To think we’ve already f****d it up when it comes to the environment.

[MynameisWa]

Am I being unreasonable in thinking we’ve already passed the point of no return when it comes to the environment and that it’s just no one in power or in the know wants to be the one to admit it?

Personally I can't get too excited about hitting 1.9 degrees instead of 2 because there are still a lot of terrible things that will happen at 1.9

We weren’t even close to being on track for 2 a few weeks ago. And things will still be bad at 2, or even 1.5 (which should remain the goal).

But the pace and scale at which they increase beyond 2 degrees is terrifying. We still need to push to go further and faster. And for the current commitments to harden and be delivered, especially for India.

But commitments that take us below 2 at this stage are beyond what anyone expected out of Glasgow. And would leave the world ‘only a bit fucked’ rather than totally screwed by the end of the century.

I don't think it's realistic to end beef eating completely but cutting down by half would still be rather helpful in reducing demand.

This is what I mean. It’s not a negotiation. The environmental consequences of continuing to eat beef will happen.

@Squeezita

Some global warming is antropogenic, but not all and that is a fact. But the planet has been much warmer than even the worst global warming projections and life flourished on Earth. Life adapts, evolves and migrates as it has always done and always will, humans included.

So making the planet a bit warmer than expected during the Ice house geologic phase, does not make humans a cancer that is destroying the planet.

(I’m not usually the optimist/cheerleader on this stuff. It honestly feels different in the last few years than any time in the last 20.)

No, what’s sickening is the propensity to keep our heads buried in the sand. Unless we act fast, it’s bye bye to humans and I think that the rest of the species on earth would welcome that.

@PlanDeRaccordement

So sick of the doomsaying. We haven’t passed a “point of no return” whatever that means. Significant changes have already happened world wide to protect the environment. Humanity is not a parasite, we are part of the ecosystem.

We have, because this population size globally is not sustainable with the amount we consume. The impact per person...

It is not sustainable. Doesn't mean we'll all drop dead in 10 years but in another 50-150 say, it'll be a disaster

No, it is not too late and whenever someone says that it is I just suspect it is because they are lazy, selfish f.....s who want an excuse to not make any effort at all.

This population size is perfectly supportable

However western lifestyles are not

If we got rid of the richer people We would not have a problem. The population could grow much larger without us

16% consume 80% of resources

@TerribleZebra

YABU I'm an environmental scientist and it depends on your definition of design fucked. If you are being completely human centric and you mean we are fucked then you might have a point. The environment will adapt and change as it always does. People need to think far more holistically about humans being part of the wider environment. Start reducing what you consume and start helping to protect what we have (practically not just clicking on posts on social media).

Out of interest, what's your opinion on those population density models people churn out, e.g. "the entire human race could live on NZ"? How accurate are they?

Because they annoy the crap out of me. People say Britain is only 15% occupied - it's 100% occupied, actually, just not by humans! And not only do those other organisms have no less right to a home, we also depend on biodiversity to live, and Britain was recently judged to have catastrophic biodiversity losses.

@Squeezita

No, what’s sickening is the propensity to keep our heads buried in the sand. Unless we act fast, it’s bye bye to humans and I think that the rest of the species on earth would welcome that.

“unless we act fast” are you the obtuse one? We’ve been implementing environmentally friendly laws and technology for over 70 fucking years. Things are worlds better now than they were when I was a child so there is more hope to be had. No one has their heads in the sand. This gets me really irate when today’s youth think they are the first people to think about the environment and make green changes. You don’t have the faintest clue of how much work has already been done.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Squeezita

Some global warming is antropogenic, but not all and that is a fact. But the planet has been much warmer than even the worst global warming projections and life flourished on Earth. Life adapts, evolves and migrates as it has always done and always will, humans included.

So making the planet a bit warmer than expected during the Ice house geologic phase, does not make humans a cancer that is destroying the planet.[/quote]
What a load of right wing, Trumpian shit.

Even the Met Office says the evidence is clear and that the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal.

‘Natural climate cycles can change the temperature of Earth, but the changes we are seeing are happening at a scale and speed that natural cycles cannot explain. These cycles affect the global temperature for years, or sometimes just months, not the 100 years that we have observed. Meanwhile, longer-term changes like Milankovitch cycles and solar irradiance take thousands and thousands of years.’

@bbgxd
this population size globally is not sustainable with the amount we consume

Consume of what? There is enough, air, water, food, land to live on. Consumption is not the problem, the problem is waste products and the fact we need to continue to improve in reducing and treating waste so that it doesn’t poison the environment.

You lot remind me of Malthus 200yrs age he said the population was not sustainable that we’d have famine and wars over food, collapse of civilisation, and he was wrong, wrong, wrong.

We have not done enough as fast as we should

Some disasters are now inevitable

Mass extinctions including possibly humans are not yet inevitable

If you think it's no good , you'll be unable to fly to Spain twice a year , there's no point doing anything , fine

If you think , I've got kids, I'd like them to have a safe , happy life then there is plenty still to fight for

I have a National Geographic from 1970 which has a big chapter on emissions.

unless we act fast” are you the obtuse one? We’ve been implementing environmentally friendly laws and technology for over 70 fucking years. Things are worlds better now than they were when I was a child so there is more hope to be had. No one has their heads in the sand. This gets me really irate when today’s youth think they are the first people to think about the environment and make green changes. You don’t have the faintest clue of how much work has already been done.

What a joke. Even BoJo has admitted we’ve flunked the Paris agreement and that some countries are already going to be facing cataclysmic changes soon. People like you only care when it’s on your doorstep. But don’t worry, it will be soon enough.

