U.N. report: Earth warming likely to pass limit set by leaders

U.N. report: Earth warming likely to pass limit set by leaders

Those leaders just can not tell to earth to be in certain degrees, they need commit with all necessary actions to reach that goal.

Some harm from climate change — dwindling ice sheets, rising sea levels and changes in the oceans as they lose oxygen and become more acidic — are “irreversible for centuries to millennia,” the report said.

A big "thank you" to all climate change deniers for making this possible of course.... You should all be put on a rocket and sent to the sun.

It should NOT surprise anyone that in the US Republican pols, especially the Trump QGOP R's) get the most money in contributions from the oil/gas industry.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=e01&cycle=2020&recipdetail=S&sortorder=S&mem=Y

It makes me angry that our leaders have squandered so many opportunities to deal with this when we could. My children are going to face a very uncertain future thanks to their inaction. Nothing pusses me off more than that right now.

n a new move, scientists emphasized how cutting airborne levels of methane, a powerful but short-lived gas that has soared to record levels, could help curb short-term warming.

You would think countries like Russia where thawing permafrost is releasing huge amounts of methane, would be global leaders of climate change. But when Russian leaders have control over Russia's oil and gas industries, maybe those leaders are afraid of losing their personal wealth and power, and have little if any regard for anyone else.

Permafrost Thaw in Siberia Creates a Ticking ‘Methane Bomb’ of Greenhouse Gases, Scientists Warn

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-siberia-thawing-permafrost-releases-more-methane-180978381/

You ungrateful, tempestuous Earth !! “How Dare You !!” pass the limits set by your human leaders,

“Earth warming likely to pass limit set by leaders” -

after all they’ve done for You.

The article seems somewhat ungretaful, failing to acknowledge its Sep 23, 2019 U.N. sources.

Typical contradictory behavior from the climate change elite.

Not everyone interested in arresting climate change is, cough cough, "elite". Most of us work for a living and get by paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure as heck not jetting around the world. Don't paint with such a broad and poorly aimed brush. A lot of hard working poor are suffering from climate chance and want to see change but their voices are too often drowned out by others who make their living polluting the Earth, and by that I don't mean just corporate directors but rank and file petroleum workers, auto workers and others in polluting industries. It is not just a dispute between the wealthy. It is mostly people grubbing to make a living who have the most at stake and who suffer the most from the adverse effects of climate change.

Typical contradictory behavior from the climate change elite. 

Therefore nobody should do anything. Because liberals.

I would prefer it that they actually focus on real tangible environmental problems instead of trying to stop natural climate cycles.

It's not a 'natural climate cycle', it's climate change driven by human activity and....

Oh, what's the point? It's clearly all too difficult for some people to grasp basic chemistry & physics.

We'll just get on with this without you.

As we see all too frequently, Japan is as susceptible as any country to weather-based calamaties. One meter of sea rise will also put highly populated sections of Japan's largest cities under water. You might hope our leader would comment on this report, but he is still busy trying to create positive spin about the Olympics.

Japan continues to spend money on and burn lots of coal, but best not talk about that.

The Earth and Sun will do as they please, waving a finger at them isn't going to make a difference.

True, which is why we aren't waving our fingers at the Earth and Sun, we are trying to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

If you are having difficulty understanding the science the report referenced in the article will help.

All the fossilized Repubs here saying global warming is a myth will no doubt end up like all their fellow Repubs now in the ICU with severe COVID saying "the virus is a hoax"....

If global warming is indeed caused by human actions then we are likely too late to do much about it, at least in the short term. Short of almost completely stopping industrial activity and dramatically reducing the population, current proposed measures are just not going to do the job. Unless a natural global cooling sets in we are doomed.

Here's a TED talk about Climate Change by Kashmala Kakahel and one of the reasons for it.

https://youtu.be/dQLLXyFvQOE

If global warming is indeed caused by human actions then we are likely too late to do much about it, at least in the short term. Short of almost completely stopping industrial activity and dramatically reducing the population, current proposed measures are just not going to do the job. Unless a natural global cooling sets in we are doomed.

Or maybe instead of destroying our economies and laying waste to the human population we could just switch to renewable energy sources that are cheaper anyway.

Global temperature has never been as high with a human population of nearly eight billion people to feed. The temperature when there were 300,000 hunter-gatherers is irrelevant. They had whole new continents to explore.

Any action that ensures food production, drinking water, sanitation, etc. for eight billion people and not eight billion minus you is worthwhile. The ongoing fantasy in the most-polluting countries is that this is only going to affect/kill poor people somewhere else. People would react differently if they thought they were killing themselves or their own wealth would be destroyed.

we've had meeting after meeting about this since the 90's. Until the insurance companies and big business change to address pollution the same distractions will continue

COVID was a gift on one respect, it allowed us to see the blue sky again as it should be, before The Machine was turned back on again

we have to change the machine should we wish to live

This should be the top news story, not many about Suga, who will likely be gone in a month or two.

