Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,516
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    amirah5
    Newest Member
    amirah5
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Want to know why, because people are living longer than ever, mainly because of fossil fuels.  Ever realize the temp hockey stick you can lay on top of the average age hockey stick and they match?  It's going to be hard to convince the world to give up on fossil fuels since that industry is one of the top reasons we now don't die at age 40. 

There's also the case of modern medicines.  But we can also question if longevity better health and I'm not sure it does.  Asthma and air pollution are much higher than they were before the industrial revolution and air pollution is listed as the number one shortener of  life ahead of tobacco smoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

There's also the case of modern medicines.  But we can also question if longevity better health and I'm not sure it does.  Asthma and air pollution are much higher than they were before the industrial revolution and air pollution is listed as the number one shortener of  life ahead of tobacco smoking.

Guess what was used in getting access to those medicines/lab equipment/people getting to those labs to do the work..something that has to do with the fossil fuel industry.  There is nothing in your eyesight right now that the industry hasn't touched in one way, shape or form.   It is going to take probably centuries until that changes and you're not going to be able to convince anyone to change that right now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Guess what was used in getting access to those medicines/lab equipment/people getting to those labs to do the work..something that has to do with the fossil fuel industry.  There is nothing in your eyesight right now that the industry hasn't touched in one way, shape or form.   It is going to take probably centuries until that changes and you're not going to be able to convince anyone to change that right now.  

People don't have to do anything though.  There's a few simple things that are already happening.  More people driving electric vehicles (which will be the only vehicles produced by 2035).  This will curb air pollution and asthma.   Even airlines are now starting to work with green fuels (biofuels).  The plastics treaty which will end plastic trash by converting to plant based plastics (which will stop the health impacts of plastics causing organ damage.)  And net zero by 2050 means there won't be any more of an impact of CO2 than what we already have because whatever carbon pollution we cause will be balanced out with the much higher usage of renewables.

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic sea ice extent is today higher (14.062 million km²) than it was 35-years ago back in 1989 (13.997 million km²), it is now the highest it has been in 11-years. SIE is now greater than 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the year experts predicted it would be “ice-free” by the summer of 2013. SIE should soon surpass 2002, 2008 and 2013 and is trailing behind 1995 and 1996, and has a chance at surpassing that as well.

image.thumb.jpeg.9f73eca2aef8479c9357366e1f284509.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Arctic sea ice extent is today higher (14.062 million km²) than it was 35-years ago back in 1989 (13.997 million km²), it is now the highest it has been in 11-years. SIE is now greater than 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the year experts predicted it would be “ice-free” by the summer of 2013. SIE should soon surpass 2002, 2008 and 2013 and is trailing behind 1995 and 1996, and has a chance at surpassing that as well.

image.thumb.jpeg.9f73eca2aef8479c9357366e1f284509.jpeg

Here’s another source for Arctic ice extent as of 4/21/24 fwiw: this one (cryospherecomputing.com) has been running a bit lower than NSIDC (NSIDC 3/31/24 was ~14.8 vs cryospere’s ~14.35). Now NSIDC is ~14.25 vs cryosphere’s ~14.1. Anyone know why the diff and whether or not one is more credible than the other? I generally have thought of NSIDC as the “go to” single best source.

IMG_9573.png.9867c9d457d8f80aab59eb6df448ac49.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

Guess what was used in getting access to those medicines/lab equipment/people getting to those labs to do the work..something that has to do with the fossil fuel industry.  There is nothing in your eyesight right now that the industry hasn't touched in one way, shape or form.   It is going to take probably centuries until that changes and you're not going to be able to convince anyone to change that right now.  

It's actually much more complicated than that.

Most of the pollution of fossil fuels and their health impacts are borne by minority communities.

But people are finally waking up to this and activists scored major victories that have banned new petrochemical facilities being created in Cancer Alley in Louisiana where cancer rates are 86x higher because of pollution from fossil fuels.  The civil rights movement and the environmental movement have united to fight the same enemies-- even this Earth Day is labeled Plastics vs The Planet, as the fossil fuel cartels have shifted to plastics as their main source of revenue since renewables are replacing them for energy.

 

The question then becomes where do you want these toxic petrochemical factories to be built? In your town?  Luckily you won't have to make that hard decision because there's a global plastics treaty being organized right now to finally eliminate plastics once and for all and shut down this toxic revenue stream of the corrupt fossil fuel cartels.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

It's actually much more complicated than that.

Most of the pollution of fossil fuels and their health impacts are borne by minority communities.

