Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "euronews"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having the technology to do something isn't the whole story. We have the technology to end world hunger today but doing so would produce more carbon, devastate the environment, increase population even faster and collapse the global economy.
You can't focus just on one thing, solving one disaster only to create 3 more isn't a solution. Early onset osteopaenia, other bone density problems, chronic anaemia, early cardiovascular diseases, liver and kidney damage, etc are all on the rise, particularly in women on the backs of predominantly women switching to vegan diets.
Major infrastructure projects take time, there aren't just physical limitations to consider, there's social impacts. If you suddenly put 100K people in a country out of work with no chance of new employment you're going to have major civil unrest and economic recession.
Even Taalas didn't go so far as to pretend industry could be significantly reduced in cO2 output let alone become clean. The reductions he's referring to come mostly from reduced output from reduced demand. Even that reduction means job losses, and worse, poorer lives for everyone but those who are already mega rich.
Battery technology is still highly polluting, especially Li-Ion. Solar panel are also polluting in manufacture. Both solar panels and batteries have a limited lifespan after which they become disposable, highly toxic landfill that can not currently be recycled.
None of these measures, not one of them, tackles the real driving force behind climate change. Population growth. They just place us in a position where we're aiming for ever decreasing, ever out of reach targets.
If you want to do something about climate change we must do something about the global birth rate and redesign our economies to work with a flat or decreasing population.
If we're going to make comparisons to 1750, like EuroNews have with atmospheric content of greenhouse gases, then in the same period we've had a 149% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide we've had a 1412% increase in population. It's expected to be a 1900% increase by 2050.
It's the largest sustained population boom of any species on our planet in history. The more of us there are the more resources we use, the more food we need, the more emissions we create to make the same level of production, the more vehicles there are, the more energy we need. This can't go on. It's a difficult discussion but it's one we must have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianthelion97 You're completely out of touch with reality mate. You've brought into an alarmist narrative that simply does not exist in reality, and you're proposing solutions to problems no one asked about.
You apparently don't even understand what "net zero" actually means, because apparently you believe it actually does something about climate change. It in fact does not. Net zero just means you buy enough carbon credits to "offset" the emissions your industry makes. It's what politicians say in election years when they have to seem to be doing something about climate change but know they can't without destroying the economy or upsetting a lot of people.
Climate change is fundamentally the story of the industrial revolution and the population explosion that accompanied it. We passed the point of no return on climate change in 2006, all we can really do now is attempt to slow things down which is why the language has changed from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
The climate has been changing since the mid-19th century. It's been having meaningful effects on the planet since the 1960s. But a changed climate isn't going to end the planet or our species. It just means we need to adapt to new conditions and a new reality.
Slowing things down in a meaningful way isn't something that can happen quickly. The barrier isn't an upfront cost, it's the overall stability of the economy and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that get lost in the process. Doing something meaningful about climate change is about more than just taking some reusable bags down the shops or buying a car your told is "green" but really is worse for the environment. It means a fundamental change to people's lifestyles and more importantly a lower standard of living.
That's not something that can be actioned quickly without dire consequences, nor is it something that people will be too happy about. People have to be trained to accept the new reality, in the same way retail trains consumers every day.
Natural growth is shrinking in developed countries, but exploding in the developed world. Shrinking populations are a goal, because to really do something about emissions but none of our economic models are designed for a declining population. So the problem is, how do we responsibility encourage depopulation without blowing up the economy and causing undue suffering?
You understand the environmental impact of the internet...right? That by the time you finish reading this comment the internet will have collectively created emissions equivalent to a round the world plane trip?
Do you know what mining rare earths like lithium (used in batteries for everything from cellphones to Telsas), cobalt (used in steel and electronic screens) and neodymium (used in electric motors, lasers and hardened glass products such as "gorilla glass") do to the environment? The toxic wasteland they create?
This isn't a simple problem, there are no fast solutions and many of the "solutions" you've been sold are nothing but a con job.
The climate is going to continue to change, there is nothing we can do about that now. All we can do is try to manage that change in a way that gives us the time to adapt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1