Anyway, actions need to be taken.

1) Reduce humans, particularly in countries with excessive consumption habits.

2) Stop investments in fossil fuel development and end all subsidies for oil, gas, coal companies.

2) Stop the war machines, especially the US military, a huge CO2 emitter.

3) Greatly scale back the industrial meat industry.

Time to throw up our hands and admit that humans cannot control the planet’s thermostat. Best to adapt and move on with life.

Sad how some just blindly follow what’s on the US rightwing hymn sheet.

Isn’t there a way to smuggle non-stupid things onto it? Can someone offer Tucker Carlson a bribe?

We'll just get on with this without you.

Yes, they are a minority. If you look at the US, they are basically passengers being carried along by the more educated, economic powerhouse states anyway. The educated states can lead on this.

Also, in other developed countries, this isn’t as much of a matter of political partisanship.

Has anyone located those Jewish space lasers starting the fires yet?

1) Reduce humans, particularly in countries with excessive consumption habits.

I truly despise this argument, its stupid, unethical and even worse than the drivel the climate denialists are peddling.

Its stupid because we need to act NOW to drastically reduce emissions. Like the stuff we have to do has to be done this decade or we are screwed. Demographics take decades to change in any significant way. Japan's birthrate fell below replacement levels in the 1970s and its only recently that its population started to fall. Reducing birthrates NOW won't have any noticable impact on population levels until the 2050s by which time it will be too late anyway. And even then its meaningless - fewer people won't in itself create any benefits.

Its unethical because owing to the above time issue which makes reducing birthrates completely ineffective for this to have any meaningful impact on climate change you would have to be suggesting something far more nefarious. its a disgusting and disturbing place to be turning for "solutions" and is every bit as dangerous as Nazi ideology was in the 1930s.

When the hypocritical plutocrats of the IPCC start actually LIVING as if the Earth were in crisis, I would take them more seriously. However, they are keen to maintain their jetsetting, globetrotting lifestyle it seems. Just look at 2019, before Covid. NO virtual meetings, constant junkets to places like Geneva, Kyoto, Monaco, Vancouver... these folks are living large.

The pollution problem is in the third world. You want to tell those countries to stop developing? Tell them they can't aspire to anything but poverty? There are nearly 3 billion people in China and India who will disagree with you.

Burning Bush

I would prefer it that they actually focus on real tangible environmental problems instead of trying to stop natural climate cycles.

Whataboutism. And, no, these are not natural climate cycles. Did you read the article? They are unnatural. They are man-made and only man can undo them. Climate change is real and maybe the science is a bit intangible for you, but it is very real.

Wakarimasen

If global warming is indeed caused by human actions then we are likely too late to do much about it, at least in the short term.

Why? That's defeatist talk. Take on the challenge!

Short of almost completely stopping industrial activity and dramatically reducing the population, current proposed measures are just not going to do the job.

I don't think reducing the population is the answer? What about renewable energy and sustainable agriculture?

Unless a natural global cooling sets in we are doomed.

What a weak response.

Wolfpack

Time to throw up our hands and admit that humans cannot control the planet’s thermostat. Best to adapt and move on with life.

The words of a coward. No, time to confront the crisis with action. The planet's thermostat is man-made and hence man can control it.

Attilathehungry

When the hypocritical plutocrats of the IPCC start actually LIVING as if the Earth were in crisis, I would take them more seriously. However, they are keen to maintain their jetsetting, globetrotting lifestyle it seems.

Really? That's what concerns you? Not the coming climate crisis that is impending? But petty finger pointing that is almost undoubtedly untrue. What is it about their message that is so threatening to you? That you will have to change?

It's too late. Just enjoy your remaining days on Earth.

Take a look at the mass graves dug for horses in Kazakhstan as Central Asian steppe hit by brutal heat wave, leaving wells and rivers running dry:

The pathetic image sends a chill down one's spine.

The drought stricken nation with vast plain land requires immediate help..

2020hindsights; yes, it DOES concern me. They remind me of the television evangelists from the 80s and 90s, preaching good deeds and poverty while living like royalty. IF they truly believed, they would be eager to demonstrate it. Much like a certain ex-president who worried about rising sea levels yet bought a 13 million dollar seaside mansion, preached about how "at a certain point you have made enough money" yet spends millions on his own birthday party. Who worries about the climate while his 500 party guests jet in (on private planes of course) for his bacchanal.

Hypocrisy kills credibility.

I am all for technology, renewable energy, and conservation. I am NOT for the heavy fist of government crashing down on peoples' necks.

@rainyday

The birthrate in Japan is a lot more nuanced than reported. It is really only those who live in Tokyo who do not produce babies.

Osaka is full of children and larger families. Not that I would want the population of Japan or the world to grow but if you did want to, then moving people away from Tokyo would be the quickest and easiest way of increasing the child making.

