To be stressed by climate change

Alexa Snap! (re caravan)

Did anyone watch "Food Unwrapped" on Channel 4 last night? If you didn't see it then I recommend it.
I quote:
"The single biggest way to save the Planet is to change to a vegan diet".
Fair enough. I'm doing my bit.

Well said, Anja! Someone on here actually quoted Piers Corbyn....

I am amazed at some of the posts. Maybe not 98% of scientists believe that climate change is happening and will be catastrophic for mankind and many other species, not the earth of course, the planet will continue. Maybe only 96.5% of scientists. Some have posted they are “well informed” but doubt the facts. Ummmm, who should I believe? I saw all ages on photos of the Extinction Rebellion on TV. So what if a few are oddballs. Maybe oddballs take the risks others few to take. I think it is, in Al Gore’s words, an “inconvenient truth” that we need to change our ways. The whole of humanity cannot live at the level many of us take for granted.

I think Al Gore needs to change his ways and to start practising what he preaches.

I did read what Piers Corbyn said too. It is just as well to listen to all sides.

Climate change is happening, global temperatures are increasing, environments are are changing very few dispute that. Wether mankind can or will do anything to change that is very much in question, we can as individuals even as countries reduce our consumption of resources but do we really expect developing countries to do the same?.

The real issue is not climate change it’s population growth and nobody is facing up to it, there is not a “cat in hells chance” of influencing climate unless global population reduces.

Limiting families to one or two children would make it big difference in a couple of generations and poverty would be greatly reduced. Trying in influence climate with an increasing global population is going to fail.

It is nit ‘in question’ any more David and it is certainly the ‘real issue’. Granted population control is another important issue.

I suspect Mother Earth and her little helpers (pandemics) will very soon flex her muscles and using the channels we have very helpfully opened up for her (global travel) and reduce the population to a manageable level.

It’s not disease that going to reduce population, AIDs was supposed to do that, we are far too clever at finding cures. Much more likely starvation, if population keeps increasing feeding everyone will become difficult

I also believe that we need to do something about the human population. I know that earlier people posted links that showed the population will stabilise, I think at 11 billion, as better education kicks in but I would contend that this is still way too many.

But raising the issue earlier showed that even in this relatively small community people would oppose limiting the number of children a person could have and honestly, I don’t know how you would do it, but I do believe it is the only real answer.

Except like David and Anja I think the four horsemen of the apocalypse will kick in.

David:

"The real issue is not climate change it’s population growth and nobody is facing up to it, there is not a “cat in hells chance” of influencing climate unless global population reduces."

One main reason for population growth is poverty. Poor people in exploited countries tend to require many children as the children work to support the older people who may be in bad health due to poverty.

Poverty is not just lack of food or decent housing poverty is also lack of education or training.

Poor people in very poor countries tend to have many children, not just because they have neither knowledge nor means to prevent pregnancies, but because of high rates of infant mortality.

The key to lower birth rates is improvement in child health. In 1960 the average number of children per woman in Bangladesh was about 7 children. By 2015 that figure had dropped to 2.1 children because when a couple can be confident that their children will grow up healthy, thrive and help to support them in old age, they no longer want a large family.

www.google.com/search?q=birth+rate+in+bangladesh&oq=birth+rate+in+bangladesh&aqs=

So Varian's message and mine together point to poverty as the culprit.

Poverty is caused by over-exploitation of less aggressive people and peoples. I point at Shell in Nigeria as typical of capitalist over -exploitation . Africa and its peoples are still being used and abused .
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42151722

It may be that when people become better off they have fewer children, although an average figure tends to mask the reality. A fall in the UK birth rate includes those who have no children and masks the actual average size of families ie those who have decided to have children.

Should we rely on a percentage of the population being childless or should everyone be limited to a non growth number of children.

However green we are people consume the worlds resources.

Eglantine, don't you think that when we seek the causes of overpopulation it's more accurate if our variable is a nation ?

I believe that the national correlation of birthrate/ affluence is relevant because nations can be graded for affluence.
Details such as some couples choosing to be childless reflects a higher level of education which enables them to have this choice. National educational levels are signs of national affluence.

Yes, I can see that a nation as a variable an give an indication of factors that influence birthrate.

However, education alone doesn’t lead people to limit the size of their family. A well known, well educated politician is happy to have seven or more children.

In order to maintain a nil increase in population we would have to rely on at least three other couples choosing to remain childless.

Is that a feasible way to control human population? If even those who should lead choose to do just what they personally desire?

That’s not a party political statement. Just an example.

Alexa I did say 4 hours every 4 days not 4 hours a day.

It would be horrific to try to limit the number of children people are "allowed" to have. Look at China and baby girls left to die on hillsides because parents want a boy. Apart from that even, it would be unethical.

Raising third world countries out of poverty, stopping wars, and ensuring education for all, might help.

Good luck with that. Doubt if it's going to happen. Some problems just are insurmountable.

I find, since this latest kicked off, I am getting really stressed about using any plastic, and it is hard to do without it, and what to do with the plastic that comes into the house and our council isn't yet able to recycle.

I’m not sure it would be unethical unless for religious reasons a person believes that conception should be left in the hands of their god.

I can’t see how it can be done but I do think reducing the human population is the only answer.

As for plastic. It’s almost impossible to avoid. I can’t see why shops are still using plastic carriers, even if we do have to pay for them. If Primark can use brown paper everybody can. And time to ban those silly plastic party favours.?

It would invade personal freedom. We would become worse than a police state. Gentle persuasion, yes. Law, no.

And those awful helium balloons - they should be banned.

I don't think that focusing solely on population numbers would be the complete solution.

A wealthy western couple with one child (or even none) and a wasteful, extravagant lifestyle including excessive air travel, high meat consumption, polluting vehicles etc etc are doing more damage than a very poor family of six subsisting in a third world country.

There is no one answer. The Extinction Rebellion folks and the dogmatic and naïve Greta Thunberg mean well but haven't a clue about reality. And governments are just paying lip service by fawning over her with no intention of doing anything. Stop using fossil fuels? What about all the hardwood forests being chopped down to produce biofuel? That's just one example. Every action has a consequence and no matter how well meaning you are you could be making things worse. The reality is that we need to consume less of everything from food to energy and stop having so many children.

I thought they make bio fuel out of maize.