But people are finally waking up to this and activists scored major victories that have banned new petrochemical facilities being created in Cancer Alley in Louisiana where cancer rates are 86x higher because of pollution from fossil fuels.  The civil rights movement and the environmental movement have united to fight the same enemies-- even this Earth Day is labeled Plastics vs The Planet, as the fossil fuel cartels have shifted to plastics as their main source of revenue since renewables are replacing them for energy.

 

The question then becomes where do you want these toxic petrochemical factories to be built? In your town?  Luckily you won't have to make that hard decision because there's a global plastics treaty being organized right now to finally eliminate plastics once and for all and shut down this toxic revenue stream of the corrupt fossil fuel cartels.

 

 

Let's not pretend there was no air pollution before the Industrial Revolution. All the wood burning for heat, foundries, tanneries, etc. would have certainly lead to extensive smog in the cities. Not to mention, there was no garbage collection or sewage, so human waste was just strewn throughout the cities.

Also, I'm going to need a source on this 86x cancer risk. That doesn't sound credible to me, and I can't find any source that claims anywhere near that figure.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Let's not pretend there was no air pollution before the Industrial Revolution. All the wood burning for heat, foundries, tanneries, etc. would have certainly lead to extensive smog in the cities. Not to mention, there was no garbage collection or sewage, so human waste was just strewn throughout the cities.

Also, I'm going to need a source on this 86x cancer risk. That doesn't sound credible to me, and I can't find any source that claims anywhere near that figure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/louisiana-cancer-alley-photos-oil-refineries-chemicals-pollution-2019-11

Plenty of material around, I'm shocked you don't know about it

 

 

  • People living in the area are more than 50 times as likely to get cancer than the average American.

https://www.propublica.org/article/in-cancer-alley-toxic-polluters-face-little-oversight-from-environmental-regulators

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Let's not pretend there was no air pollution before the Industrial Revolution. All the wood burning for heat, foundries, tanneries, etc. would have certainly lead to extensive smog in the cities. Not to mention, there was no garbage collection or sewage, so human waste was just strewn throughout the cities.

Also, I'm going to need a source on this 86x cancer risk. That doesn't sound credible to me, and I can't find any source that claims anywhere near that figure.

You don't sound logical or rational with your take here.

So let me make it easy for you.

Fossil fuels + POPULATION EXPLOSION = MASSIVE RATES OF POLLUTION

You do the math here, with billions upon billions of people driving cars, trucks, and what have you..... it's a simple equation to solve really.

Pre Industrial Revolution, how many people lived on the planet?

You should be smart enough to figure this out yourself and if you're not, what exactly are you doing on this forum?

 

The health impacts of toxic fossil fuels far outweigh ANY temperature increase and it's the health impact that will move the needle, because people really don't care about a temperature that's a few degrees warmer regardless of the other impacts it will have.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Let's not pretend there was no air pollution before the Industrial Revolution. All the wood burning for heat, foundries, tanneries, etc. would have certainly lead to extensive smog in the cities. Not to mention, there was no garbage collection or sewage, so human waste was just strewn throughout the cities.

Also, I'm going to need a source on this 86x cancer risk. That doesn't sound credible to me, and I can't find any source that claims anywhere near that figure.

You really need to be educated, so you should read more and post less.

 

https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/news/polluted-air-shortens-human-lifespans-more-than-tobacco-study-finds/#:~:text=That is the conclusion of,expectancy by 2.3 years worldwide.

 

Cigarette smoking and other uses of tobacco shave an average of 2.2 years off lifespans globally. But merely breathing—if the air is polluted—is more damaging to human health. 

That is the conclusion of a report published Tuesday by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute, which identified air pollution as the world’s top threat to public health, responsible for reducing average life expectancy by 2.3 years worldwide.  

China, once the poster child for smog-filled skies, has been a surprise success story. Between 2013 and 2021, the world’s second-largest economy improved overall air quality by more than 40% while the average lifespan of residents increased by more than two years, according to the report.

By contrast, four countries in South Asia—India, Bangladesh Nepal and Pakistan—accounted for more than half of the total years of life lost globally due to pollution in the atmosphere over the same eight years. India alone was responsible for nearly 60% of the growth in air pollution across the globe during that time. 

If India were to meet World Health Organization guidelines for particulate pollution, the life expectancy for residents of capital city New Delhi would increase by 12 years.