As for the IPCC reports I did read one fully and was not convinced at all. I accept CO2 rises each year and has done for over 50 years by modern measurements. They actually fudged the numbers to move from Ice Core readings to Hawaiian and Artic readings. I however do not accept that an average of an average from some very non robust temperature readings is good science. I do not accept that only 5 or 6 sites can really produce a number of quality and the NASA numbers are in their baby years.

The UK has a good record of temperature taking and records going back 100 years and more although the accuracy of a person in his garden reading should be 1 degree not 0.1 degree. The historic data in the UK shows very little temperature change over 100 years.

That said I think a world using re-usable energy, no coal, no nuclear is a good world. People should be less wasteful, they should not be travelling to an ex-presidents birthday parties etc. Plastic use is out of control and farming tech / big industry are all for profit.

I wont be going vegan because I know rice/potato production is never factured in properly. I do not have a car, I cycle, my gas bill is lower by a considerable margin do any model I have seen. I collect water on rainy days to water my plants. I re-use plastic bottles and so on.

I do many of things I am meant to do and have done my whole life. Not because I think the IPCC are correct but just because I hate waste. Then again I think one good thing could happen which would help everyone. Shut down the UN and shut down the IPCC and spend the money on helping real people not just virture signalling elites.

The birthrate in Japan is a lot more nuanced than reported. It is really only those who live in Tokyo who do not produce babies.

Osaka is full of children and larger families. Not that I would want the population of Japan or the world to grow but if you did want to, then moving people away from Tokyo would be the quickest and easiest way of increasing the child making.

The city of Osaka has shrunk way more than Tokyo, its population used to exceed 3 million, now it is at 2.6. I'm sure you've seen some babies in Osaka but so what?

 I however do not accept that an average of an average from some very non robust temperature readings is good science.  I do not accept that only 5 or 6 sites can really produce a number of quality and the NASA numbers are in their baby years.

OK, so temperature readings from five or six locations (which is it, 5 or 6?) is not good science but:

The UK has a good record of temperature taking and records going back 100 years and more although the accuracy of a person in his garden reading should be 1 degree not 0.1 degree. The historic data in the UK shows very little temperature change over 100 years.

measurements from one person in his garden in one country are?

Anyway, what about THIS report which is the subject of the article do you find objectionable?

That said I think a world using re-usable energy, no coal, no nuclear is a good world. People should be less wasteful, they should not be travelling to an ex-presidents birthday parties etc. Plastic use is out of control and farming tech / big industry are all for profit.

Very much agreed.

I wont be going vegan because I know rice/potato production is never factured in properly. I do not have a car, I cycle, my gas bill is lower by a considerable margin do any model I have seen. I collect water on rainy days to water my plants. I re-use plastic bottles and so on.

I'm not a vegan either and like eating meat. I do all of those things too (though my wife does have a car).

I do many of things I am meant to do and have done my whole life. Not because I think the IPCC are correct but just because I hate waste. 

Thats fine, you should do what you want for the reasons you want. But that in itself doesn't mean that the IPCC is incorrect in its overall findings.

Then again I think one good thing could happen which would help everyone. Shut down the UN and shut down the IPCC and spend the money on helping real people not just virture signalling elites.

This is a spurious argument I always hate seeing because you can just throw it against anything you dislike. I'm being hypocrtical in noting this since I use it as a rhetorical device quite a bit too (especially in the context of objecting to the Olympics recently) but its still an empty argument. "Spend the money on something else!" is not in and of itself a substantive argument against something.

Climate change is a collective action problem which by its nature requires countries to respond to it in a coordinated fashion, otherwise nothing they do will work. If one country commits to reducing emissions while others increase theirs, the investments of the reducing country will be wasted. Knowing this, no country will make such investments unless they are acting in coordination with other countries to prevent others from cheating. This type of coordination of a joint activity that will play out over decades requires some organizational form, which is what the IPCC is. Without it, or some equivalent body, performing that function the world is truly screwed. This isn't to say that it is a perfect organization, but demanding it be abolished is basically demanding that we set the world on fire.

What’s going to happen when the ocean level increases 2 meters and more?

I have great faith in business to wake up and save the day in the nick of time simply because if the Earth burns, floods, and blows away, profit decreases.

There actually is a sliver of hope that this might be what saves us.

Most stock in major corporations in the developed world are owned by large institutional investors. All of these have heavily diversified portfolios, they don't just invest in one company or one sector of the economy. These investors hold a lot of the shares in fossil fuel companies too.

Until recently they were happy enough to invest in fossil fuel companies and take the returns on that. But recently they've become acutely aware of the fact that the business model of those companies poses a significant threat to their overall portfolios, which are mostly made up of non-fossil fuel companies. In simple math terms, if a fossil fuel company earns 10$ in profit for each unit of emissions it creates, but those emissions will create 20$ in costs that will be absorbed elsewhere in the economy (insurance companies paying out due to storms or fires, disruptions to businesses from flooding, etc) then the emissions represent a 10$ loss to the institutional investor's portfolio (the 10$ gain to the fossil fuel company they are invested in is offset by the 20$ loss to other companies). So most of them are now in the mindset that the oil companies are a threat to profitability rather than an opportunity.

