This isn't our heat wave, but the next one could be

[orangeleavesinautumn]

Or if we mess up the jet stream, arctic winters.

We have really messed up horrifically, haven't we.

I am scared its too late to put right

@SpinCycles
Maybe you've looked at the data but i don't think you understand the processes invovled.

Life expectancy increases (presumably you mean at older ages) are not masking anything. Increases are small (if at all) and incremental. Plus they have zero impact on the intrinsic growth rate if occuring post reproductive ages.

The largre increases seen in developing countries usually is due to improvements in infant and child mortality has the same effect as an increase in fertility but, in any case, fertility hardly ever significantly falls before infant and child mortality have improved.

In any case, population decline is no less of a challenge than population growth. Demographic intelligene and appropriate policy responses to these changes are what is needed although rapid and unbalanced change (either way) is particularly hard for countries to respond to (i.e. one particularly large cohort and then one particularly small cohort). Population decline is not a cause for alarm.

I don't know why some posters seem to think mass migration will not affect the UK because it's an island. I can't imagine the UK being able to keep out migrants if there are tens of millions of them arriving in Europe - the UK is hardly as isolated as New Zealand. It's pretty easy to reach.

I think the UK being an island, and especially one with weak economic ties to its closest neighbours, is actually in a precarious position. The current politicians aren't helping by sticking their heads in the sand and wasting precious time.

It's not increase in lifespan that's keeping populations rising, it's almost all due to population momentum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum
Eventually the falling fertility rates in almost all countries will translate into reduction in population but it's a really slow process.

It took decades for the sub-2 birth rates in China and Japan to produce actual population reduction, because the high fertility rates of the 1950s had so much momentum.

Many sources believe that the UN population projections are too high, because they're too pessimistic about the trends for female education in the developing world. But even the lowest fertility projections still predict that the world population will keep growing for another 35 years: from a climate change perspective that might as well be 350.

@imush I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. Overall population has continued to rise around the world despite decreasing birth rates in almost every country. Yes, lower child mortality has affected that but by far the larger impact has been gradual and persistent increases in life expectancy that "mask" the effect of there being fewer young people. I am talking about long-term trends here, not things over periods of a few years. The decrease in birth rates across the vast majority of the world is very apparent. Population is still rising for now yes but less steeply but then it will top out later this century and begin to fall very rapidly indeed (but of course - self-evidently - "rapidly" here is used in the context of the lifespans of humans!!).

I didn't say falling population was more of a problem than a growing one. I was simply pointing out the inaccuracy of the repeated posts claiming that there is a "population explosion" happening and that the human population will continue growing further and further. There was one over the last hundred years. It is now reaching the end and will go into reverse: this is already in motion looking at the demographics. People throwing around completely inaccurate claims that don't correspond to the data and shouting about "overpopulation" when there will be a shortage of young people is unhelpful for developing evidence-based long-term policy solutions.

Eventually the falling fertility rates in almost all countries will translate into reduction in population but it's a really slow process.

Of course it is!! It's measured in human lifespans. Surely this is obvious and didn't need stating explicitly, that I'm not talking about it happening next week?

Exactly.

What do you think Europe/UK will do if mass migration threatens to over run the continent?
They will use force to stop migrants coming here.

Already large minorities of the population think its fine to let them drown/don't rescue them, this feeling will grow, the Greek authorities are thought to have covered up the sinking of a boat that cost around 800 lives & the conditions migrants are held in on some Greek islands, are terrible.

The UK is going to house 500 male migrants in a boat designed for 250, they ve not made the boat twice as big, just jammed in more rooms & we all cheer.

I agree with the pp who said migration is about white people and their concerns.

I know they will use force but I suppose they/we will be overrun.

