141–150 of 215 posts
Why aren't Europe, Greta, Hollywood artists screaming their head off just like they did at Brazil/Amazon Forest on June?
The Australian forest is much thinner and does experience some natural burning, but this one is much bigger due to climate change.
Also, both of these are bad.
I'm curious how all the permaculture farms and homesteads are faring. Are these alternative landscapes surviving or maybe thriving dispite the droughts and fires? Could the country promote or even mandate permaculture style landworks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia has been in a drought for the past decade which is caused by the changing climate. Yes, if you isolate this fire season then the fires themselves will look as no evidence of climate change. But the fact the everything is as dry as fuck when its not supposed to be dry as fuck... In northern Queensland we have rain forests. The fringes of those rain forests are burning, because they're dry as fuck. https://ww…
I’m still confused. Nothing else can explain a period of dryness? I feel like it’s convenient to blame global warming without considering other ideas. Please note, I say this as a huge climate change activist. But this feels similar to blaming hurricanes on climate change to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need something akin to civil rights movement. On the global scale. We also need someone other than Greta as the face of it. While she does a great job, she's often dismissed due to her age and the US president has even publicly called her retarded in the literal sense.
Greta is 16. A 16 year old brain is literally not fully developed. A global movement should be able to muster a better spokesperson than a child. No matter how earnest and scared a child may be, it is still a mistake to make major policy decisions on their say-so.
Yours is a standard attack line, because it allows you to pretend that it's only her saying this, and ignore all the thousands of others who've been saying similar things, from the IPCC to the Green Parties of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing the costs of decarbonising vs rebuilding isn't quite the right comparison though (though it'll be psychologically important). It's not as if climate change would be reverted or even stop if we stopped burning fossil fuel now. There is a lag on the effect, and the situation would still be getting worse for a century or so. The comparison is between all the extra future damage of burning even more than we alr…
If we could magically put a negative in front of Australia's CO2 emissions it would change nothing [0]. Even if we stopped selling coal and absorbed that amount of CO2 instead - and assume that nobody else mines coal to meet the market's demand - we would still easily see 90% of the worlds emissions at play. Australia is a moderate player in global terms, but decarbonising is literally a symbolic gesture with real ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the costs of de-carbonising the economy Global warming is important, but only one environmental problem, so important to consider here, but not the only environmental issue. Contributing to every environmental issue, including this one, is overpopulation. Humans have altered every continent, reducing biodiversity, introducing species that don't handle local climates as well, or too well and displace existing ones,…
> Contributing to every environmental issue, including this one, is overpopulation. Citation needed. Why is 7.7 billion people a problem? IMHO earth as it is today can accommodate 9 or 10 billion people without problems. (And like you, I have no citation as well.)
We currently utilise 50% -- the best, most fertile, productive 50% -- of the earth's landmass. What remains is marginal land, scrub, forests, permafrost, mountains, savannah, deserts etc, or is simply too hot or too cold for us to live comfortably. We're mistreating land with over fertilisation and suffering steady soil loss everywhere that's adopted post-war industrial agriculture. Many of those bits of rubbish land, forests and wildlife preserves we're not using are chopped up by pipelines, roads, rail affecting viability of the species broken up and interfering with natural migration and regrowth. Wildlife and wilderness has no chance.
We're clear cutting forest to make monoculture grazing land, or to plant thousands of acres of uninterrupted soya, palm oil and other major crops. As environmental awareness grows we're doing that at accelerated rate. Europe was clearcut in liveable areas in the Middle Ages, yet we've shown little to no sign of most noticing our colossal destructive impact. We just started importing big trees and colonising.
Borneo has gone from essentially untouched in the 1980s to 50% cleared now. Earth overshoot day puts us as needing 1.7 earths to sustain the current rate of regrowable use (it only considers replaceable resources, not mining and minerals). 10bn would push that up to over 2.
A sustainable population would probably be 1 or 2bn, if we want to allow a little room for the unforeseen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing the costs of decarbonising vs rebuilding isn't quite the right comparison though (though it'll be psychologically important). It's not as if climate change would be reverted or even stop if we stopped burning fossil fuel now. There is a lag on the effect, and the situation would still be getting worse for a century or so. The comparison is between all the extra future damage of burning even more than we alr…
If we could magically put a negative in front of Australia's CO2 emissions it would change nothing [0]. Even if we stopped selling coal and absorbed that amount of CO2 instead - and assume that nobody else mines coal to meet the market's demand - we would still easily see 90% of the worlds emissions at play. Australia is a moderate player in global terms, but decarbonising is literally a symbolic gesture with real ne…
So sick of this argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia has been in a drought for the past decade which is caused by the changing climate. Yes, if you isolate this fire season then the fires themselves will look as no evidence of climate change. But the fact the everything is as dry as fuck when its not supposed to be dry as fuck... In northern Queensland we have rain forests. The fringes of those rain forests are burning, because they're dry as fuck. https://ww…
I’m still confused. Nothing else can explain a period of dryness? I feel like it’s convenient to blame global warming without considering other ideas. Please note, I say this as a huge climate change activist. But this feels similar to blaming hurricanes on climate change to me.
Why aren't Europe, Greta, Hollywood artists screaming their head off just like they did at Brazil/Amazon Forest on June?
The rainforest doesn't naturally burn down (clue is in the name "rain" forest) - it's being destroyed tree by tree by human action. The Australian forest is much thinner and does experience some natural burning, but this one is much bigger due to climate change. Also, both of these are bad.
Why aren't Europe, Greta, Hollywood artists screaming their head off just like they did at Brazil/Amazon Forest on June?
We do, it's in the news non stop.
Otherwise it might look like Europe is only interested in forests that compensate their CO2 emissions.
Should I stop burning CO2? nahhh, it's too expensive. Let's pretend we care about others forests and blame on them.