Some institutional investors have responded to this by divesting themselves from fossil fuel investments. But doing so creates a problems since the fossil fuel company can carry on with business as usual, albeit suffering a bit of a loss due to a higher cost of capital. Other institutional investors have taken a more direct approach and are using their shareholder rights to actually force changes on management of fossil fuel companies. Exxon for example got several of its directors booted from office in its annual shareholders meeting this year because institutional investors were pissed at its lack of any serious attempt to change its business model to account for climate change.

Its still early going but I expect this trend to accelerate in the coming years and it could also be vital in changing the political roadblocks in the US, since most of the opposition to meaningful at its core is the result of fossil fuel companies having captured the GOP and some democrats. Cut the head off of that and you've got a viable path to reform.

U.N. report: Earth warming likely to pass limit set by leaders

The impertinence! The earth does not listen our leaders. That calls for harsh punishment.

Attilathehungry

2020hindsights; yes, it DOES concern me. They remind me of the television evangelists from the 80s and 90s, preaching good deeds and poverty while living like royalty. IF they truly believed, they would be eager to demonstrate it.

First of all, maybe their jetsetting, globetrotting lifestyle is just travelling. And are you to tell me that you haven't travelled to places abroad (before covid)? you protest too much, methinks.

I am all for technology, renewable energy, and conservation. I am NOT for the heavy fist of government crashing down on peoples' necks.

Drastic times call for drastic measures.

As for the IPCC reports I did read one fully and was not convinced at all.

@Nator - you didn't mention your qualifications in climate science. Are you a leading climate scientist?

What’s going to happen when the ocean level increases 2 meters and more?

Poor people will die. That's why conservatives don't care.

Express sister

What’s going to happen when the ocean level increases 2 meters and more?

Poor people will die. That's why conservatives don't care.

Errr,,, must also be why "liberal" politicians and wealthy climate activists like Al Gore by beachfront property.

rainyday

Most stock in major corporations in the developed world are owned by large institutional investors. All of these have heavily diversified portfolios, they don't just invest in one company or one sector of the economy. These investors hold a lot of the shares in fossil fuel companies too.

... so you are claiming that we can have a modern society without fossil fuel companies? Can you elaborate how that would work?

Your solution sounds a bit like solving a food shortage by just stopping to eat.

Errr,,, must also be why "liberal" politicians and wealthy climate activists like Al Gore by beachfront property.

It isn't. That's because they are wealthy, and can leave.

I said poor people will die. Did you read my post? It would help if you read my post.

It's not a surprise the climate change deniers belong to bottom of the intelligence scale, this part of the population are not smart enough to procreate and might not feel the effects of climate change.

What’s going to happen when the ocean level increases 2 meters and more?

Some goobers are still going to pretend climate change isn't real.

... so you are claiming that we can have a modern society without fossil fuel companies? Can you elaborate how that would work?

Its a bit much for a comment on JT, but the TLDR version is that modern society runs on energy, not on fossil fuels per se. We have other sources of energy that won't wreak havoc with the climate. We should use them, rather than fossil fuels, to provide energy to modern society. This transition won't happen overnight and in some areas ( such as air transport) its not going to be feasible in the near term, but in most areas the technology exists, can be done at the scales necessary and at a cost that is already cheaper than fossil fuels.

The actual corporations which provide fossil fuels don't need to be done away with, but they need to alter their business models if they are going to survive.

Your solution sounds a bit like solving a food shortage by just stopping to eat.

I wasn't proposing a solution in that previous comment, if you were to read what it actually says rather than what you wanted it to say so you could drop that line on me I was just describing a situation that is happening now.

Start mandatory 1 child policy across the globe would solve the problem

Either that or the rich countries drastically cut down their emissions, meaning giving up their life standards

I think the first option is much more feasible

Either way, we've met the cap of the resources that this tiny planet can provide, don't believe a second about those climate change craps, yes were losing waters because of overpopulation of course the climate will change

Start mandatory 1 child policy across the globe would solve the problem

No it wouldn't. Even if you implemented such a policy today it wouldn't have any noticable effect on population growth until decades down the line, way too late to be a meaningful solution to anything.

Either that or the rich countries drastically cut down their emissions, meaning giving up their life standards

No it wouldn't. Switching from one form of energy to another doesn't mean going back to the stone age. Pretty much all our energy needs can be supplied by renewables now without negative impacts on standards of living.

Seth M

Start mandatory 1 child policy across the globe would solve the problem

This isn't a population problem. It's an energy problem. The solution is simple. Use low CO2 emitting energy sources.