India’s Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

An increase in wildfires in places such as California and Canada has renewed attention on the dangers of polluted air. Around 350 cities globally suffer the same level of dangerous haze that enveloped New York City in June at least once a year, according to calculations from environmental think tank Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which aggregates data from dozens of official government sources.  

How seriously a country takes the problem typically depends in part on public awareness, according to Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the University of Chicago who contributed to the report. Knowledge of the health risks of poor air quality is low in many African and Asian countries, which suffer the worst outcomes. 

“Air-pollution improvements are often driven by the demand of the people,” he said. Having access to reliable monitoring tools to enforce clean-air requirements is also important, he said.

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Let's not pretend there was no air pollution before the Industrial Revolution. All the wood burning for heat, foundries, tanneries, etc. would have certainly lead to extensive smog in the cities. Not to mention, there was no garbage collection or sewage, so human waste was just strewn throughout the cities.

Also, I'm going to need a source on this 86x cancer risk. That doesn't sound credible to me, and I can't find any source that claims anywhere near that figure.

It's close enough-- I have very little patience for primitive people who think pollution isn't a huge problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/12/reserve-louisiana-cancer-epa-monitoring

 

Residents of Cancer Town urge tougher measures to monitor toxins

This article is more than 4 years old

The town at the center of a Guardian series, where the cancer risk is 50 times the national average, is critical of a planned monitoring system

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-alley-reserve-louisiana-denka-plant-health-risk-higher-national-average-2019-07-24/

 

Reserve, Louisiana — In a Louisiana town of 10,000 people, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said there is some of the most toxic air in America. More than 100 petrochemical plants and refineries dot the corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, often referred to as "cancer alley."

The town of Reserve is right in the middle of it, and the cancer risk there is almost 50 times the national average, according to the EPA.

Robert Taylor has lived there most of his 78 years. Even his family cemetery is surrounded by a refinery. He said his mom, sister, uncle and nephew all died of cancer. 

"As I stand here, it's overwhelming to me. All of my folks are here. I will eventually wind up here," he said.
 
For decades, people in Reserve have had health problems ranging from dizziness and severe headaches to liver and lung cancer. Many believe a plant, hundreds of yards from some of their homes, is the source.

The Denka Performance Elastomer plant, owned by DuPont until 2015, makes chloroprene, a chemical the EPA calls a "likely human carcinogen." Denka is the only plant in the country producing it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

It's close enough-- I have very little patience for primitive people who think pollution isn't a huge problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/12/reserve-louisiana-cancer-epa-monitoring

 

Residents of Cancer Town urge tougher measures to monitor toxins

This article is more than 4 years old

The town at the center of a Guardian series, where the cancer risk is 50 times the national average, is critical of a planned monitoring system

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-alley-reserve-louisiana-denka-plant-health-risk-higher-national-average-2019-07-24/

 

Reserve, Louisiana — In a Louisiana town of 10,000 people, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said there is some of the most toxic air in America. More than 100 petrochemical plants and refineries dot the corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, often referred to as "cancer alley."

The town of Reserve is right in the middle of it, and the cancer risk there is almost 50 times the national average, according to the EPA.

Robert Taylor has lived there most of his 78 years. Even his family cemetery is surrounded by a refinery. He said his mom, sister, uncle and nephew all died of cancer. 

"As I stand here, it's overwhelming to me. All of my folks are here. I will eventually wind up here," he said.
 
For decades, people in Reserve have had health problems ranging from dizziness and severe headaches to liver and lung cancer. Many believe a plant, hundreds of yards from some of their homes, is the source.

The Denka Performance Elastomer plant, owned by DuPont until 2015, makes chloroprene, a chemical the EPA calls a "likely human carcinogen." Denka is the only plant in the country producing it.

 

I know all about pollution. You're figure is exaggerated. You implied there is an 86x increase in cancer risk over a large area ["Cancer Alley" covers 85 miles of riverfront]. The highest risk you've actually shown is this one which finds a 50x risk - not even in one town, but in a sparsely populated area within a mile of the DuPont plant. And 86x is not close to 50x, it's nearly double. None of the EPA studies find anywhere near that high of an incidence. Air pollution from chemical plants is horrible enough, there's no reason to exaggerate. I don't understand why you're mad at me. All I did was a request a citation for the figure you quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I know all about pollution. You're figure is exaggerated. You implied there is an 86x increase in cancer risk over a large area. The highest risk you've actually shown is this one which finds a 50x risk - not even in one town, but within a mile of the plant. And 86x is not close to 50x, it's nearly double. None of the EPA studies find anywhere near that high of an incidence. Air pollution from chemical plants is bad, there's no reason to exaggerate.

