Everything is looking orange

[MD]

I think may be you have missed the point of the kids and that Greta chicks protest. They are not blaming the previous generation for ruining the environment, they are blaming them for being gutless and not doing anything about it now.

I get the antagonism, but the kids are just asking us to man up. And it's working.

I have to man up and concede that you have a made a good reply and yes, our generation, well those of us in positions of power, do need to face the truth and take action.
In the mean time it would help if your mates stopped littering our beautiful planet and cheap skate freedom campers can bugger off home and poo in their own countryside. I backpacked around Europe in the early 80s, camping rough at times and on beaches in Greece. It wasn't a hardship to find a public toilet or buy a coffee so we could use their loo. I realise harping on about wasteful use of plastic or crapping in the bush has nothing to do with the topic of climate change but it's the underlying lack of care and consideration for the environment that annoys me.

Then there's the cause of all our problems - over population and no politician will have the balls to do anything about that.

[roogazza]

So true. The goggle wise Youth today are quick to blame their parents generation for the state of the planet but no one when I was a youth ever needed a plastic bottle to drink from every 3 to 8 minutes to avoid instant death by dehydration and said bottle must be discarded or dumped at the roadside/river/lake/bush. Or a personal computer or plastic phone glued to their face that must be thrown away annually for a new one- made from oil extracted from the ground.

Every day I walk my dog along the Waikanae river mouth and beach and I carrying a bag to pick up mostly RTD cans and RTD glass bottles and plastic bottles that I very much doubt anyone from my generation dumped. I use a supermarket bag and re-use it as many times as possible then ensure it off to the landfill, not littered.

Cheers MD , well said !
I first noticed people (mainly women ) out walking in Australia in 1985.
All walking with water bottles !! I was out running ,like at least an hour at a time !
I didn't "dry up" on my runs so wtf ??!!

[mashman]

I have to man up and concede that you have a made a good reply and yes, our generation, well those of us in positions of power, do need to face the truth and take action.
In the mean time it would help if your mates stopped littering our beautiful planet and cheap skate freedom campers can bugger off home and poo in their own countryside. I backpacked around Europe in the early 80s, camping rough at times and on beaches in Greece. It wasn't a hardship to find a public toilet or buy a coffee so we could use their loo. I realise harping on about wasteful use of plastic or crapping in the bush has nothing to do with the topic of climate change but it's the underlying lack of care and consideration for the environment that annoys me.

Then there's the cause of all our problems - over population and no politician will have the balls to do anything about that.

I did not see that ending coming ....

Overpopulation isn't the cause of all our problems. I agree that it is a problem, but it too is a symptom of the actual problem.

This is evidence, not opinion.

Mankind uses 1.7 sustainable planets each year to maintain business as usual i.e. keep the economy going... NZ uses 2.9 each year by itself.

80% of the worlds population are claimed to be living on 20% of that which is produced. As such, and given a population of 7.6 billion, 6.08 billion live on 0.34 sustainable planets. Conversely that leaves 1.52 billion people living on 1.36 sustainable planets. As such, that 80% could off themselves and those who are left would still be unsustainable and wrecking the environment in the name of business.

Sprinkle a little obsolescence inspired inefficiency to ensure repeat custom, and the fate of the environment is all but set in stone... because when a business requires resources, it plans ahead to ensure that the resources required are available in the future, and if business doesn't, it goes out of business. As such, when I say set in stone, I mean already in the pipeline as they are already budgeted for with services contracted etc... to be extracted given that business needs to sell that stuff in order to remain in business

As such, the evidence states that it ain't wotcha do it's the way that yer doing it. And given that capitalism requires growth etc... so the population will need to rise. Business As usual is killing us. The data is telling us to stop approximately 50% of global production. People, it would seem, think that that is extreme. Now that is an opinion, and an exceptionally willfully ignorant one according to the evidence........ but hey.

[MaxPenguin]

So what he is saying is,

Its not our problem so do nothing, and the solution is to literally and figuratively put out fires.

What a knob.

[mashman]

So what he is saying is,

Its not our problem so do nothing, and the solution is to literally and figuratively put out fires.

What a knob.

Weird... I got,

Even if it is climate change driven, the solutions being put forwards aren't doing the job... no matter how loudly you shout at the PM, and no matter what your political preference is.

A knob?

[MD]

Overpopulation isn't the cause of all our problems. I agree that it is a problem, but it too is a symptom of the actual problem.

I have to disagree. Over population is the cause of all our environmental and climate problems, not a symptom. If the global population had never exceeded say 500 million people instead of the est. 9 billion now (and climbing faster every day) there would have never been a few billion vehicles, planes and train spitting out Co2 most of last century, less polluting factories, less polluting people, never would have been billions of tonnes of rubbished dumped weekly around the globe, probably less wars with fewer people the need to fight over territory would be reduced, less demand on arable land for housing/roads/buildings etc, less demand on our now diminishing animal and fish stocks, less deforestation and less species extinctions with less need for man to encroach outward.

You say business and the economy are killing us because they must always grow. Why must they grow- to feed growing demand by people. Therefore reduce the people-reduce the demand. So what if we are forced to face a downturn in economic living standards. That's still better than inevitable extinction.