@rainyday

I guess one way to limit thought is to use emotionally charged terms to label and dismiss an argument, rather than engaging with it. You may not like the fact that the world is overpopulated with people living way beyond the carrying capacity of the planet, but it is a fact and whether it takes a decade or more to change demographics, these will change either in a more planned or more violent way. The industrial food system, built on fossil fuels, has allowed the human populations to grow exponentially. By some calculations, it takes 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce, distribute and consume 1 calorie of food energy (many of these lacking enough nutrition). To go off fossil fuels quickly means we must drastically alter the industrial food system. A food system based on flow and not stock energy, especially that from the sun, will not be able to sustain the present global population. So are you suggesting that starvation, food wars, refugees dying at sea and infanticide are more ethical approaches than planned population reduction?

Please note I did not suggest that we need only reduce human population to address the climate and other ecological emergencies, and I called for a reduction of the greediest among us. We must try everything, with some action having a shorter time horizon and some longer. Going after banks and other capital funds to divest and targeting government subsidies for the fossil fuel industries are more immediate and necessary actions, but nothing should be off the table, whether you are emotionally comfortable with it or not. One could argue that the religious beliefs that promote and sanctify the excessive procreation of humans are unethical, as human life impacts the life chances and quality of other species on the planet, which we have an ethical obligation to share.

And really, did you have to pull out the Nazi card to try and gain an argumentative advantage?

@rainyday

Pretty much all our energy needs can be supplied by renewables now without negative impacts on standards of living.

Agreed if you are talking about the standard of living of most people in Cuba. On a national basis, Cuba is one of the few countries that takes a year to go beyond per capita global sustainable resource use. Japan, for example, reaches this every spring. After that, consumption today just diminishes the younger and future generations' life chances. On an individual basis, one can imagine that Jeff Bezos and the like reach this within the first five minutes of the new year.

I wonder who @ah-so you think is a climate expert. I would not say anyone was and if you actually read a full IPCC report and the massive amount of extra stuff you need to read because of the references they I would consider you as informed as any politician making policy.

I am not expert when it comes to climate but I can read reports and I am very good at understanding statistics and models. The reports the IPCC makes are full of caviats and rely on many assumptions all written down in the full report and all ignored by media and politicians.

I suggest everyone actually takes the time to read one of them and then make up their own mind on if the reports says what the media says. I think it took me over a week to conumes all the information involved so scanning though just does not cut it.

@rainy Regarding 5 or 6. There are at least 5 different methods that calculate the global average temperature and they all use different calculations. The normal method being to pick five or six weather stations to collect data from. Some land, some sea, some air and then average it out against change from a base year. Three sets of these numbers are the ones used by IPCC dependent on different parts of its reports.

Two things I do not like about this is are five or six measurement points enough for a whole globe and at each station things naturally go wrong and decisions are made if a reading will be included or not. If you start digging down into the individual weather stations some a very good at provide robust numbers and reason for not including. Some on the other hand are a complete mess. The numbers get smoothed out in the averaging and then smoothed out again with a dodgy acccess on a graph.

There were some very educated people in Denmark with a very complicated way of measuring the numbers but they are not part of the IPCC and their maths was well above anything I could understand and was input it a climate model to get results.

As said before the UK has some of the best historical data because weather enthusiasts would collect very good details and over the years all that has be collated. As such you can easily see the average temperature in any part of the UK for the last 100 years and check for yourself if it has actually moved up or or not.

Alternatively if you think climate change is caused by human CO2 and the global temperature is going to rise with sea levels then I suggest your best option is to make sure you are safe for the weather events that are going to happen because Russia and China are very unlikely to do anything to help and if they do nothing the small imprint that the UK and Japan do is insignificant.

stormcrowToday  01:04 pm JST

What’s going to happen when the ocean level increases 2 meters and more?

Al gore will buy more prime Florida ocean frotage.

There is just something about renewable energy.

https://youtu.be/dQLLXyFvQOE

A lot of people knew this even before it came out.

https://youtu.be/17xh_VRrnMU

I guess one way to limit thought is to use emotionally charged terms to label and dismiss an argument, rather than engaging with it.

Actually I did engage with your idea and explained the substance of my objections to it in some detail. I dropped a label on it after doing that, not instead of doing that.

You may not like the fact that the world is overpopulated with people living way beyond the carrying capacity of the planet, but it is a fact and whether it takes a decade or more to change demographics, these will change either in a more planned or more violent way. 

Global population trends today already show that population growth is slowing down considerably anyway though. Except for sub Saharan Africa the population in other regions either has peaked or will do so by mid century. I’m not at all sold that framing this in Malthusian terms is even remotely sensible.

The industrial food system, built on fossil fuels, has allowed the human populations to grow exponentially. By some calculations, it takes 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce, distribute and consume 1 calorie of food energy (many of these lacking enough nutrition). To go off fossil fuels quickly means we must drastically alter the industrial food system. A food system based on flow and not stock energy, especially that from the sun, will not be able to sustain the present global population. So are you suggesting that starvation, food wars, refugees dying at sea and infanticide are more ethical approaches than planned population reduction?

