Is it possible to fight the climate crisis and eat some meat?

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,015
If we could just get the CO2 concentration back up to around 1000ppm the resulting flourishing of plant life will provide abundant resources. It is very fortunate that man‘s intervention reversed the downtrend that saw CO2 heading towards 180ppm, a level that can no longer support plant life. Who knows, it may even help stave off the inevitable impending ice age by an extra few centuries as well.

The most sensible policy in my view is to holistically manage livestock and to regenerate the word's graslands.

The cow is the environmentalist's public enemey number one, but they hold the key to solving the problem of carbon sequestration in the soil.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
6,568

You will find that as soon as countries develop to a certain level then they reach an inflextion point. In the US this was around 2005.
Fair enough if you assume every country will follow a similar trajectory (fossil fuels/nuclear ---->renewables)

Countries with current low per capita emissions are more likely to go directly to renewables bypassing fossil fuels. Especially if their populations are not urbanised.

Still, too many babies.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,015
Fair enough if you assume every country will follow a similar trajectory (fossil fuels/nuclear ---->renewables)

Countries with current low per capita emissions are more likely to go directly to renewables bypassing fossil fuels. Especially if their populations are not urbanised.

Still, too many babies.
Renewables themselves cannot save us, the price is still to high and required landuse to big. They will most likely go to natural gas (which is cleaner than coal), or in my view Nuclear should be an option on the table.

The point is that population control automatically happens in rich countries (educated women have fewer children). So does caring about the environment. So a lot of what lies behind this debate is bad living standards.

The idea of telling people in Africa they they must stop their development, because we in Europe feel self-righteous about the environment should be held with scepticism.

You are correct however that 3rd world countries have 200 years of European development to fall back on. The materials available today are much better than at the same of English during the industrial revolution.
 
Last edited:

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
6,568
The point is that population control automatically happens in rich countries (educated women have fewer children). So does caring about the environment. So a lot of what lies behind this debate is bad living standards.
So back to my original point, don't churn out kids, which you called nonsense in post #14.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,015
So back to my original point, don't churn out kids, which you called nonsense in post #14.
You're wrong to have it enforced, the one child policy had disasterous consequences in China for example. Not having kids is a consequence of a country being developed and educated.

The root cause is not having children, it is living in an agrarian under-urbanised society.

The tragectory is usually like this:
  1. Parents who work on the farm have lots of kids to help them farm, most of them died because of diseases.
  2. Once a country has access to energy, then we can use fewer hands for farming.
  3. People start migrating to cities.
  4. Only the first generation of migrants have lots of kids.
  5. The 2nd generation usually realises how expensive life costs is than have fewer kids.

What Africa is experiencing now is the first migration, all predictions is that the world population won't ever reach 11 billion people and by the end of this century most Africans will stay in cities.

Essentially a population boom is part of a country's development. It is as sign of increasing wealth and prosperity, not the other way around.

 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,015
My grandmother for example migrated from a karoo farming community and had 6 children. She was a white Afrikaner. Today most Afrikaners have 1-2 kids. All societies go through this trend. It takes only 1 generation of breading.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
6,568
You're wrong to have it enforced, the one child policy had disasterous consequences in China for example. Not having kids is a consequence of a country being developed and educated.

The root cause is not having children, it is living in an agrarian under-urbanised society.

The tragectory is usually like this:
Parents who work on the farm have lots of kids to help them farm, most of them died because of diseases.
Once a country has access to energy, then we can use fewer hands for farming.
People start migrating to cities.
Only the first generation of migrants have lots of kids.
The 2nd generation usually realises how expensive life costs is than have fewer kids.

What Africa is experiencing now is the first migration, all predictions is that the world population won't ever reach 11 billion people and by the end of this century most Africans will life in cities.

Essentially a population boom is part of a country's development. It is as sign of increasing wealth and prosperity, not the other way around.

Yeah, to be honest, when I made the original post, my thinking was more that it applied to people who live first-world lives since people who live 3rd world lives generally don't pay heed to abstract causes like climate change.