I have the original report from the EPA.  I'll send that to you

There isn't that much of a difference between 50x and 86x because both way way are too high and EPA alleges racism occurring at the Louisiana DEP (and they're probably right.)

This is a long report.

 

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/2022 10 12 Final Letter LDEQ LDH 01R-22-R6%2C 02R-22-R6%2C 04R-22-R6.pdf

 

 

I also found this paper

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4360
 

 

 

 

 


 

 

There's also some related research about racism in Louisiana about how air pollution regulations and emissions of toxic chemicals is concerned.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010022002281
 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128190081000134

 

 

 

In the article they mention the town of Reserve Louisiana has that excessive risk of cancer.  This is also mentioned in that 56 page EPA PDF I linked to earlier in the post.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-alley-reserve-louisiana-denka-plant-health-risk-higher-national-average-2019-07-24/

 

Reserve, Louisiana — In a Louisiana town of 10,000 people, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said there is some of the most toxic air in America. More than 100 petrochemical plants and refineries dot the corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, often referred to as "cancer alley."

The town of Reserve is right in the middle of it, and the cancer risk there is almost 50 times the national average, according to the EPA.

Robert Taylor has lived there most of his 78 years. Even his family cemetery is surrounded by a refinery. He said his mom, sister, uncle and nephew all died of cancer. 

"As I stand here, it's overwhelming to me. All of my folks are here. I will eventually wind up here," he said.
 
For decades, people in Reserve have had health problems ranging from dizziness and severe headaches to liver and lung cancer. Many believe a plant, hundreds of yards from some of their homes, is the source.

The Denka Performance Elastomer plant, owned by DuPont until 2015, makes chloroprene, a chemical the EPA calls a "likely human carcinogen." Denka is the only plant in the country producing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is worthy of a major billion dollar class action lawsuit

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse

 

ST. GABRIEL, La. — Over a half-century, Hazel Schexnayder saw this riverside hamlet transformed from a collection of old plantations, tin-roofed shacks and verdant cornfields into an industrial juggernaut.

By the early 1990s, she’d had enough of the towering chemical plants and their mysterious white plumes, the roadside ditches oozing with blue fluid, the air that smelled of rotten eggs and nail-polish remover, the neighbors suffering miscarriages and dying of cancer.

“We were inundated with plants,” Schexnayder, now 87, said. “We didn’t need any more around here.”

She and others began pushing back in 1993, and the following year, residents voted to turn their corner of unincorporated Iberville Parish into the city of St. Gabriel. They wanted sidewalks and other amenities, but more than that, they wanted some say over the chemical plants popping up in their backyards.

While the newly created city was able to keep new plants out, the petrochemical pileup continued unabated beyond St. Gabriel’s borders.

“I bet you money there are 20 plants right now just around St. Gabriel,” Schexnayder said, nearly twice as many as there were when the incorporation drive began.

 
 

She’s not even close. There are now 30 large petrochemical plants within 10 miles of her house, most of them outside the city limits. Thirteen are within a 3-mile radius of her home. The nearest facility, only a mile away, is the world’s largest manufacturer of polystyrene, commonly known as Styrofoam.

Stories of fed-up Louisianans like Schexnayder fighting back against corporate polluters have gotten worldwide media attention over the last year, as a raft of enormous new petrochemical facilities takes shape along the Mississippi River corridor. Much of the focus has been on the potential hazards posed by specific plants, including the $9.4 billion plastics factory that Formosa plans to build in St. James Parish and the long-standing Denka neoprene facility in St. John Parish, whose dangerous emissions were highlighted in an Environmental Protection Agency model that estimates cancer risk around chemical plants. Indeed, the stretch of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge is nicknamed “Cancer Alley” because of its concentration of petrochemical facilities.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/communities/westside/article_06ec8ba2-cbe3-11e7-a0b3-abf774bd3130.html


https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/communities/westside/article_06ec8ba2-cbe3-11e7-a0b3-abf774bd3130.html

 

Proposed Shintech Louisiana expansion leaves some Iberville parish residents on edge


https://www.propublica.org/article/how-louisiana-lawmakers-stop-residents-efforts-to-fight-big-oil-and-gas


https://www.propublica.org/series/polluters-paradise

Polluter’s Paradise
Environmental Impact in Louisiana

The petrochemical industry has grown in Louisiana, with more plants on the way, but the state’s environmental regulations haven’t kept up.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse

