Saving the planet?

Presumably the extra two people are creating their own usage elsewhere?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
They may...

...but even if they do, how much will they decrease? Taking two inhabitants out of a building doesn't reduce usage by half. Heating and cooking energy will remain much the same for two as four, unless eating and space use changes dramatically. Food costs will come down a bit but it's surprising how the absence of the kids encourages more, rather than less, spending on your stomach. Washing and cleaning will remain much the same unless you spend a substantial amount on a smaller washing machine. You may have less waste to dispose of and less to recycle - then again, you may not.

None of these things are anything like as simple as some people claim. :naughty:
Click to expand...

No. Not half. I didn't say half. But it's showing that less people equals less energy usage/waste/etc which goes make to my initial general point about over population.

They are both adults. They cook their own meals, we don't have family meals. Cooking should be roughly halved. As should be kettle boiling. Toilet flushing. Consumables such as toilet paper, and handwash, even toothpaste, and clothes washing consumables/energy/water, winter tumble drying! Half the baths ran & showers taken. Plus the smaller things like lights switched on, TV, game console, phone charging, hair drying & straighteners, electrical stuff on stand-by......
 
LeeRatters said:
No. Not half. I didn't say half. But it's showing that less people equals less energy usage/waste/etc which goes make to my initial general point about over population.
Click to expand...
So how do we deal with this alleged over-population?

Do we sterilise anyone whose income is below a certain level? Perhaps we simply execute all criminals (including droppers of litter and those who don't pay for their TV licence)? Then again, we could just call for volunteers to commit suicide... :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
So how do we deal with this alleged over-population?

Do we sterilise anyone whose income is below a certain level? Perhaps we simply execute all criminals (including droppers of litter and those who don't pay for their TV licence)? Then again, we could just call for volunteers to commit suicide... :naughty:
Click to expand...
Quite possibly sterilisation, or partial sterilisation, will happen from plastic and other pollution.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
So how do we deal with this alleged over-population?

Do we sterilise anyone whose income is below a certain level? Perhaps we simply execute all criminals (including droppers of litter and those who don't pay for their TV licence)? Then again, we could just call for volunteers to commit suicide... :naughty:
Click to expand...

Solving the issue is probably a much bigger issue in itself :) And probably more controversial.
 
We decided, many years ago, that we wouldn't breed.

Logan's Run, anyone?
 
LeeRatters said:
No. Not half. I didn't say half. But it's showing that less people equals less energy usage/waste/etc which goes make to my initial general point about over population.

They are both adults. They cook their own meals, we don't have family meals. Cooking should be roughly halved. As should be kettle boiling. Toilet flushing. Consumables such as toilet paper, and handwash, even toothpaste, and clothes washing consumables/energy/water, winter tumble drying! Half the baths ran & showers taken. Plus the smaller things like lights switched on, TV, game console, phone charging, hair drying & straighteners, electrical stuff on stand-by......
Click to expand...
But it isn’t fewer people, it is the same number of people but now in two places, so consuming more.
 
Pound Coin said:
But it isn’t fewer people, it is the same number of people but now in two places, so consuming more.
Click to expand...

IN OUR HOUSE, THERE WILL BE FEWER PEOPLE SO LESS ENERGY CONSUMED & WASTE PRODUCED.

ON OUR PLANET, WITH LESS PEOPLE THERE WILL BE LESS ENERGY CONSUMED & LESS WASTE PRODUCED.

Hence my original post stating that over population is a cause/issue which you & Mr Bump seem to be sweeping your way around.
 
LeeRatters said:
IN OUR HOUSE, THERE WILL BE FEWER PEOPLE SO LESS ENERGY CONSUMED & WASTE PRODUCED.

ON OUR PLANET, WITH LESS PEOPLE THERE WILL BE LESS ENERGY CONSUMED & LESS WASTE PRODUCED.

Hence my original post stating that over population is a cause/issue which you & Mr Bump seem to be sweeping your way around.
Click to expand...

Yes, fewer people on the planet would use less energy, but fewer people in your house isn't as that energy consumption is now going on elsewhere.

It is similar to shipping plastic to the Philippines for "recycling" or buying tat from China so we don't have CO2 from manufacturing here. Or complaining that it is the masses of population in the Far East causing the problems, when it is high consumption (mostly in the West), and world market forces that is the problem.
 
Pound Coin said:
Yes, fewer people on the planet would use less energy, but fewer people in your house isn't as that energy consumption is now going on elsewhere.

It is similar to shipping plastic to the Philippines for "recycling" or buying tat from China so we don't have CO2 from manufacturing here. Or complaining that it is the masses of population in the Far East causing the problems, when it is high consumption (mostly in the West), and world market forces that is the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm off to paint a f*****g target on my garden wall to bang my head against........
 
LeeRatters said:
I'm off to paint a f*****g target on my garden wall to bang my head against........
Click to expand...
Don't forget to put the camera on a tripod and use a sound trigger to expose... :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
So how do we deal with this alleged over-population?