Yup, our food system is messed up, no argument there. And yup, we need to change that. But we already produce more than enough food for the current population, and our systems are capable of producing enough to accommodate the predicted peak population levels.

Please note I did not suggest that we need only reduce human population to address the climate and other ecological emergencies, and I called for a reduction of the greediest among us.

This is an article about climate change and it was the top point on your list. Its messed up and the Nazi comparison stands if you are going to stick with that framing. I’m an atheist so my argument is not based on religious belief. Its based on me being human and yeah, not being comfortable with people making arguments that we need to get rid of other members of our species so we don’t have to share limited resources with them. The Nazi label isn’t just spurious posturing on my part, I’m making a point about how dangerous this is.

Let me unpack that comparison for you. The Nazis made the exact same arguments you are making in order to mobilize the Germans to commit horrible atrocities. They needed “living space” because Germany didn’t have enough resources. Killing people in the east to take their land was a lot easier once you had sold everyone on the idea that there were too many people and not enough resources to go around.

Now I realize that you are not advocating mass exterminations like that, but by framing the issue as one of “we need to get rid of humans” you are making the job of people who do want to do evil crap a lot easier. And for what? Our problems aren’t that we have too many people, its that our institutions do a crap job of distributing what we have. You could cut the population in half and it wouldn’t get us an inch closer to solving any of our problems if the distributive problems persist. The wealthy over-consumers will just react to that by doubling their rate of consumption and we’ll be stuck in the same place. Demographics offer zero solutions to our problems, its an inane argument at best, a dangerous one that can be distorted to justify about any atrocity one can imagine at worst.

kohakuebisuAug. 10  09:31 am JST

Japan continues to spend money on and burn lots of coal, but best not talk about that.

A few statistics on Japanese energy/electricity generation:

The country lacks significant domestic reserves of fossil fuel, except coal, and must import substantial amounts of crude oil, natural gas, and other energy resources, including uranium. Japan relied on oil imports to meet about 84 percent of its energy needs in 2010.[2] Japan was also the first coal importer in 2010, with 187 Mt (about 20% of total world coal import), and the first natural gas importer with 99 bcm (12.1% of world total gas import).[3]

While Japan had previously relied on nuclear power to meet about 30% of its electricity needs, after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, all nuclear reactors were progressively shut down for safety concerns.[2] Since then, Ōi Nuclear Power Plant's reactors 3 and 4 were restarted on 14 March 2018, and 9 May 2018, respectively.[4] On 11 August 2015, and 1 November 2015, the two reactors at the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant restarted. Following the Fukushima disaster, the general public has opposed the use of nuclear energy.[5][6]

1) Oil demand is declining for power generation

2) Because domestic natural gas production is minimal, rising demand is met by greater imports. Japan want to switch to LNG and to a hub for it. Also, In 2017, Japan consumed 4.7 quadrillion Btu (1377 TWh) of imported methane.[13]

3) As of 2019, a third of the electricity in Japan was generated from coal. Government targets aimed to reduce that proportion to a quarter through closure of older, less efficient coal power plants. Twenty-two new coal plants were planned for the years 2020 to 2025.[24] In 2017, Japan consumed 4.738 quadrillion Btu (1,388 TWh) of imported coal.[13] On July 2020, the minister of Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, announced that around 100 coal plants would be shut down by 2030.[25] NOTE: I see some contradictions here.

4) Japan currently[when?] produces about 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. The Fourth Strategic Energy Plan set the renewable share goal to be 24% by 2030.

5) The country's main renewable energy source is hydroelectricity, with an installed capacity of about 27 GW and a production of 69.2 TWh of electricity in 2009.[39] As of September 2011, Japan had 1,198 small hydropower plants with a total capacity of 3,225 MW. The smaller plants accounted for 6.6 percent of Japan's total hydropower capacity. The remaining capacity was filled by large and medium hydropower stations, typically sited at large dams. Cost per kilowatt-hour for power from smaller plants was high at ¥15–100, hindering further development of the energy source.[40]

6) Japan has seen sustained growth of solar PV capacity after 2012, reaching a cumulative installed capacity of 34 GW by the end of 2015, generating 3.5% of the national electricity consumption in that year.