Welcome to “Cancer Alley,” Where Toxic Air Is About to Get Worse
Air quality has improved for decades across the U.S., but Louisiana is backsliding. Our analysis found that a crush of new industrial plants will increase concentrations of cancer-causing chemicals in predominantly black and poor communities.


https://projects.propublica.org/louisiana-toxic-air/

In a Notoriously Polluted Area of the Country, Massive New Chemical Plants Are Still Moving In


https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_c30d4620-a1be-11e9-837c-13f09466bb79.html

For massive new plants, Formosa wants OK to double amount of chemicals released into St. James Parish air


https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse


https://www.propublica.org/article/in-cancer-alley-toxic-polluters-face-little-oversight-from-environmental-regulators


For massive new plants, Formosa wants OK to double amount of chemicals released into St. James Parish air


In a Notoriously Polluted Area of the Country, Massive New Chemical Plants Are Still Moving In

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, FPizz said:

Want to know why, because people are living longer than ever, mainly because of fossil fuels.  Ever realize the temp hockey stick you can lay on top of the average age hockey stick and they match?  It's going to be hard to convince the world to give up on fossil fuels since that industry is one of the top reasons we now don't die at age 40. 

Fossil fuels won't provide the same economic benefits in the future that they did in the past, not even close. The best resources are increasingly depleted and climate costs are ramping. Gasoline doesn't cost of $3.50/gal because demand is exploding. We would need alternative energy sources without a climate crisis. An increasing number of countries, the US included, have declining CO2 emissions with a growing economy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Fossil fuels won't provide the same economic benefits in the future that they did in the past, not even close. The best resources are increasingly depleted and climate costs are ramping. Gasoline doesn't cost of $3.50/gal because demand is exploding. We would need alternative energy sources without a climate crisis. An increasing number of countries, the US included, have declining CO2 emissions with a growing economy. 

All I'm saying is that it is going to take many decades or even more to change.  Every single thing in our lives depends on fossil fuels in some way.  Even things that are "green", at some point in the process fossil fuels play a big role in that so called "green" product.  Good luck trying to change it any time soon.  

Even if you think of one of your hobbies, fishing.  The pole, line, hook, lures; fossil fuels were used somewhere in the process in order to make all of that, ship it, etc.  That is one tiny thing that would need wholesale changes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, FPizz said:

All I'm saying is that it is going to take many decades or even more to change.  Every single thing in our lives depends on fossil fuels in some way.  Even things that are "green", at some point in the process fossil fuels play a big role in that so called "green" product.  Good luck trying to change it any time soon.  

Even if you think of one of your hobbies, fishing.  The pole, line, hook, lures; fossil fuels were used somewhere in the process in order to make all of that, ship it, etc.  That is one tiny thing that would need wholesale changes.  

that's because fossil fuel companies lied to everyone about plastic

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

All I'm saying is that it is going to take many decades or even more to change.  Every single thing in our lives depends on fossil fuels in some way.  Even things that are "green", at some point in the process fossil fuels play a big role in that so called "green" product.  Good luck trying to change it any time soon.  

Even if you think of one of your hobbies, fishing.  The pole, line, hook, lures; fossil fuels were used somewhere in the process in order to make all of that, ship it, etc.  That is one tiny thing that would need wholesale changes.  

That's a condemnation on the sustainability of society more than anything.  Especially plastic-- which are now being found in our own bodies.

I wonder when people finally realize that the end of humanity is coming, how they will think.

Species usually peak just before there's a huge population crash.  I can envision our population being cut by 90% by 2100. 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

that's because fossil fuel companies lied to everyone about plastic

There is ONE benefit to fossil fuels and it's a very interesting one.  Lower fertility being linked to fossil fuels.  Wrap your head around that one....

It would be some kind of poetic justice if people couldn't have kids anymore because of fossil fuels LOL

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

There is ONE benefit to fossil fuels and it's a very interesting one.  Lower fertility being linked to fossil fuels.  Wrap your head around that one....

It would be some kind of poetic justice if people couldn't have kids anymore because of fossil fuels LOL

 

Guess nobody told people in India that their fertility was under threat.

That said, the catastrophic slump in birth rates is pervasive across the industrialized world, with South Korea and Taiwan in the van, but Europe, North America, Japan and China all well below sustainable fertility levels.

Maybe the fault is of the media,which push unreasonable life style expectations, or maybe its aliens.