Do we sterilise anyone whose income is below a certain level? Perhaps we simply execute all criminals (including droppers of litter and those who don't pay for their TV licence)? Then again, we could just call for volunteers to commit suicide... :naughty:
Click to expand...
Educating women & getting them into work is one way. I remember that free school meals reduces child labour in India (maybe it was Bangladesh) more effectively than laws and probably also cuts population growth,

I believe that the rate of growth is slowing in most places.
 
Nod said:
We decided, many years ago, that we wouldn't breed.

Logan's Run, anyone?
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember Logan's Run but the age people were allowed to live to was 30. Perhaps that is a little harsh but, whatever figure was chosen, I'm a gonner.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
Yes, I remember Logan's Run but the age people were allowed to live to was 30.
Click to expand...
That was a change made by the film's writers, one of many, which those of us who had read the book couldn't understand at the time and which I still don't. Originally, the mandated age was 21.

The book was typical of mid-1960s American science fiction, mostly about how wrong "the system" was and how individuals could change (or at least, survive) it. In the end, I came to the conclusion that it provided no insights and was simply nihilistic.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That was a change made by the film's writers, one of many, which those of us who had read the book couldn't understand at the time and which I still don't. Originally, the mandated age was 21.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it was so the actors chosen to play the roles would be more realistic. Although both Michael York and Richard Jordan were both over 30 (Jordan almost 40), playing characters under 21 would've been too much of a push.
 
LeeRatters said:
I'm off to paint a f*****g target on my garden wall to bang my head against........
Click to expand...
Maybe a different analogy would have worked better?

sphexx said:
Educating women & getting them into work is one way. I remember that free school meals reduces child labour in India (maybe it was Bangladesh) more effectively than laws and probably also cuts population growth,

I believe that the rate of growth is slowing in most places.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe so. This article gives some evidence, and suggests reasons why. And adds thoughts on the consequences.
www.bbc.co.uk

'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates

Half of the world's countries now have too few babies being born to maintain their populations.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
ancient_mariner said:
Not being intentionally perverse in choosing to appear not to understand would have been a lot better.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel that way.

In this thread Nod has the best response.
 
Most unusual!
 
Pound Coin said:
Here is a happy report about driving a 4x4 tank to the tip to recycle bottles.
Click to expand...
Lots of somewhat alarmist claims there without supporting evidence - which is the real problem in debates like this.

It seems to me that, if you're going to claim "x is such and such", you need to give full details of how you reached that conclusion, otherwise you're sliding into "God told me the other day..." territory. :naughty:
 
It was when they tested car tyre particles – a poorly understood yet ubiquitous pollutant – that they knew they were on the right track. Using a parmesan grater atop a drill, they carefully shaved tiny fragments of tyre and soaked them in water.

“When we tested the tyres it killed all the fish,” said McIntyre. From there, they were able to identify the culprit: a toxic chemical known as 6PPD-quinone, the product of the preservative 6PPD, which is added to tyres to stop them breaking down. The pioneering study, published in 2020, has been heralded as critical to our understanding of what some describe as a “stealth pollutant”.
Click to expand...
Now, it is possible that this pollutant only kills this kind of fish.

"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?"
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Lots of somewhat alarmist claims there without supporting evidence - which is the real problem in debates like this.
Click to expand...

Not fair to say there’s no supporting evidence since some is quoted in the article. I agree it’s not conclusive or exhaustive but it certainly points to a likely source of that and all kinds of problems.

I’ve often wondered where all that tyre dust goes.

Actually, originally I wondered where all the shoe sold polyurethane dust went since it’s potentially very carcinogenic (actually urethane is the carcinogen but the poly-u can be broken down) and I was wearing polyurethane soled shoes at the time!
 
sphexx said:
I agree it’s not conclusive or exhaustive ...
Click to expand...
... which, to my way of thinking, is the problem.

So many of the fads and fantasies that we're stuck with come from saying, in effect, "that's my belief and you're a fool if you disagree". This is what leads to vast amounts of wasted effort and resources. Sometimes, it turns out the fantasy reflects reality in effect, so little damage is done. Much of the time it doesn't and the squandered resources aren't available to deal with the real problems.

An example: coastal erosion caused by a changing climate won't be reduced by wasting huge resources "reducing carbon" but it might be controlled by dropping rocks in the sea at the appropriate points, identified by careful tidal and geologic surveys ...

Wave breaking against Sidmouth cliffs _1040046.JPG
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
... which, to my way of thinking, is the problem.

So many of the fads and fantasies that we're stuck with come from saying, in effect, "that's my belief and you're a fool if you disagree". This is what leads to vast amounts of wasted effort and resources. Sometimes, it turns out the fantasy reflects reality in effect, so little damage is done. Much of the time it doesn't and the squandered resources aren't available to deal with the real problems.

An example: coastal erosion caused by a changing climate won't be reduced by wasting huge resources "reducing carbon" but it might be controlled by dropping rocks in the sea at the appropriate points, identified by careful tidal and geologic surveys ...

View attachment 361762
Click to expand...
Except dropping rocks in the seas has been shown to cause problems elsewhere on coastlines.

