Climate Change Mega Thread

[nepal]

.
More population = more cars, more pavement, more resources, less treed area, etc. We’re nearing 8-billion.

.

[nepal]

.
A glaring flaw (omission) in the recent IEA model (Pathway to Net Zero), is that their plan provides nothing to address rapid world population growth, which is a core cause of increased energy consumption, desertification, land disputes, land-prices, and mass-migration. The report notes the population will increase from current 7.8b, to 10b by 2050, but does not include anything in its plan for world birth rate mitigation.

Increasing population = Increased energy consumption, desertification, land disputes, land-prices, and mass-migration.
.
Even Canada has plans to increase our population by 15% in the next 15-years, from 38b, to 44b, which totally contradicts the Climate Action plan. Why does Canada need to increase its population?
.

[Glacier]

Even Canada has plans to increase our population by 15% in the next 15-years, from 38b, to 44b, which totally contradicts the Climate Action plan. Why does Canada need to increase its population?

Because the debt is rising so fast and there's no sign of spending slowing down, so the only solution is the ramp up immigration to try and generate enough revenue with more tax payers that the debt is manageable.

[ckil]

*removed*

[TylerM4]

Because the debt is rising so fast and there's no sign of spending slowing down, so the only solution is the ramp up immigration to try and generate enough revenue with more tax payers that the debt is manageable.

I think it's deeper than that.

The reason is because our entire society is built on a "population pyramid" For every elderly person collection a pension, there's traditionally been 2 or more working people paying into a pension plan. Same with healthcare - we can't afford to care for the elderly unless there's 2 working people paying taxes for every one elderly person.

The rampant borrowing/debt is a symptom of problems associated with the pyramid walls getting too steep.

If we truly want to fix the problem without increasing taxpayers, it means cutting government spending and services and/or more taxes for all.

I'm glad I'm not a politician dealing with these problems as there's no way to come out unscathed:
1) Continue to meet expectations of the past, borrow/print money like crazy, and get blasted by the general public.
2) Scale back to only services we can afford, public accuses you of not doing job/lining own pockets/taking advantage of vulnerable/being cruel/heartless.
3) Increase taxes and become public enemy #1.
4) Increase immigration, public screams about losing our jobs, fuel a housing crisis, etc.

Really, we as a country should be putting a lot more focus on option #2 if we want a long term solution. But doing so is career ending for politicians hoping to get re-elected. So instead they do a combination of #1,3,and 4... which doesn't fix the problem, it only masks it with a hope that the next guy will take steps to resolve.

[Jlabute]

Even though 7.8 billion people sounds like a lot, I calculate using the average mass of 68Kg per human, and one Kg of human is roughly equivalent to one liter of water, you could fill an enormous fish tank to the top which is the length, width, and height of the new bridge (about 3/4Km cubed). That is not much really.

World-wide fertility rate has been declining ever since 1968. China is under 1% population growth and is looking to lose about 500 million people by 2100. Modern nations are aging out without immigration. Energy based on coal and oil plus their products has doubled the life-span of humans. Hip-hip-hooray for oil.

Man can use additional brain power to solve energy problems or any other issues facing us. (no, not wind and solar)

There is no rush to hit net zero. Not to mention, Net zero technically doesn't mean much since you're still putting CO2 in to the air. Replacing all those car with EVs will barely see you a drop in the bucket for all the efforts. Net Zero is an unfounded requirement to such scare tactics like the population-bomb, stronger weather events, rising oceans, etc. They are all false and based on extremely poor modelling and science. Typical reactions to over 'population', or too much CO2, or too much "???" is mostly emotional from decades of activist droning as science doesn't tell us much at this time. Too little data over too short a period. What we do see in the recent temperature records are LOWER temperatures than what the IPCC has told us should happen. What we see is closer to what skeptics believe.

More CO2 so far has meant a 15% greener world in the last 50 years.

[BC Landlord]

The real dilemma is, could effects of climate change kill some people off, or we do the same thing fighting it? As a humanist, I would prefer taking chances with the former. Perhaps, it's not all that bad ...

[Jlabute]

The real dilemma is, could effects of climate change kill some people off, or we do the same thing fighting it? As a humanist, I would prefer taking chances with the former. Perhaps, it's not all that bad ...

It's a good question. Personally I don't think we are taking any risk at this time. History tells us mankind (and more primitive mankind) has thrived during periods much hotter than today. These were the periods of greatest advancement and exploration. So when mankind is thriving, I doubt they are dying. Mankind has died off in colder periods. Cold is hugely more dangerous than warmth. An ice age is eventually inevitable. Last ice age saw 95% of Canada covered in thick ice. Whether Americans like it or not, we will be pushed south by a crawling kilometer high chunk of ice that'll last 90,000 years.

[Jlabute]

Australia Coral Reef
GOOD NEWS!

"2016 saw a major bleaching event. The worst affected area was around Lizard Island where coral cover halved. The area has fully recovered after 5 years."

"The rapid recovery of the coral in the Cooktown region is not surprising. Despite what our institutions are saying, these events are perfectly natural – they certainly did not start in the 1970’s as many scientists, such as Prof Hughes, claim."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/15/ ... the-media/

[nepal]

.
Three basic ideas to reduce unnecessary radiant heat on our planet:

1 - Reduce the excessive width of residential streets. This will reduce the amount of natural vegetated land used for subdivisions (most zoning now requires on-site parking, so no need for wide streets). Existing excessively wide streets can have treed boulevards added, to shade pavement. Pavement generates massive radiant heat, whereas as vegetation absorbs heat. Narrow residential streets are also cheaper to maintain and replace.

2 - Eliminate dark colour roofs. Instead use light colours that reflect heat. Light coloured roofs reduce air-conditioning energy, and roofs will last longer.

3 - Shade buildings and pavement with deciduous trees. Leaves provide shade during summer, and sun exposure during winter. Deciduous trees naturally reduce building cooling and heating expenses, and make parking lots more natural and cooler.
.
As an experiment, place a thermometer on each of these surfaces when exposed to summer sun, and notice the extreme temperature differences: 1) Black-car/pavement, 2) White-car surface, 3) Grass.

[nepal]

.
Lower Mainland hotter than Africa today.
..
Must be all those NG outdoor fireplaces, burning off their part of the 92-billion-cubic-feet of NG produced every day...
.
A bit ironic, that California hydro-electric reservoirs are running dry, partly to supply power for EVs, so now they have to burn natural-gas to generate electricity, as wind and solar aren’t predictable supplies. As population expands, more energy will be consumed.

[ckil]

Weird! It must not be summer in Africa.

[OldBlindDog]

Weird! It must not be summer in Africa.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but the Sahara Desert is in the northern hemisphere.

[ckil]

Weird! It must not be summer in Africa.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but the Sahara Desert is in the northern hemisphere.

Sarcastic (you're not familiar with my posts). They don't really have seasons other than wet or dry.

[ckil]

Diane Francis: Canada is a giant carbon sink. Why are we not getting credit for it?

The United Nations Paris Agreement and its predecessors are a complete failure and they discriminate against Canada, which is why Canadians should demand changes immediately, or withdraw. There are two main reasons why.

First of all, the agreements exempt the world’s biggest polluters. They do not require all the countries that signed on to reduce emissions. So, of course, they haven’t: to date, of the 192 countries that signed on to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, only 37 developed countries have reduced CO2 emissions by seven per cent and the rest — led by China and India — increased emissions by 130 per cent. This is not an accord, it’s a joke.

*snip*

https://financialpost.com/diane-francis ... dit-for-it