In any case, it is not a fossil fuel problem, the Ultra Orthodox and the Amish in the US both seem to have maintained historic fertility rates while surrounded by the near childless..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, forkyfork said:

that's because fossil fuel companies lied to everyone about plastic

 

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

That's a condemnation on the sustainability of society more than anything.  Especially plastic-- which are now being found in our own bodies.

I wonder when people finally realize that the end of humanity is coming, how they will think.

Species usually peak just before there's a huge population crash.  I can envision our population being cut by 90% by 2100. 

 

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

There is ONE benefit to fossil fuels and it's a very interesting one.  Lower fertility being linked to fossil fuels.  Wrap your head around that one....

It would be some kind of poetic justice if people couldn't have kids anymore because of fossil fuels LOL

 

Every so often I watch this final scene and hope. As always ….

 

 

 

IMG_0181.png

IMG_0182.png

IMG_0180.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FPizz said:

All I'm saying is that it is going to take many decades or even more to change.  Every single thing in our lives depends on fossil fuels in some way.  Even things that are "green", at some point in the process fossil fuels play a big role in that so called "green" product.  Good luck trying to change it any time soon.  

Even if you think of one of your hobbies, fishing.  The pole, line, hook, lures; fossil fuels were used somewhere in the process in order to make all of that, ship it, etc.  That is one tiny thing that would need wholesale changes.  

Yes it will take decades to transition away from fossil fuels. Decades of emissions and increasing temperatures in the best of cases. We are committing ourselves to a warmer and warmer future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, etudiant said:

Guess nobody told people in India that their fertility was under threat.

That said, the catastrophic slump in birth rates is pervasive across the industrialized world, with South Korea and Taiwan in the van, but Europe, North America, Japan and China all well below sustainable fertility levels.

Maybe the fault is of the media,which push unreasonable life style expectations, or maybe its aliens.

In any case, it is not a fossil fuel problem, the Ultra Orthodox and the Amish in the US both seem to have maintained historic fertility rates while surrounded by the near childless..

I mean it's a really good thing for the fertility rate to go down in some of these countries.  The extremely high and horrible rates of air pollution in India are both because of an extremely high population and widespread use of vehicles.  There's horror stories coming out of there of people having constant headaches and burning eyes every day because the air pollution is so bad and the only time they were able to see the mountains was during the pandemic.

The projections say that with lower air pollution the life expectancy in India would be 12 years more.... that's very sad and very scary.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2024 at 1:40 PM, LibertyBell said:

Natural gas isn't natural and isn't safe either, it's carcinogenic.

We need to make it extremely difficult for the fossil fuel cartels to do business, including labeling them as terrorists and making life miserable for them-- including seizing their assets and properties.  Look what they have been doing to Donzinger.  We need to take away their rights to litigate too.

 

Germany isn't a bastion of renewable energy-- I see they've been building more coal mines and removing nuclear as an option-- they are headed in the wrong direction.

 

Sometimes we just have to do the best we can with the options we have at any given time. Natural gas is much better for air pollution than coal is. I used to live a few miles from the Natural gas generating electricity station in Island Park. It was much better for the air quality than having a coal plant would have been. 
 

Between 2005 and 2016, the shift away from coal saved an estimated 26,610 lives and 570 million bushels of crops

https://gpsnews.ucsd.edu/shutdown-of-coal-fired-plants-in-u-s-saves-lives-and-improves-crop-yields/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2024 at 10:49 AM, ChescoWx said:

Arctic sea ice extent is today higher (14.062 million km²) than it was 35-years ago back in 1989 (13.997 million km²), it is now the highest it has been in 11-years. SIE is now greater than 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the year experts predicted it would be “ice-free” by the summer of 2013. SIE should soon surpass 2002, 2008 and 2013 and is trailing behind 1995 and 1996, and has a chance at surpassing that as well.

image.thumb.jpeg.9f73eca2aef8479c9357366e1f284509.jpeg

bookmarked this post to revisit in september 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Sometimes we just have to do the best we can with the options we have at any given time. Natural gas is much better for air pollution than coal is. I used to live a few miles from the Natural gas generating electricity station in Island Park. It was much better for the air quality than having a coal plant would have been. 
 

Between 2005 and 2016, the shift away from coal saved an estimated 26,610 lives and 570 million bushels of crops

https://gpsnews.ucsd.edu/shutdown-of-coal-fired-plants-in-u-s-saves-lives-and-improves-crop-yields/

 

we are now building wind farms that will power millions of homes though.  I think wind is the future of energy for us and it will happen quicker than many think.

The long island wind farm project is quite extensive!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...