UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[hollus]

Way back when this started (first round) I quoted many you just didn't bother to read them.

Oh, Strad, but we do read them! We (I) might not reply, though.

I’d still love to get a link to that new 0.5C story. I read here precisely to hear the other side of the debate, which is healthy.

[turbof1]

When you don´t fully understand something the only thing you can do is tryint [try not (is what I assume you meant to say)] to not interfere. The consequences of interfering on something you don´t completely understand will always be unpredictable

This sums up the argument perfectly, but it's does introduce a, 'everything we do is wrong, therefore the best thing we can do is nothing', conundrum...
What would be the consequences of there simply being less of us?

Depending on how you'd reach that "less of us", either civil war, public disgrunt or public (dis)satisfaction. Let's not get into Thanos scenario's, but if birth control evolves naturally to a low point like it does in the Western countries, which is the most peaceful way of birth control, you'd be helping out the environment, but you'll also get socio-economic issues due population being generally much older. That'll have to be adjusted by having people working longer, and medical breakthroughs so that people keep their physical prime longer and better.

That or space colonisation.

[Greg Locock]

I'd be pretty confident in saying that we'll never ship sufficient people off planet to make a dent in the population.

[turbof1]

I'd be pretty confident in saying that we'll never ship sufficient people off planet to make a dent in the population.

For the record, neither am I

[Andres125sx]

I'm well aware English is not your first language. -1 ing my post because you didn't understand it is a bit embarrassing,

For you. I perfectly understand what a straw man argument is, I´m afraid you don´t tough, even if english is your first language

But don´t worry, I know you know what it is, it was only another poor attempt to discredit my words. I´m used to this from nay-sayers, that´s what you do as a norm, discredit anything you disagree with but can´t argue against

[Andres125sx]

Way back when this started (first round) I quoted many you just didn't bother to read them.

False and false

I´ve always read all your posts Strad, from first to last word, so that is false. And it´s also false you quoted anyting, quoting implies posting a link to the source, and at first 10 pages of the thread at least (11 actually) there´s not one single link at any of your posts, only posts like this....

I believe it's true. Something to do with tides on the sun or some such.
There are scientists that say the sun is cooling off which is to stop any global warming.

Basically your only argument from the begining has been: "scientists have failed to predict accuratelly the consequences of a hugely complex process like climate change, so if they can´t make predictions everything they say must be false"

[turbof1]

So i'm going to disable voting here. Too much subjectivity involved. I'll also remove most votes already made because it's being used too much as a like/dislike button.

Please also stay reasonable, everybody. It's getting a bit too emotional here. It's like Steven said, maybe forget for a moment about the climate change and focus on the direct health threats hydrocarbon-fuelled cars pose. Because that is much more a black 'n white case.

[Just_a_fan]

I'd be pretty confident in saying that we'll never ship sufficient people off planet to make a dent in the population.

Off-worlding people - space expansion - isn't about reducing the human population and their impact on the planet, it's about putting eggs in more than one basket. At some point, a possible extinction level event will happen - Yosemite erupting, NEO that becomes an EIO etc. - and having human colonies elsewhere is insurance against that. It also allows for the provision of raw materials e.g. from asteroids, to massively boost the economy back here on Earth.

Of course, this really needs an international effort to fulfill which means it's a pipe dream. Too many egos at the tops of governments to allow for it. Much more to their tastes to have silly arguments about largely irrelevant things. But hey ho.

[henry]

Here’s an interesting source. [url][https://www.climatechangepost.com/spain ... hange//url]

I’ve chosen Spain because it’s been under discussion but it covers other countries in Europe as well. The sections on historical data are possibly the least contentious. There are plenty of references to source data for those so inclined, and language proficient.

It is clear, at least to me, that a drawback to talking global average is that the effects are not global but vary substantially from place to place. So a 1°C change globally has manifested itself as a much higher rise in much of the northern hemisphere. And this is true at each successive level of spatial, and temporal, analysis. Spain has seen higher rises, some regions of Spain contribute more to Spain’s average, and this granularity continues downward to smaller areas.

I don’t know what crops @Andres125x family grow, but I do know that most of the temperate region food crops prefer temperatures in the 20 - 30°C , above this they start to reduce their production of human useful products and focus on survival. By 40°C most of them give up. Meteo office average air temperatures might give a guide to trend in temperature but they are measured at a height of 1.5m to 2m in radiation proofed enclosures, whereas many crops experience the temperatures at ground level and direct radiation. This is where lived experience comes in. The average upward trend in temperature may be small but at the detail level the result is that farmers have to start to shade some of their crops, and they cost more to produce.

