mostly the problems within them are a result of this being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.

 

[Flavour]

Ah yes. That old intellectual response.

Your psuedo-rational Malthusian shite doesn't deserve the time and energy I could waste explaining why it's the wrong tree to be barking up. Many others on this thread have already done so. But you won't let it go. The vast majority of the emissions are being caused by a relatively small number of people. The same people who have the power to change the world and don't, deliberately, because they're making too much money the way things are. But yes, let's focus on birth rates in Nigeria and Ethiopia and how religion is responsible for the world's woes.

You're playing right into their hands. Thought better of you. Ciao

 

[LDC]

Misanthropy (people are bad), anti-technology, (technology is bad), and population (people are OK but there's too many of us) are just all variations on a simplistic and incorrect theme.

 

[andysays]

Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.

Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism, so mostly the problems within them are a result of them being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.

Yeah, I should have made a point of situating developing technologies within the social and economic systems which produced them, mostly capitalism.

I wasn't trying to argue that "technology is to blame" merely pointing out human population could never have grown to the level it has without the very technologies whose unbridled use under capitalism are causing climate change.

 

[NoXion]

Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.

Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism and to serve its needs, so mostly the problems within them are a result of this being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.

Here's what I think is a concrete example of what you mention:

As profits slip, Big Oil looks to plastic for cash flow – DW – 03/26/2020

With fuel demand depressed by coronavirus and a price war threatening to pump out more oil, the fossil fuel industry's traditional revenue streams are on even shakier ground. Climate change will make that worse.

www.dw.com

The petrochemical industry is pushing for more plastic production, to preserve their revenue stream as demand for fossil fuels begins to peak.

 

[LDC]

Yeah, I should have made a point of situating developing technologies within the social and economic systems which produced them, mostly capitalism.

I wasn't trying to argue that "technology is to blame" merely pointing out human population could never have grown to the level it has without the very technologies whose unbridled use under capitalism are causing climate change.

Yeah, for sure, wasn't meaning it as a reply to you, just words in my head!

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Well, thanks all those of you misrepresenting my views, putting words in my head and in my postings. I'm not misanthropic, anti technology, racist nor nuffink like any of that. (Although I am anti-religion, well spotted Flavour, but I don't think it the cause of all ills, just an ongoing negative irritant). I also don't think technology will necessarily get us out of the mess we're in. It might, and might have done more efficiently if used constructively in the past. Like most of us on here I have a reasonable idea of what needs to be done to save future generations, but am unsure how the fuck to achieve those things quickly in the actual world we live in.
That doesn't stop me looking at the world and, sometimes, looking at humans as if we were no more than another species, going blithely about our business taking no real thought or action about the future.

 

[LDC]

Well, thanks all those of you misrepresenting my views, putting words in my head and in my postings. I'm not misanthropic, anti technology, racist nor nuffink like any of that. (Although I am anti-religion, well spotted Flavour, but I don't think it the cause of all ills, just an ongoing negative irritant). I also don't think technology will necessarily get us out of the mess we're in. It might, and might have done more efficiently if used constructively in the past. Like most of us on here I have a reasonable idea of what needs to be done to save future generations, but am unsure how the fuck to achieve those things quickly in the actual world we live in.
That doesn't stop me looking at the world and, sometimes, looking at humans as if we were no more than another species, going blithely about our business taking no real thought or action about the future.

Wasn't suggesting you were misanthropic or anti-tech, but trying to point out the similarities between those positions and the over-population one.

 

[lazythursday]

Well I'd probably agree with Kevbad the Bad about technology to at least some extent, and I think this is the most interesting dividing line amongst academic environmentalists. On the one side, the eco modernists, who believe we can decouple growth from carbon emissions and resource use, principally through productivity gains and technology. On the other, the degrowthers / post growthers, who beleive this is likely impossible, more sceptical about the role of technology, and argue for a society operated on different metrics, focusing on human wellbeing and equality rather than growth. This doesn't neatly divide onto pro-capitalism/socialism either, as lots of socialists are also eco-modernists (but they think the roll out of the tech / prevention of emissions can't be achieved under the logic of capitalism) and lots of the degrowthers seem to shy away from using the word socialism (although some eco-socialists are also degrowthers). Jacobin magazine seems to be a particular haunt of the eco-modernist socialists.

I think ultimately any society that is truly sustainable and able to live within planetary limits is the kind of one proposed by degrowthers, rather than some technological utopia.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?

Just imagine a world where there were 7 billion chimpanzees, without any fossil fuel use at all. Would that be feasible or sustainable? Now substitute humans for chimps and add in our technologies.

Damn dude. I've always counted myself among the misanthropes, but you've got me beat all to hell with this.