And way to make assumptions about my age. 😂

@Squeezita
Natural climate cycles can change the temperature of Earth, but the changes we are seeing are happening at a scale and speed that natural cycles cannot explain. These cycles affect the global temperature for years, or sometimes just months, not the 100 years that we have observed. Meanwhile, longer-term changes like Milankovitch cycles and solar irradiance take thousands and thousands of years.’

Doesn’t in any way contradict what I said at all that climate change is partially anthropogenic. It says it right there in black and white “natural climate cycles can change the temperature of the Earth”. They haven’t gone on holiday because humans are around these cycles are still there as background noise with the human impacts on top. You’re just being a chicken little about it.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Squeezita
Natural climate cycles can change the temperature of Earth, but the changes we are seeing are happening at a scale and speed that natural cycles cannot explain. These cycles affect the global temperature for years, or sometimes just months, not the 100 years that we have observed. Meanwhile, longer-term changes like Milankovitch cycles and solar irradiance take thousands and thousands of years.’

Doesn’t in any way contradict what I said at all that climate change is partially anthropogenic. It says it right there in black and white “natural climate cycles can change the temperature of the Earth”. They haven’t gone on holiday because humans are around these cycles are still there as background noise with the human impacts on top. You’re just being a chicken little about it.[/quote]
The point is the natural increase happens over 10,000 - 15,000 years.

Humans are the cause of the increase happening in 100 years.

Do you seriously not get that?

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Squeezita

Some global warming is antropogenic, but not all and that is a fact. But the planet has been much warmer than even the worst global warming projections and life flourished on Earth. Life adapts, evolves and migrates as it has always done and always will, humans included.

So making the planet a bit warmer than expected during the Ice house geologic phase, does not make humans a cancer that is destroying the planet.[/quote]
You fundamentally misunderstand the science. Biological adaptation is under severe stress with the pace of global heating. And that doesn’t relate to the weather being a little bit warmer! Think of a plant that hosts part of the lifecycle of an insect that is needed to pollinate our food crops. The climate change related increase in heavy rainfall and long dry spells as UK farmers are already experiencing, devastate the plant population because it cannot tolerate its roots standing in water for weeks, and it has knock on effects on the local insect population. A smaller proportion of vegetable crops are pollinated by this insect and when it comes to harvest time, there is less food for humans. So prices rise, and there are shortages.

Species don’t disappear with a fanfare. They just cease to exist, then that impacts the other species that were part of the same ecosystem. The interdependencies of species are so numerous and complex, that even biologists cannot understand it in its entirety.

@bordermidgebite

This population size is perfectly supportable

However western lifestyles are not

If we got rid of the richer people We would not have a problem. The population could grow much larger without us

16% consume 80% of resources

Yet it's the low income people who should stop having children, according to many. (Or even people not rich enough to provide a separate room for each child, according to a recent thread on here.)

@Squeezita
Of course I get it, as it’s what I said.
But my point is that global warming is not a death sentence for life on Earth or even humans. The worst that will happen is we will skip an Ice Age. Which isn’t so bad...Ice Ages kill civilisation. All of human civilisation as we know it today was developed after the last Ice Age ended and yet we as a species, modern humans, have lived through ten Ice Ages...and that includes interglacial periods that were warmer than 2C warmer than today.

“Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. Compared to most of Earth’s history, today is unusually cold; we now live in what geologists call an interglacial—a period between glaciations of an ice age. But as greenhouse-gas emissions warm Earth’s climate, it's possible our planet has seen its last glaciation for a long time.”
www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

Actually from global warming perspective it is the worst it's been ( in recent millennium anyway )

Yes we have cleared up the visible, it's harder for people to deny pollution in rivers

It's the invisible that's harder

But yes there is still hope and a chance we avoid catestrophic ( from a human person) changes to live on earth

The world won't end, it will just become increasingly unpleasant for more and more people, which will eventually decrease the population to a more sustainable amount.

We could fix it now by incentivising reducing the birthrate, but even discussig is generally considered abhorrent.

Ironically China's "One Child" policy has had a bigger environmental impact than any anything being discussed by COP (out).

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Squeezita
Of course I get it, as it’s what I said.
But my point is that global warming is not a death sentence for life on Earth or even humans. The worst that will happen is we will skip an Ice Age. Which isn’t so bad...Ice Ages kill civilisation. All of human civilisation as we know it today was developed after the last Ice Age ended and yet we as a species, modern humans, have lived through ten Ice Ages...and that includes interglacial periods that were warmer than 2C warmer than today.

“Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. Compared to most of Earth’s history, today is unusually cold; we now live in what geologists call an interglacial—a period between glaciations of an ice age. But as greenhouse-gas emissions warm Earth’s climate, it's possible our planet has seen its last glaciation for a long time.”
www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been[/quote]
Isn’t so bad?!

• Rising sea levels could impact 1 billion people by the year 2050
• Heat waves will become more frequent and severe around the world, affecting hundreds of millions—or even billions—of people
• Global warming increases the risk of more frequent—and heavier—rainfall, snowfall, and other precipitation. And as that risk increases, so too does the risk of flooding.
• As the earth continues to warm, crucial habitats may no longer be hospitable for certain animals or plants. This puts a variety of species at risk, depending on whether they can adapt or move.

So no, it isn’t about just skipping an ice age, and yes, it is bad!

It's only the birth rate that matters if you want to keep your lifestyle and can't abide the thought of living differently, even if you could live happily snd healthily

It's just another pass the buck cop out soundbite