I can see a flaw in the logic that we need constant growth to survive. Following that logic to it's natural conclusion we will need to 'be more efficient' in order to sustain 19 billion people soon, then 'more efficient' again to sustain 29b, 49b, 99b... To infinity and beyond is actually a comic line not a planet wide survival plan.

[Jeeper]

Interesting view on over population of humans. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s, the two billion mark not until the 1920s and now another 100 years down we are close to 9 billion. Something has to give, particularly if production efficiency has not grown at the same pace.

UN study in 2012 suggested the earth can sustain peak population of about 9 billion before population growth ought to or will start to decline for various reasons about 2100 onwards.

This planet cannot sustain infinite number of humans. New ways of sustainability have to be found, soon.

[MaxPenguin]

Interesting view on over population of humans. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s, the two billion mark not until the 1920s and now another 100 years down we are close to 9 billion. Something has to give, particularly if production efficiency has not grown at the same pace.

UN study in 2012 suggested the earth can sustain peak population of about 9 billion before population growth ought to or will start to decline for various reasons about 2100 onwards.

This planet cannot sustain infinite number of humans. New ways of sustainability have to be found, soon.

Something has already given.

You know, I don't give a fuck about the survival of the human race, we don't deserve this place,

[austingtir]

^^

LMAO at the hysterics.


Anyway this is the first time I think iv seen old Tony Abbott talk any sense:

https://amp.theguardian.com/australi...VIXt4mT4L_JXfE

[Katman]

Something has already given.

You know, I don't give a fuck about the survival of the human race, we don't deserve this place,

I like to think some of us do but...…

[pritch]

Then there's the cause of all our problems - over population and no politician will have the balls to do anything about that.

Well they might, but most of them won't telegraph it in advance. Trump? Well I guess he'll probably announce WW3 on Twitter. Accidentally of course.

[Jeeper]

Changes in climate inevitable and part of how this planet has evolved. At best they are symptoms caused by many underlying factors. One of these factors is likely to be exponential growth of human population in the last two hundred years, compared to say last 10k years.

There has to be some correlation between the changes we are seeing and human activity and need for sustenance.

I'm not hysterical about any impending doom, just curious to better understand what the drivers might be and how can I minimise my impact.

[mashman]

I have to disagree. Over population is the cause of all our environmental and climate problems, not a symptom. If the global population had never exceeded say 500 million people instead of the est. 9 billion now (and climbing faster every day) there would have never been a few billion vehicles, planes and train spitting out Co2 most of last century, less polluting factories, less polluting people, never would have been billions of tonnes of rubbished dumped weekly around the globe, probably less wars with fewer people the need to fight over territory would be reduced, less demand on arable land for housing/roads/buildings etc, less demand on our now diminishing animal and fish stocks, less deforestation and less species extinctions with less need for man to encroach outward.

You say business and the economy are killing us because they must always grow. Why must they grow- to feed growing demand by people. Therefore reduce the people-reduce the demand. So what if we are forced to face a downturn in economic living standards. That's still better than inevitable extinction.

I can see a flaw in the logic that we need constant growth to survive. Following that logic to it's natural conclusion we will need to 'be more efficient' in order to sustain 19 billion people soon, then 'more efficient' again to sustain 29b, 49b, 99b... To infinity and beyond is actually a comic line not a planet wide survival plan.

Those numbers I put forwards are actuals, not projections. However the projections are already in business plans around the world, because businesses are generating those actual numbers, and are guaranteed to add to those already increasing numbers in terms of sustainability that see just about every country around the world consume more than it can replace in any given year. That does not end well, but that is what the evidence is saying is happening. No opinion. The actuals.

I completely take your points regarding the economics of servicing our global population, and to a certain extent the "demand" generated by the people. I completely agree that overpopulation is A problem... but the evidence does not say that it is THE problem, because 6.08 million people exist using 0.34 sustainable planets. The vast majority of the population. Proven sustainable by the data. Way more than 500 million. What are the rest doing so differently? The answer to that revolves around us selling bits of planet for money (business as usual) and needing money to buy bits of planet with. Even where that economic behaviour is done hounourably and with the purest of financial systems, that collective behaviour is still unsustainable and pollutes to extinction level for an increasing number of canary species in the coal mine. And that's outwith any potential climate change.

The evidence states that globally we need to stop approximately 50% of that which we produce simply to be sustainable. No financial system can handle the number of people who need to become unemployed. Demand is generated for many reasons. The amount of crap that is produced in the world and that now lives in landfills and oceans etc... is staggering. We have the rubbish to prove just how much planet we use to coduct business as usual in some countries. So much so that masses of rubbish used to be exported and is now being redirected to landfill since the plastic collection in NZ was limited to 1 and 2 etc...

Now then, who's going to volunteer to put themselves out of business because what they produce isn't essential to the future of mankind? I will lament only the passing of coca-cola.

[FJRider]

Caramel Snow down our way

there has been this before and also red covered from dust storms
Sad for those that have lost homes etc. but its a natural part of the ecological cycle in Australia.

And the ecological cycle in NZ too. People seem to have forgotten the volcano in the central North island going boom a few years back. And more than once.

[Coldrider]

When Taupo last erupted, the Romans documented it.

Everthing burns, fast burn is when it decays by fire, slow burn is when it slowly decays when buried. Burns is still the same.

Life needs oxygen, trees need carbon. You have to have one to get the other.