On Farming Today this morning (Radio 4) they were talking about how the heat in Europe will affect imports of fruit and veg here. We grow only 37% of our fresh F&V, so we will get less and of poorer quality (the quality has already deteriorated since Brexit). And the second item on the prog was about Kent not being able to store its apples because of high energy cost, so growers curtailing or closing their businesses, and apples being imported. Utter madness.
and then they talked about invasive insect species moving here from the continent.
crops here will be affected by drought or bad weather as the climate worsens, new plant diseases or infestations, and if our useless government is worried about small boats, they ain't seen nothing yet. I do wonder if they already have secret plans to deal with huge influxes of desperate people. I don't think it would be pretty.
Farming Today is a good programme, you often learn things that are not in the mainstream media.
then there followed the climate professor on the Today prog, saying 1.5 warming goal has been missed and we will be getting 2.5. So basically we are Ph**ked.

Yes i heard that program, crazy.
Where i live we used to grow tomatoes, fruit & flowers, it was famed for its growing potential.
Now all gone, i'm still friends with one of the former growers, he says the UK Govt just never helped with energy costs as EU/EEC countries did, the belief was UK can get what it likes from other countries, such short sightedness.

+1 on Brexit, been in France for the last 2 weeks and the supermarket veg and fruit stalls are jammed pack with quality and cheap produce, our tesco just has loads of empty boxes and what produce all in plastic bags.

Do you believe we have the resources in the U.K. to further grow our population, provide adequate public services, and ensure food security for everyone who lives here? If so I would love to hear it!

@SpinCycles
Well, i agree with you regarding the days of population explosion being over and fertility having decreased far faster in developing countries than was the experience in developed countries. People talking about population explosions are stuck in the 70s and 80s in terms of their demographic viewpoint. It's only really SSA (which has contributed the least to cabron emissions) plus a few pockets like Pakistan and Afghanistan which have sustained high fertility rates these days.

However, you are wrong about the continued population growth in the face of declining brith rates being due to increases in life expectancy which will somehow later become apparent. It's due to population momentum as a result of earlier high fertility. Think of it is as filling in of the diagonal space of the population pyramid to become a rectangle (and potentially later an inverse pyramid) as cohorts age. Eventually, if rates remain stable, this will stablise. But rates rarely remain stable....

Changes in life expectancy, in particular those past repdroductive age which is the case in most developed countries since mortality is very low below older ages have only a marginal impact on population size and zero impact on the intrinsic population growth rate of countries.

No not at all, where have i said or implied otherwise?

We couldn't even do it in WW2, far smaller population and with a huge push to do so, we don't have a 12month growing season, as for public services? easier but will require many years of decent funding, other countries manage to provide them.

I know they will use force but I suppose they/we will be overrun.

The UK is fairly difficult to invade. When we have actually needed to stop people coming here, the sea borders make a huge difference.

Very interesting. There are some new farming methods under development e.g. farming on multi levels. And absolutely we need to diversify our crops to be able to withstand difference diseases/ climate conditions/ pests etc.

It definitely won't be pretty. Any of it. I don't share your hope though about there being any coherent plans. That's what I've been complaining about. If there were, on any of these issues (food, water, energy, security) you'd see evidence of it being implemented: it would need to be happening now because much of this is large scale infrastructure based stuff that takes a long time. People wring their hands saying their worried but when asked to vote etc aren't putting pressure on politicians to make these things the top priority, so they don't, because they then perceive no electoral asvantage from doing so.

And yes I agree per my earlier posts that 1.5° is clearly already overshot given the delayed effect of emissions made already years ago. 2° is a pipe dream, too, realistically. 2.5° would be best case scenario now and probably 3°. Plenty of diagrams etc online in the research and reports showing what that is likely to look like. Not good. So if we can't prevent it, why is no mitigation for the effects being done even?

Vertical farms for example:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

Can produce a wider variety of crops than we could usually grow in a UK climate, crops are protected from extreme weather, lower demand for land use therefore less ecological damage to wider areas of land. They are also huge carbon sinks.