You say this:

"So many of the fads and fantasies that we're stuck with come from saying, in effect, "that's my belief and you're a fool if you disagree".

I'm guessing, that is your belief and I am a fool if I disagree?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
... which, to my way of thinking, is the problem.

So many of the fads and fantasies that we're stuck with come from saying, in effect, "that's my belief and you're a fool if you disagree". This is what leads to vast amounts of wasted effort and resources. Sometimes, it turns out the fantasy reflects reality in effect, so little damage is done. Much of the time it doesn't and the squandered resources aren't available to deal with the real problems.

An example: coastal erosion caused by a changing climate won't be reduced by wasting huge resources "reducing carbon" but it might be controlled by dropping rocks in the sea at the appropriate points, identified by careful tidal and geologic surveys ...

View attachment 361762
Click to expand...
I’m with @Pound Coin on this one. While dropping rocks in the sea can sometimes be useful by and large any kind of hard sea defence tends to just shift the erosion further along the coast.

Not only at sea. You can see where landowners have fortified riverbanks on their side resulting in erosion on the other bank ;(. Water is very persistent :(.
 
sphexx said:
I’m with @Pound Coin on this one. While dropping rocks in the sea can sometimes be useful by and large any kind of hard sea defence tends to just shift the erosion further along the coast.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The umpty trillion tons of the planet, the umpty trillion ergs emitted by the sun, the enormous effects of air and water sloshed around by the influence of the moon, will be far beyond our ability to influence for a very long time, if ever.

So we just have to do what we can, where we can and leave it to some other poor booger to do their bit, further down the road
 
Pound Coin said:
I'm guessing, that is your belief and I am a fool if I disagree?
Click to expand...
But I don't disagree with you, however much you may be insulted by my agreement.

As I said above, we have to do what we can do and the problems that causes have to be left to the person we pass those problems on to.
 
cambsno said:
How do you know that the car is not more fuel efficient than Daves 2.5l 20 year Mondeo....

Also where is said bottle bank, the ones i know are either in a supermarket car park or around a village hall so she is probably at the supermarket anyway, or passing one.

Am sure most of us do far worse!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure there was never a 2.5ltr mondeo 1.6, 1.8,2.0ltr not in the last 20 years anyway .. and now owning a 2.2 Honda CRV tdi it’s probably more economic and less polluting to leave it ticking over for a couple of minutes than starting it up from dead .. . If I had the money I would change it for a hybrid Toyota .. but I don’t have that sort of money on a pension . Full electric is a non starter in rural wales Due to not enough facilities or charging availability .
The whole car thing needs looking at in more depth in rural areas
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Agreed. The umpty trillion tons of the planet, the umpty trillion ergs emitted by the sun, the enormous effects of air and water sloshed around by the influence of the moon, will be far beyond our ability to influence for a very long time, if ever.
Click to expand...
So, is that your belief generally? Or are you just referring to coastal erosion?
 
Pound Coin said:
So, is that your belief generally?
Click to expand...
No.

But when it comes to dealing with planetary forces, of course it is.

Even the biggest organisation cannot change the course or time of a tide. All we can do is our best to deflect it from that which we wish to protect. Then we must leave it to the next man to do the same.

Of course, if we are sensible, we'll each tell the other what we're doing and offer to help them in turn.
 
Coastal erosion is affected by changes in tides, flows, water level, and strength & number of storms. Increases in these increase erosion.

All these are affected by climate change, so we could lessen the increase in erosion by reducing our impact on climate change. I doubt we will though, as it is more important to elect a weird leader or two and other important things.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
All we can do is our best to deflect it from that which we wish to protect.
Click to expand...
Hum...... continue to use fossil fuel as a consumable, continue to consume energy like it is limitless and continue our inefficient lifestyle is very very far from "doing our best".

If it isn't for "saving the planet", we at very least must all do our part to reduce the ever growing climate injustice. Just the last heatwave is clear on a micro scale, people who owns AC or can get a breeze, or people who don't own AC and can't open window at both ends of house for a breeze. This kind of extreme weather is getting worse all around the world.
 
Pound Coin said:
Coastal erosion is affected by changes in tides, flows, water level, and strength & number of storms. Increases in these increase erosion.
Click to expand...
This is a statement of the obvious.

My point is that nothing we can do will alter those facts. Instead of all this daft rhetoric about turning back the change in the climate, we need to spend our time and resources on identifying where the changes will cause real problems and altering either the immediate environment if we can or moving people away from the affected areas if we cannot.

wyx087 said:
This kind of extreme weather is getting worse all around the world.
Click to expand...
It is. That's why we need to concentrate on helping those who are directly affected instead of all this "extinction rebellion" nonsense.

There's an American saying: "You can't fight city hall" which applies here. Where you can't effect change, you can only move away from it. We should be attempting to both make the changes that would help those who can't do it for themselves and helping people to move away, where it is not practical to make those changes.

However, to do this requires committing real resources on a huge scale, something that the world's kleptocracies refuse to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top