I totally agree that one-child shouldn't be enforced, but I do think it's a valid sacrifice for people (especially first-worlders) to make voluntarily if they are concerned about climate change. And it is the most meaningful change any individual can make (other than, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, suicide or homicide, which will have other undesirable consequences). Remember, as much as first-worlders are more aware of their emissions, and work to keep them down, they are also emitting more in their lifestyles than the rural poor. I am aware of the emissions of many of my choices, but I'm willing to bet there's entire families of rural poor who emit less than I do.
 

nightjar

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,667

ShaunSA

Derailment Squad
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
27,262
Eat meat, Drive a car. Do whatever the **** you want.

Greta's childhood is long gone :cool:
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,015
Yeah, to be honest, when I made the original post, my thinking was more that it applied to people who live first-world lives since people who live 3rd world lives generally don't pay heed to abstract causes like climate change.

I totally agree that one-child shouldn't be enforced, but I do think it's a valid sacrifice for people (especially first-worlders) to make voluntarily if they are concerned about climate change. And it is the most meaningful change any individual can make (other than, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, suicide or homicide, which will have other undesirable consequences). Remember, as much as first-worlders are more aware of their emissions, and work to keep them down, they are also emitting more in their lifestyles than the rural poor. I am aware of the emissions of many of my choices, but I'm willing to bet there's entire families of rural poor who emit less than I do.

I dispute that. In third world countries people are using wood to make a living, while in countries like France we are using Nuclear power. First world countries have higher energy dense technologies, which is why we get more output. The dirty truth however is that we need to emitte a certain amount to be able to gaurentee our lifestyles. The idea of getting rid of it all will take us into poverty.

The point is that in first world countries it is completely sensible to have 2-3 children and not due any great damage to the environment.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
21,418
I dispute that, in third world countries people are using wood to make a living, while in countries like France we are using Nuclear power. First world countries have higher energy dense technologies, which is why we get more output. The dirty truth however is that we need to emitte a certain amount to be able to gaurentee our lifestyles. The idea of getting rid of it all will take us into poverty.
Thank you.
Nice to see someone talking about energy density, which is the real limitation of progress. The more energy dense electricity generation becomes, the kinder it is to the environment and society.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
6,568
I dispute that. In third world countries people are using wood to make a living, while in countries like France we are using Nuclear power. First world countries have higher energy dense technologies, which is why we get more output. The dirty truth however is that we need to emitte a certain amount to be able to gaurentee our lifestyles. The idea of getting rid of it all will take us into poverty.
Yeah, yeah, France imports uranium ore so all the CO2 emissions from mining end up on someone else's bill. Point is, countries with large percentage rural poor are not featuring at the top of the list of CO2 emissions per capita.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,015
Yeah, yeah, France imports uranium ore so all the CO2 emissions from mining end up on someone else's bill. Point is, countries with large percentage rural poor are not featuring at the top of the list of CO2 emissions per capita.
They have other exernalities that you're not considering such as mass deforestation due to a reliance on wood. Those countries are in the process of developing and they will need C02 to get to where the first world countries are. It is unrealistic to expect them not to develop.

The C02 emissions from mining Uranian? They are mainly related to power use and in some cases methane gases that are in the mine. Now you see why it is also sensible to use some of our natural gas.

Don't forget that in South Africa for example, Uranian is mined as a byproduct of gold and cobalt. It isn't a good analysis to lump them all together. It is silly need to use the uranium when we use the other products that come with it.

Ultimately the whole climate problem is a resource scarcity problem, which makes it an economics problem. Unrealistic solutions like don't eat meat or go back to the stone age is plainly ridiculous.
 

Urist

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
2,227
Which means you are there as well. Why don't you set an example for all of us and kill yourself.
725082

Was thinking more in the lines of planned parenthood and having fewer children.
The infinity gauntlet doesn't really exist.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
21,418
View attachment 725082

Was thinking more in the lines of planned parenthood and having fewer children.
The infinity gauntlet doesn't really exist.
I posted a solution to you that was 1/3.5billion times less harmful than the Thanos solution, yet I am the one who is escalating things.
 
Top