However, they require large energy input therefore renewables are key, and the other infrastructure.

Anything much being done about it here now? Nope. Because it costs money and won't be profitable at current prices, before food shortages start. It'll be a bit late by then to try to implement it...

Same with water. It's obvious what needs doing. Is it being done? No. Despite it being the most basic part of survival.

Energy? Nope.

Depressing.

Even the Chinese are at 40% renewables now! We should be funding solar panels for every residential building. Community wind turbines. Large scale energy storage. Upgrading the national grid to make sufficient capactiy and putting cables underground wherever possible. Hydro power around our coastlines.

Yet no policies on any of this suggested by the Government or opposition on anything like the scale required. Just lip service, nonsense, tinkering around the edges in a meaningless way that will have no significant impact at all.

@SpinCycles

All your posts are brilliant and echo every single thought that I have on this wide range of interconnected topics. I'm in my late 50's and have watched it all unfold over the last 40 odd years, we are sleep walking into absolute catastrophy

Trees, trees, trees, why the hell aren't we out there planting millions of them night and day. Right ones in the right places but omg, they are natural carbon capturers and we're waiting for tech to invent something 😫

Spin cycles, I don't think they have any coherent plans to deal with any of it, certainly not the food, energy, flooding, drought problems etc. Etc. The only thing I think they may have plans for is dealing with an influx of refugees - and it wouldn't be with welcome mats. Given how exercised they are about small boats, and 'illegal asylum seekers', i wouldn't be surprised if the Home Office has some Operation Canute to forcibly repel them, whatever the consequences to,life. They don't care about the lives of their own citizens, what hope for desperate climate refugees?

Thank you. I feel so frustrated (and obviously, like others, very worried especially for my children) but I really think we need to get real, stop lamenting the situation and wallowing, and do something that might actually make a difference, at least to our outcomes in the UK. We are powerless to change the trajectory because of the emissions made already and the fact that many other countries will not play ball. The clock is ticking away and nobody is doing anything about the things we could actually do to at least improve our situation in the UK a little before everything else collapses. Relying on imports for large amounts of your energy and food and having failing water infrastructure is not going to work well when other countries cannot even meet the needs of their own populations. But saying all of this feels like shouting into a black hole, and the necessary preparations that need to happen now will not be done unless voter shout at politicians en masse that they won't get their votes unless these infrastructure changes are priority #1.

Absolutely none. But meanwhile their own population will die of stavation/ cold/ thirst/ disease also if they don't implement the kinds of changes I've suggested. We can't help anybody else if we are also fucked.

Seems rather weird until you realise our current Govt wont do anything unless it makes someone they are connected with, a shit load of money first.

The lack of action on water is crazy, its really easy to do.

Yes @helford . I mean, countries with very scant water already treat it as the precious resource it is and preserve it. We have LOADS. There is no excuse for not having the systems in place to store, process and move it around to meet the needs of the population. It's shocking.

Our energy situation is screwed for similar reasons. Geographically we are well-placed to be totally energy self-sufficient.

All of this can be done. It would also actually boost the UK economy! The fact is, it must be done, if people do not want a life of destitution. No other policy priority should come above this, even healthcare funding, because this is about the most basic human needs before you even get to healthcare or education: food, water, warmth.

What I don't understand is why when everyone says they are concerned they are not writing to MPs about this. In focus groups/ polling surveys on policy priorities, none of these issues are the main concerns. People are still prepared to vote for political parties that aren't doing this stuff. Why? If they do care about the impact of climate change, why do they not raise these points when an MP knocks on their door and ask them how they intend to make the UK self-sufficient in food and energy and sort out the water infrastructure? Especially when it is very clear that it can be done, it is feasible. Politicians obviously won't do it unless the population is demanding it, so why aren't they? Do they not like having food and water and power? I find it mind boggling.

What would you like done about those climate refugees?

Do you think we can take enough, how many do you have in mind?