Solutions for climate change

[smelmoth]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?

It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.

Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.

Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?

The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?

[omaghjoe]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?

It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.

Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.

Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?

The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?

Depends very much on the commodities being consumed.

I get the distinct impression your looking for a simple answer to an extraordinarily complicated question

[Denn Forever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJdz_LgDBE

Interesting watch.  NZ small though.

[RadioGAAGAA]

I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?

Quite easily.

But it would take seismic changes and some sacrifices (but would still maintain decent living standards) to do so and thus will never happen.

=> Meat grown in labs & hydroponics would at a stroke eliminate impact on soil & air from food supply.
=> Using nuclear fission to supply 100% of electricity would eliminate emissions from generation (but not build) of electricity.
=> Same could be done for large boats.
=> Electric cars, lorries, buses, trains for transport.
=> Air travel could use hydrogen generated from enzyme reactions instead of JetA.


Pretty much all the problems have a solution - its just the solution costs more than the status quo.

[BennyCake]

New builds need garden space. Many social housing have little to no gardens. That space is needed to escape, being around plants/trees is good for mental health and people need their own getaway spaces/time from the home/technology etc.

Kids should be taught basic growing of fruit/veg, plants, and having gardens is part of that to encourage them to do it themselves at home. Growing your own salads, say, would cut down on food miles/costs/waste.

Bike dynamos generate electricity, and you can get similar for walking shoes, to generate your own electric, even if it's enough to charge your phones or boil the kettle. It all reduces the need for fossil fuel-generated electricity and encourages families to get active, do without the car, get healthy.

Only minor things, but done on a national scale would make a big difference. Not only that, but it makes sense to generate/grow things yourself (with little effort) without paying for it

[smelmoth]

I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?

Quite easily.

But it would take seismic changes and some sacrifices (but would still maintain decent living standards) to do so and thus will never happen.

=> Meat grown in labs & hydroponics would at a stroke eliminate impact on soil & air from food supply.
=> Using nuclear fission to supply 100% of electricity would eliminate emissions from generation (but not build) of electricity.
=> Same could be done for large boats.
=> Electric cars, lorries, buses, trains for transport.
=> Air travel could use hydrogen generated from enzyme reactions instead of JetA.


Pretty much all the problems have a solution - its just the solution costs more than the status quo.

I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "

[smelmoth]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?

It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.

Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.

Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?

The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?

Depends very much on the commodities being consumed.

I get the distinct impression your looking for a simple answer to an extraordinarily complicated question

Im looking for solutions. Ones that can work. We do need to reign in consumption but can't help but feel that this is easier done with a smaller population especially when there is a chronic need to improve standards of living across so much of the globe. It's very difficult to see how any effective resolution isn't going to involve population reduction

[Milltown Row2]

And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.

Society in general is heading for a collapse due to many factors beyond aging population.

When unskilled labour (and even some skilled labour) is largely replaced by robotics and highly skilled jobs to maintain them - what will those with poor qualifications do?

To even get a job in a engineering factory they are looking decent standard grades nowadays, its not like when I left school and walked into an apprenticeship with no qualifications. the poorer grades will not get you a decent semi skilled job, the ones with the poorer grades will only get non skilled jobs, and those jobs a lot of locals won't work them!

Improving wages in the skilled sector might encourage people to get a trade rather than go to college, and feck about for 3 years

[RadioGAAGAA]

I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "

I should amend that to "Technically quite easily... but it would take seismic changes in attitude and opinion"

[omaghjoe]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?

It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.

Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.

Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?

The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?

Depends very much on the commodities being consumed.

I get the distinct impression your looking for a simple answer to an extraordinarily complicated question

Im looking for solutions. Ones that can work. We do need to reign in consumption but can't help but feel that this is easier done with a smaller population especially when there is a chronic need to improve standards of living across so much of the globe. It's very difficult to see how any effective resolution isn't going to involve population reduction

I was simply trying to shed light on the problems associated with a simple proposal like population decrease would no.1 have drastic consequences, no.2 on its own is not a solution and 3 prob not even be achievable.

The consequences as I have already pointed out are likely economic and thereby societal collapse

Not a solution without reduction in consumption.

Population is unlikely to reduce due to human instinct to reproduce, steady food supply and Western medicine.

[Eamonnca1]

Im looking for solutions. Ones that can work. We do need to reign in consumption but can't help but feel that this is easier done with a smaller population especially when there is a chronic need to improve standards of living across so much of the globe. It's very difficult to see how any effective resolution isn't going to involve population reduction

I don't think the emissions from gas chambers will be helpful.

[smelmoth]

I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?

Quite easily.

But it would take seismic changes and some sacrifices (but would still maintain decent living standards) to do so and thus will never happen.

=> Meat grown in labs & hydroponics would at a stroke eliminate impact on soil & air from food supply.
=> Using nuclear fission to supply 100% of electricity would eliminate emissions from generation (but not build) of electricity.
=> Same could be done for large boats.
=> Electric cars, lorries, buses, trains for transport.
=> Air travel could use hydrogen generated from enzyme reactions instead of JetA.


Pretty much all the problems have a solution - its just the solution costs more than the status quo.

I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "

I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "

I should amend that to "Technically quite easily... but it would take seismic changes in attitude and opinion"

I share your hopes but not your expectations. Nearly all the things you list are things that need to be explored urgently but it is fanciful to describe them as technically quite easy. There also remains an array of practical challenges

The work on cultured meat will continue not least due to the unsustainability of current meat production and the rapidly growing demand from parts of the world. But there is no viable means of meeting this demand from cultured meat nor any prospect of doing so soon. Major issues around commerciality, scale and allergies still need to be resolved.
In your eutopia with 100% of electricity generated from Nuclear fission what is your plan for the waste (on that scale) and you response to the first problem with a reactor or the waste?
Electric transport relies on batteries. Cobalt is bust. You won't be able to rely on lithium batteries for that reason. Can you develop and produce non lithium batteries on the scale you are talking about?
Hydrogen planes could very easily be a pipe dream. It's high cost, highly chemically unstable and low performance.

Apart from Nuclear I'm convinced that everything on you list is worth looking at further but there are massive doubts on all of them. Every one that works helps. But even the ones that do are not going to be helped by ever growing demand. The population question remains

[t_mac]

Bless someone needs a hug.

[From the Bunker]

All solutions need to have a positive financial reward for the consumer. You have to encourage a sort of double reward. You are better off because of your efforts and your planet is better off.

We have a lot of hardship, life changing decisions and adaptions coming down the line. It is important that they are sold as positive as possible.

Taxing the sh1te out of people will only make us bitter, encourage a level rebellion and encourages lazy ways for Governments to get money for the exchequer.

[under the bar]

All solutions need to have a positive financial reward for the consumer. You have to encourage a sort of double reward. You are better off because of your efforts and your planet is better off.

We have a lot of hardship, life changing decisions and adaptions coming down the line. It is important that they are sold as positive as possible.

Taxing the sh1te out of people will only make us bitter, encourage a level rebellion and encourages lazy ways for Governments to get money for the exchequer.

How about a Renewable Heating Incentive scheme?