7) Japan had 1,807 wind turbines with a total capacity of 2440 MW as of September 2011. Lack of locations with constant wind, environmental restrictions, and emphasis by power utilities on fossil and nuclear power hinders the employment of more wind power in the country.[46] However, it has been estimated that Japan has the potential for 144 GW for onshore wind and 608 GW of offshore wind capacity.[47]

8) Geothermal power plays a minor role in the energy sector in the country: in 2013 it supplied 2596 GWh of electricity, representing about 0.25% of the country's total electricity supply.[3]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Japan

9) As of September 2011, Japan had 190 generators attached to municipal waste units and 70 independent plants using biomass fuel to produce energy. In addition, 14 other generators were used to burn both coal and biomass fuel. In 2008, Japan produced 322 million tons of biomass fuel and converted 76% of it into energy.[51]

10) In 2012, the government announced plans to build experimental tidal power and wave power plants in coastal areas. Construction on the projects, the locations for which have not been determined, would begin in 2013.[52]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan

Generation

Fossil fuels accounted for an estimated 661 TWh of Japan's net electricity generation in 2019, which represented about 70% of the total generation, up from 61% in 2010 (Figure 6). ...

The power sector uses coal as a baseload source for power generation.

More items...•Nov 2, 2020

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/JPN

International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pretty much all our energy needs can be supplied by renewables now without negative impacts on standards of living.

That isn't entirely true. On a warm windless night what is your renewable energy source to keep the air conditioning on? There are experimental battery back up systems on a couple of big utilities but they only last about four hours under a normal load, less if demand is high (humid summer night). Now what? There has to be something to provide a base load and that something is going to very likely be thermal, meaning oil, gas or nuclear. There is one promising technology now in testing where a more or less normal marine diesel engine (meaning something that stands four stories tall with ten cylinders each having a bore of three meters and a stroke of ten meters) powered by a blend of ammonia and a little hydrogen. If both the ammonia and hydrogen are produced by renewables, meaning the factory can only produce when there is solar or wind power, then you might have a carbon free energy source for baseload. There is some thought that gas turbines (jet engines) might also run on this fuel. So there are possibilities in the mid term to distant future but I would be happier if people were less afraid of nuclear power. Nuclear power solves a lot of problems, is available today and with spent fuel reprocessing does not have to present a big disposal problem to overcome.

@rainyday

Now I realize that you are not advocating mass exterminations like that, but by framing the issue as one of “we need to get rid of humans” you are making the job of people who do want to do evil crap a lot easier. And for what? Our problems aren’t that we have too many people, its that our institutions do a crap job of distributing what we have. You could cut the population in half and it wouldn’t get us an inch closer to solving any of our problems if the distributive problems persist. The wealthy over-consumers will just react to that by doubling their rate of consumption and we’ll be stuck in the same place. Demographics offer zero solutions to our problems, its an inane argument at best, a dangerous one that can be distorted to justify about any atrocity one can imagine at worst.

I see that you are trying to frame my argument as "getting rid of humans", when I am actually arguing for a reduction by having fewer births, it is not eliminating or "exterminating" existing humans. (Nice embellishment, by the way).

Since demographics (too many people consuming too much fossil fuel energy, following an ideology of perpetual growth and unlimited accumulation on a finite planet) are part of the problem, then how can demographics not be part of efforts to addressing the climate emergency? Fossil fuels led to more humans, once we knew how to transfer that energy into food energy. If we actually reduce the use of fossil fuels, this will mean less food energy, regardless of how much we produce now. So either in a more encouraged or more chaotic and violent way, the human population will shrink. You seem to opt for a more violent outcome. Is this not the real atrocity?

By the way, human demographics are deeply tied to distribution. More humans over-consuming feed animals has meant less distribution of food energy for wild animals. Why do you not talk about this "extermination"? We live beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Yes we should share, but we still have to reduce our material requirements and our numbers. There is no way to fudge this math.

I see that you are trying to frame my argument as "getting rid of humans"

How you yourself framed your argument:

1) Reduce humans, particularly in countries with excessive consumption habits.

Anyway….

when I am actually arguing for a reduction by having fewer births,

Yup, fewer births, got it. Birth rates in the ENTIRE developed world are already well below replacement levels, so how is this even remotely going to help anything in reality?? Even if you frame it just in terms of reducing the birth rate in those countries your argument makes zero sense.

Since demographics (too many people consuming too much fossil fuel energy, following an ideology of perpetual growth and unlimited accumulation on a finite planet) are part of the problem, then how can demographics not be part of efforts to addressing the climate emergency? 

Demographics are NOT part of the problem due to the facts I’ve already explained. This is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality to stick to an inane, senseless argument. The birthrates in developed countries are already below replacement levels. In most of the developing world they are rapidly declining too. The only place they aren’t is Sub Saharan Africa, which barely makes any contribution to climate change at all anyway.

If we actually reduce the use of fossil fuels, this will mean less food energy, regardless of how much we produce now. So either in a more encouraged or more chaotic and violent way, the human population will shrink. You seem to opt for a more violent outcome. Is this not the real atrocity?

Just saying it doesn’t make it so. I don’t know what idiotic ideology is driving you to ignore the reality but I think it is truly stupid and dangerous for reasons I’ve outlined before. You are the one rooting against humanity, not me.

By the way, human demographics are deeply tied to distribution.