On a counterbalancing note increased CO2 levels make crops more resilient.

This granularity affects all of the effects we are causing, emissions have more downsides in some places than others, noise pollution ditto. Heat waves may cause a very small increase in general population mortality and that’s fine until it’s your grandpa.

[Tommy Cookers]

'global' warming will cause cooling of NW Europe by stopping the N Atlantic gyre/'gulf stream'
which traditionally and at present keeps NW Europe warmer than the latitude would otherwise allow

today's UK warming news is ......
the UK government asking the CCC when and how to take the country to 100% reduction of carbon-equivalent emissions
no heating then

[henry]

'global' warming will cause cooling of NW Europe by stopping the N Atlantic gyre/'gulf stream'
which traditionally and at present keeps NW Europe warmer than the latitude would otherwise allow

Maybe it will maybe it won’t, stop that is. Taking action to lower the probability would seem like a decent insurance policy. Unfortunately the action required isn’t confined to NW Europe.

[AJI]

What would be the consequences of there simply being less of us?

Depending on how you'd reach that "less of us", either civil war, public disgrunt or public (dis)satisfaction. Let's not get into Thanos scenario's, but if birth control evolves naturally to a low point like it does in the Western countries, which is the most peaceful way of birth control, you'd be helping out the environment, but you'll also get socio-economic issues due population being generally much older. That'll have to be adjusted by having people working longer, and medical breakthroughs so that people keep their physical prime longer and better.

That or space colonisation.

There are many more scenarios for a possible drastic decrease in human population than only man-made scenarios. There were large dinosaurs roaming the earth not so long ago, now there are not.., it wasn't the fault of the large dinosaurs.
I'm not for one second suggesting that man has had no influence on the climate, but there are other things to consider that are beyond the control of man. Devastating events (depending on your perspective) have peppered the earth's history since the begginig of time.

I'm not using that argument as an excuse to do nothing, more as thought excercise in what would be the consequences if for some reason the population of humankind on the planet was to be reduced by ~80% in a very short time.

[turbof1]

What would be the consequences of there simply being less of us?

Depending on how you'd reach that "less of us", either civil war, public disgrunt or public (dis)satisfaction. Let's not get into Thanos scenario's, but if birth control evolves naturally to a low point like it does in the Western countries, which is the most peaceful way of birth control, you'd be helping out the environment, but you'll also get socio-economic issues due population being generally much older. That'll have to be adjusted by having people working longer, and medical breakthroughs so that people keep their physical prime longer and better.

That or space colonisation.

There are many more scenarios for a possible drastic decrease in human population than only man-made scenarios. There were large dinosaurs roaming the earth not so long ago, now there are not.., it wasn't the fault of the large dinosaurs.
I'm not for one second suggesting that man has had no influence on the climate, but there are other things to consider that are beyond the control of man. Devastating events (depending on your perspective) have peppered the earth's history since the begginig of time.

I'm not using that argument as an excuse to do nothing, more as thought excercise in what would be the consequences if for some reason the population of humankind on the planet was to be reduced by ~80% in a very short time.

Probably death to the remaining 20% in a very short time thereafter. Something that can kill off 80% of the population is most likely significantly enough to make the other 20% not survive the after effects.

For the record, are we really comparing us to dinosaurs concerning our responsibility towards the environment? Last I checked dinosaurs didn't have mechanical transportation vehicles. Although there is popular belief this car was invented by the dinosaurs:

[AJI]

....
For the record, are we really comparing us to dinosaurs concerning our responsibility towards the environment?
....

No, we're not. I thought I was pretty clear there, but apparently not. My apologies.

There's nothing to suggest that if 80% of the population dies that the remaining 20% would automatically follow.
Think viral superhaemorrhagic.
I suppose there could also be an asteroid strike on the same day?

[turbof1]

....
For the record, are we really comparing us to dinosaurs concerning our responsibility towards the environment?
....

No, we're not. I thought I was pretty clear there, but apparently not. My apologies.

There's nothing to suggest that if 80% of the population dies that the remaining 20% would automatically follow.
Think viral superhaemorrhagic.
I suppose there could also be an asteroid strike on the same day?

I just don't think we are going to get lucky at such a cataclysmic event where 20% of us is going to able to still roam the earth. On the flipside, it's always possible that once it happens an other species evolves and reaches the same level of intelligence the humanity has. Like sea horses. Or crab people.

For the record, I just used the dinosaurs to set up my joke about the Ferrari Dino.