Australia Fire storm.

[mashman]

I'm interested to know how you see deforestation as being a 'natural' phenomenon.

Post #22. Should've been pretty explanatory.

[Katman]

Post #22. Should've been pretty explanatory.

Fair enough. I've always just considered the word deforestation to describe a man-made occurrence.

Yes, fires can happen naturally but the ratio of natural fires versus man-made fires is very, very lop sided.

And if we take as fact the suggestion that man-made deforestation is causing an increase in average temperatures then certainly the ferocity of a naturally occurring fire today can still be placed back in the laps of humans.

[mashman]

Fair enough. I've always just considered the word deforestation to describe a man-made occurrence.

Yes, fires can happen naturally but the ratio of natural fires versus man-made fires is very, very lop sided.

And if we take as fact the suggestion that man-made deforestation is causing an increase in average temperatures then certainly the ferocity of a naturally occurring fire today can still be placed back in the laps of humans.

It can be weird to accept that deforestation is a natural occurrence and that mans burning things falls under that heading, but it did happen before human beings. The human bit is the land clearances and feeble attempts at growing enough to replace that which is removed in the name of commerce.

It s very lopsided as there is only 1 nature lol. But yeah, stupid people set stupid fires and a minority of accidents happen that all end in the same thing. something that nature would have done, but something we have a history of covering up (with houses and farms).

Absolutely... but it serves no purpose knowing why/who started it unless you can wholly prevent it. Fortunately it won't happen again for quite some time given the levels of "burn off" and predicted "burn off" to come. Maybe we'll learn this time and concrete the lot

[Katman]

Absolutely... but it serves no purpose knowing why/who started it unless you can wholly prevent it. Fortunately it won't happen again for quite some time given the levels of "burn off" and predicted "burn off" to come. Maybe we'll learn this time and concrete the lot

So why isn't man-made deforestation being as loudly condemned as the issue of 'climate change' is being loudly pushed?

[mashman]

So why isn't man-made deforestation being as loudly condemned as the issue of 'climate change' is being loudly pushed?

Fucking good question! I often ask the same thing as trees are often glossed over in terms of reasons for the planet returning to equilibrium after a natural disaster. Volcanoes seem to get all of the press for the gases they release, yet ne'er a mention of the vegetation fires and the resultant co2 puff into the atmosphere that would have occurred at the same time. Maybe tree don;t have the significance that science says they do given that they teach that science at school?

[MaxPenguin]

So why isn't man-made deforestation being as loudly condemned as the issue of 'climate change' is being loudly pushed?

Climate change is a buzzword, that sadly will become boring soon. Deforestation is possibly mankind's stupidest thing.

[neels]

Would I like to see less Plastics - Yes, Go invent something Bio-degradeable that does all the things (or some of the things) that Plastic Does.
Would I like to see more Green Energy - Yes, Go figure out how to make tidal flow generators that consistently work and don't break in a Storm.
Would I like to see more Electric Vehicles - Yes, Constant torque all throughout the rev range - Go invent battery technology or a system that can recharge in the same time it takes to refuel.

Give me a better alternative and like the Capitalist I am, I'll use that. Give me some piss weak alternative that works like shit but you try to prop up with 'but muh environment' and I'll tell you to fuck off.

This approach is definately better than consuming the planet to extinction, but the alternative needs to be viable. The other issue that arises is when the alternative reduces profits so is not actively pursued by business, so unless it is demaded by the population it won't happen. Use of plastics is the best example of this, it's cheap and easy from the manufacturer end, and the other end of it's life isn't their problem.

Fair enough. I've always just considered the word deforestation to describe a man-made occurrence.

Deforestation could be consided to be both, there are large areas of the planet which were once covered in forest that are now desert, which occurred long before man got involved. There are equally large areas of the planet that have been deliberately deforested by humans, cutting down of the amazon rainforests for farming, or in NZ where the majority of forest removal has been by humans for various reasons.

It seems reasonably apparent that there is a natural climate change cycle, however it also seems that this is being accelerated by human activities.

I remember reading a while back that human use of resources exceeded the planets capacity to regenerate has been happening since the early 80's, and the major causes of that are population growth and overconsumption by developed countries.

Overconsumption is one area where individuals or populations can make a difference, simply by voting with their wallets. Supermarkets and fast food companies are already getting rid of the stupid plastic toys which have a very short life cycle before ending up in landfill, and working (albeit very slowly) on packaging options. Stupid things like giant hands or inflatable bats to bash together at sports games don't need to exist at all, so just stop making them, only a small difference but if you start adding up small differences they start to make a larger difference.