I don’t think you understand my argument because it’s obviously flown over your head. Do a Thanos and lets hypothesize that your dream comes true, the global population is instantly halved. This does not solve anything. So long as the economic and political systems remain the way they are now, the level of over consumption and GHG emissions will not meaningfully go down. You’ll just have a population of 4 billion consuming what used to be consumed by 8 billion. Obviously some things like food will be produced in lesser quantities, but they’ll just use the inputs that used to go into that into something else. Jeff Bezos doesn’t consume much food for example but his personal consumption of other goods likely exceeds that of what many hundreds of thousands of the Earth’s poorest consume. Just reducing the population will let more people consume like he does, it won’t reduce overall consumption. You are not providing me with any counter arguments that get over problems like this which suggest that demographics is a complete dead end as a solution to anything. I mean, for Christ’s sake we have a real life example of using population control methods can do in China with its one child policy. That has done F all to make China more environmentally sustainable and in fact that country has become by far the worst polluter in the world while under that policy. I am not saying the one child policy caused this, but its obviously not solved anything there. Its just a stupid argument.

@rainyday

It's clear you do not have a good understanding of the deep connection between energy use, human population growth and economic growth. If you track these historically on global level, you will see they align and they all rise exponentially when humans start using industrially fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. Take a large amount of fossil fuels out of the equation (which the science tells us we must) and the human population will naturally decline. For anyone with a knowledge of ecological principles, this is pretty easy to understand. Take an important energy source out of an ecosystem and the carrying capacity of that system decreases. So as we go off our addiction to fossil fuels, if we can, then we will both have to lower our standards of living (which are based on this form of fuel) and reduce our populations. If we were to all live at the material and energy consumption of Cubans, the planet might sustainably support the existing population, but those who have are not likely willing give up what they are use to. So the only way to maintain higher material/energy use is a lower population base, and you are completely wrong in your argument to think half the global population would just double their consumption. This would be impossible with lower use of fossil fuels.

You are great at trash-talking others' arguments and proposals, but where are yours? How do you see the world reducing the use of fossil fuels?

It's clear you do not have a good understanding of the deep connection between energy use, human population growth and economic growth.

No I understand that perfectly well, I just don't think it provides us with a useful way of framing today's problems.

If you track these historically on global level, you will see they align and they all rise exponentially when humans start using industrially fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. 

This was HISTORICALLY true, but not an accurate description of demographics TODAY. Have a browse around the UN's World Population Prospects site, populations everywhere except Sub Saharan Africa are already peaking/ will peak in the near future.

https://population.un.org/wpp/

You can blather on about all this historical stuff all you want, but your arguments need to be able to incorporate real world information like this to be persuasive. Populations are not growing exponentially, they are barely growing at all, and moreover the only places they are growing are in areas where the population has extremely low rates of consumption anyway. So if birth rates have already peaked and are below replacement levels in most wealth countries anyway, why should birth rates be considered a key element of how the world responds to climate change? It makes no sense at all, and additionally you have the problem that I mentioned earlier that any changes to the birth rate will take decades to have any noticable impact anyway.

The view that exponential population growth is going to doom humanity might have made sense back in the 60s when populations really were growing at alarming rates, but its been a long time since that was the case.

 Take a large amount of fossil fuels out of the equation (which the science tells us we must) and the human population will naturally decline. 

No. Our societies don't run on fossil fuels per se, they run on energy. If we can get energy from other sources, which the science tells us we can, then we can avert whatever violent apocalypse you think is coming.

So the only way to maintain higher material/energy use is a lower population base, and you are completely wrong in your argument to think half the global population would just double their consumption. This would be impossible with lower use of fossil fuels.

You are missing my point entirely. Our societies are dominated by economic systems that are primed to maximize extraction of resources. Its that fact which is pushing us over the cliff, since its fundamentally unsustainable. If we don't change THAT dynamic, then we are screwed whether the population is 8 billion, 4 billion or whatever. Merely reducing the population itself does nothing to address THAT problem. Its a dead end solution.

You are great at trash-talking others' arguments and proposals, but where are yours? How do you see the world reducing the use of fossil fuels?

I'm not just trash talking your arguments, I'm giving you extremely detailed and substantive objections to them (which, yes, are peppered with trash talk, fair point). Personally I hope to hell we transition as fast as possible from fossil fuels to sources that don't produce GHG emissions. Will that happen in time to save our asses? I don't know, I maintain some optimism that decades of foot dragging is finally giving way and that the technology to do it exists, but who knows? Powerful vested interests are still fighting tooth and nail against it and they've been pretty succesful at screwing the rest of humanity over thus far.

What I am confident in is that saving our asses is going to require a lot of changes to our economic systems, our energy and transport systems and our agricultural systems. But I don't see fiddling with the birth rate as a useful solution. I mean hey, yeah I'm all in favor of making family planning, birth control, etc available and empowering women to make those choices, all measures that likely will reduce the birth rate in some countries. But I'm in favor of them on their own merits and not because I think they are going to do anything useful to help the environment.