Electric cars to cost more to run then petrol/ diesel cars

Re-read the article last night Millbrook and you are right. What the article actually says is 40% of anima ls have died. Or there has been a reduction of wild animals of 40%.

Edit... I did look to see how many species have become extinct and the numbers vary massively. I mean orders of magnitude. I get its difficult to know when a species goes extinct but I read one be figure of 190k extinctions in the last decade and another that said 10 in the same decade
Thanks. I saw the same variation in numbers which prompted the question.
 
I'm not sure that's true at all, they would need to burn MORE, not ALL, and since the human race is expanding and has been increasing the total burn for decades then eventually it would head beyond the point of no return. Great you've found one quote that just happens to be one of the first you find if you put "runaway greenhouse" into google, but that isn't proven science, there's lots of concern from a huge number of reputable scientists that a tipping point is reached where it's inevitable
I’m happy to consider your evidence when you provide it.
Here’s Brian Khan from NASA JPL:

You basically need CO2 levels of a couple thousand parts per million, of which we recently passed 400 parts per million, or a massive release of methane, and there’s really no evidence for that at this time.

I agree that there exists a tipping point but I need you to explain how human beings could reach that point without us becoming extinct first. Remember, I’m not arguing that this exists, I’m simply suggesting that it will not be possibly for the human race to trigger it in such a way that turns Earth into an inhabitable planet for life.
 
at this time.
that's the point, industrialisation is only really 150 years, and the global population has spiraled only in the last 50 years, but those parts per million have been heading northwards rapidly.

CO2 levels have increased about 30% in just 60 years. Rudimentary calculations say that on the current path within about 350 years we would hit the point of no return, on our current path.

1664533023508.png
 
that's the point, industrialisation is only really 150 years, and the global population has spiraled only in the last 50 years, but those parts per million have been heading northwards rapidly.

CO2 levels have increased about 30% in just 60 years. Rudimentary calculations say that on the current path within about 350 years we would hit the point of no return, on our current path.

View attachment 45118
You’ll have to explain those rudimentary calculations to me. I still contend the human race would be wiped out before we reached “critical mass”. Temperature and sea level rises would wipe out enough of the population to reduce emissions to a sustainable level or human civilisation as we know it would end. You’re not providing any evidence otherwise.
 
You’ll have to explain those rudimentary calculations to me. I still contend the human race would be wiped out before we reached “critical mass”. Temperature and sea level rises would wipe out enough of the population to reduce emissions to a sustainable level or human civilisation as we know it would end. You’re not providing any evidence otherwise.
you haven't provided evidence that opposes it either, just speculation.
 
you haven't provided evidence that opposes it either, just speculation.
11 degrees of warming would kill half of the world’s population from direct heat + however many indirectly from natural disasters, famine etc (Allen 2005).
Burning all the fossil fuels on Earth, like Goldblatt (who you insulted me for quoting despite him being probably the most respected and definitely the most published climate change scientist in the world) says is required for a runaway event to occur, would raise temps by 17 degrees (2012).

I suggest this gives credence to my view that we won’t reach a runaway event. The remaining population would not be burning fossil fuels for myriad reasons (fear, scarcity, likelihood of us never reaching that point through certain factors such as billions of people dying and economies disintegrating after a hypothetical 3/4 degree rise).

Obviously definitive evidence is impossible to provide but let’s see what you’ve got…
 
I suggest this gives credence to my view that we won’t reach a runaway event.
We might not, hopefully we won't but you said we would have to burn all the fossil fuels, which isn't true.

But I'm glad we've now accepted that it's your view without any hard evidence to support it. As you say definitive evidence does not exist either way, but I don't need to prove it because it isn't me making definitive statements about it.
 
Many experts say increased Methane in the atmosphere is causing at least as much damage as carbon (carbon is still a problem). Methane comes from animal farts particularly cattle, land fill sites escapes, flaring of surplus gas, escapes from fracking, burning gas. There has been a large increase in cattle as much more meat is eaten in the World than in the past, fracking is a relatively new development and natural gas is relatively new in most countries (e.g since 1970 in the UK). This might explain why the problems with global warming have increased so much more in the last 50 years.
 
De population?

Avoiding that discussion all together. Doesn't sit right when most of this board already have families.
 
De population?

Avoiding that discussion all together. Doesn't sit right when most of this board already have families.
Already mentioned it on here in the last couple of days. We've become a plague on the planet. Capitalism requires more and more people to sell products and services to, so we need a new financial model to enable de-population.

Tax people for having more than one child, heavily tax at 3. That'll start to see numbers reduce int his country, but it needs a global solution to have any effect.
 
Already mentioned it on here in the last couple of days. We've become a plague on the planet. Capitalism requires more and more people to sell products and services to, so we need a new financial model to enable de-population.

Tax people for having more than one child, heavily tax at 3. That'll start to see numbers reduce int his country, but it needs a global solution to have any effect.

What would taxing people who have more kids actually do other than make the rich richer and the poor poorer in the crusade for some China style perfect population model? There are other countries around the world with far far larger population than us who will never bring in such a scheme, hell I'd like to think this country wouldn't be so backwards in bringing such a tax in.

What about those cultures who have large families as tradition example?

The only way to reduce population on a global level is for science to manufacture a way of doing it.
 
If people stopped eating meat or less meat - methane pollution would reduce and there would be more forest left.

Is it possible to have a veggy parmo?
 
where did I insult you?
You insinuated I’d just pasted the first quote I came across which I found insulting. I accept that it wasn’t a direct insult. I apologise for my wording.
We might not, hopefully we won't but you said we would have to burn all the fossil fuels, which isn't true.

But I'm glad we've now accepted that it's your view without any hard evidence to support it. As you say definitive evidence does not exist either way, but I don't need to prove it because it isn't me making definitive statements about it.

You’ve not provided a shred of evidence to support your view. We both agree that definitive proof is beyond us but I’ve demonstrated a willingness to use research whereas your method is to simply try to discredit it based on your own opinion. It’s becoming frustrating so let’s just agree to disagree. I’ve enjoyed the interaction nonetheless.
 
Back
Top