[mashman]

I remember reading a while back that human use of resources exceeded the planets capacity to regenerate has been happening since the early 80's, and the major causes of that are population growth and overconsumption by developed countries.

Overconsumption is one area where individuals or populations can make a difference, simply by voting with their wallets. Supermarkets and fast food companies are already getting rid of the stupid plastic toys which have a very short life cycle before ending up in landfill, and working (albeit very slowly) on packaging options. Stupid things like giant hands or inflatable bats to bash together at sports games don't need to exist at all, so just stop making them, only a small difference but if you start adding up small differences they start to make a larger difference.

Earth Overshoot?

The issue with voting with the wallet, is that it puts people out of work and the more people that go out of work, the more that prices will rise with less people being able to buy and less available to buy etc... The small steps will, unfortunately, only go so far. The CEO of coca-cola recently estimated that once competition for reusable resource has bedded down, the best they will reach is 50% recyclables in their products. It's fizzy water, and similar to toys, needs to stop production. Voting with the wallet is going to cause a few economic issues. And similarly to the small steps in terms of resource use/reuse, each business that falls by the wayside will collectively add up to some serious issues for the economy. Catch 22, but addressing overconsumption is gonna require more than voting with our wallets as a solution. Not saying that it won't get the ball rolling, but it'll likely be seen as acceptable business attrition... if only to keep confidence high.

[neels]

The issue with voting with the wallet, is that it puts people out of work and the more people that go out of work, the more that prices will rise with less people being able to buy and less available to buy etc... The small steps will, unfortunately, only go so far. The CEO of coca-cola recently estimated that once competition for reusable resource has bedded down, the best they will reach is 50% recyclables in their products. It's fizzy water, and similar to toys, needs to stop production. Voting with the wallet is going to cause a few economic issues. And similarly to the small steps in terms of resource use/reuse, each business that falls by the wayside will collectively add up to some serious issues for the economy. Catch 22, but addressing overconsumption is gonna require more than voting with our wallets as a solution. Not saying that it won't get the ball rolling, but it'll likely be seen as acceptable business attrition... if only to keep confidence high.

If there is demand for a product, consumer choice will only determine which business has market share, if a manufacturer doesn't evolve and dies another that provides what the consumer wants will replace it. That's business.

Economic effect is one of the favourite arguments against change, however if there is a forced change the economy manages to carry on, so I suspect the main reason for this is that it will affect the people making the argument and/or their interests.

The alternative is continue consuming until there's nothing left for anyone, in which case supply and demand will increase prices and lead to less people being able to buy anyway.

[mashman]

If there is demand for a product, consumer choice will only determine which business has market share, if a manufacturer doesn't evolve and dies another that provides what the consumer wants will replace it. That's business.

Economic effect is one of the favourite arguments against change, however if there is a forced change the economy manages to carry on, so I suspect the main reason for this is that it will affect the people making the argument and/or their interests.

The alternative is continue consuming until there's nothing left for anyone, in which case supply and demand will increase prices and lead to less people being able to buy anyway.

It isn't just consumer choice that determines market share. At the end of the cycle it does, but first the money has to be found to create the business, and that requires investors and banks. Where an idea is too good i.e. detrimental to the economy, so it won't be offered as a choice for consumers to choose from given the economic effects that would take place on its introduction. As you say though, that's business... who cares that that collective activity is essentially destroying the place.

As you say, the people making the arguments want to see their outcome, else if they understood their economic activity as rational human beings they would put themselves out of business... therefore they must embrace any narrative to the contrary that their activity is unsustainable. Sad, but hey, they are the positions one must adopt to stay in business. Banks and investors need something to put their money into so that there's enough money to create more jobs in the economy in general to prevent mad price fluctuations and ensure discretionary income is available to buy what is produced and a blah blah blah......... so the economic effects are more than real as such only changes the potential timetable for collapse.

[TheDemonLord]

Where an idea is too good i.e. detrimental to the economy, so it won't be offered as a choice for consumers to choose from given the economic effects that would take place on its introduction.

Yep.

Online Streaming services definitely don't exist.
Nor does online News Websites.
Email? Nope, we do everything by Fax.
Mobile phones? All you ever need is a landline.

/sarcasm

[FJRider]

My greatest fear is that it might come out that some of these fires were started by 'climate change' activists.

That could serve genuine environmentalists a crippling blow worldwide.

It's not the "crippling blow" I'd like to see them get ...

[Jeeper]

I wonder how Blockbuster is doing.

[sidecar bob]

Deforestation is possibly mankind's stupidest thing.

Id still rather a woman that trims things a little though.

[Katman]

It's not the "crippling blow" I'd like to see them get ...

I suspect they'd say the same about you.