Extinction rebellion

As I have said, I think ER have a point t, but I cannot help but think ot is an ideal situation for the professionally offended to enrol in.
 
SocketRocket said:
All those people you mention told us something we didnt know, this current rabble keep dishing up things we are quite aware of. If they want to aspire to the likes of Einstein or Pasteur then do more than glueing yourself to a bus.
Click to expand...
One name I forgot was the naturalist Charles Darwin. He was ridiculed for saying that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Now confirmed by DNA.
Darwin went to Brazil and was overwhelmed by the Amazon.
So why is the forest so important and what exactly does a tree do.
All a tree needs is 2 things - water and carbon atoms, both of which come from the air. It mines the C from CO2 and expels the O2. That's how the forest oxygenates the world. Fewer trees mean less carbon absorption and more greenhouse effect. ER began with the felling of trees for a bus lane.
 
While I am inclined to be critical of their actions given they are setting out to cause disruption, I also have to make the point that many successful campaigns have been as a result of similar direct action - in terms of suffrage, civil rights, the end of apartheid.

It seems they are being effective in terms of getting their beliefs on the agenda, getting talked about and building momentum for their campaign.
 
With regards to climate change as a whole - I think you are being ignorant if you don't think this is happening. You only have to see the mild winters, tropical rainstorms and hot and humid summers we get to know that the weather is more extreme than it was a few decades ago.

Whether it continues to happen at the pace as some would have you believe remains to be seen.

My issue with it is that humans have been heating up the planet for nearly 200 years since the industrial revolution. That has allowed the medical and technological revolution to massively improve people's lifestyle and healthcare so people live longer and have children who survive into adulthood etc etc. And millions can afford a car (or 2 per household) and a foreign holiday (or several) each year and to buy a shed load of stuff that is shipped from all over the world be it food, clothes, technology etc.

So if this has been going on since 1850 or so... and the population has grown from 1.2 Billion to 8 Billion in that time... then it is surely going to be almost impossible to halt or reverse what has happened?

Surely even if everyone had electric cars and we stopped eating meat and burning fossil fuels tomorrow... just the fact that 8 Billion people are living, breathing, heating their homes, cooking nettle soup etc. is still going to be having an impact on the planet and the atmosphere to the point that is is irreversible?

One person being alive radiates heat into the air.
People heat their homes, radiates heat into the air.
Even electric motors and efficient lightbulbs, insulated properties etc will do the same.

If the population continues to grow by 70 or 80 million people a year, then surely all we could do at best, is slow down what is happening?
 
Grant85 said:
With regards to climate change as a whole - I think you are being ignorant if you don't think this is happening. You only have to see the mild winters, tropical rainstorms and hot and humid summers we get to know that the weather is more extreme than it was a few decades ago.

Whether it continues to happen at the pace as some would have you believe remains to be seen.

My issue with it is that humans have been heating up the planet for nearly 200 years since the industrial revolution. That has allowed the medical and technological revolution to massively improve people's lifestyle and healthcare so people live longer and have children who survive into adulthood etc etc. And millions can afford a car (or 2 per household) and a foreign holiday (or several) each year and to buy a shed load of stuff that is shipped from all over the world be it food, clothes, technology etc.

So if this has been going on since 1850 or so... and the population has grown from 1.2 Billion to 8 Billion in that time... then it is surely going to be almost impossible to halt or reverse what has happened?

Surely even if everyone had electric cars and we stopped eating meat and burning fossil fuels tomorrow... just the fact that 8 Billion people are living, breathing, heating their homes, cooking nettle soup etc. is still going to be having an impact on the planet and the atmosphere to the point that is is irreversible?

One person being alive radiates heat into the air.
People heat their homes, radiates heat into the air.
Even electric motors and efficient lightbulbs, insulated properties etc will do the same.

If the population continues to grow by 70 or 80 million people a year, then surely all we could do at best, is slow down what is happening?
Click to expand...

So, the answer to the conundrum may well lie with sticking to hugging trees and not the opposite sex...
 
MegaSteve said:
So, the answer to the conundrum may well lie with sticking to hugging trees and not the opposite sex...
Click to expand...

I doubt that is even an answer and clearly it would be almost impossible to implement.

I suspect we are now well past the tipping point and that just the existence of 8 billion people and provision of the food and electricity to keep them alive would do the damage, even if fossil fuels weren't being burned and we were eating minimum levels of meat / protein.

I guess humans have gone from learning how to survive, to learning how to thrive and have become staggeringly efficient at it.
 
bobmac said:
Can you provide any reason why nuclear energy will be better than renewable energy in the years to come?
Click to expand...
If tidal energy was used then you have a source of motion that is guaranteed twice a day as opposed to wind that isnt, although tidal energy costs a great deal to build, im not sure whether its cheaper than nuclear though. I think a mixed bag of solutions would be best.
 
stefanovic said:
One name I forgot was the naturalist Charles Darwin. He was ridiculed for saying that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Now confirmed by DNA.
Darwin went to Brazil and was overwhelmed by the Amazon.
So why is the forest so important and what exactly does a tree do.
All a tree needs is 2 things - water and carbon atoms, both of which come from the air. It mines the C from CO2 and expels the O2. That's how the forest oxygenates the world. Fewer trees mean less carbon absorption and more greenhouse effect. ER began with the felling of trees for a bus lane.
Click to expand...
Is that something I am not aware of?
 
SocketRocket said:
If tidal energy was used then you have a source of motion that is guaranteed twice a day as opposed to wind that isnt, although tidal energy costs a great deal to build, im not sure whether its cheaper than nuclear though. I think a mixed bag of solutions would be best.
Click to expand...

Tidal (Hydro power) is included in renewable energy group as it is, well, renewable.
See post no. 12
 
SocketRocket said:
The point in question was whether its cheaper to supply than nuclear, you suggested nuclear was too expensive.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was that the protesters should be at Hinkley
£22bn to make expensive electricity that nobody will want, creating dangerous waste that will last 1000s of years using new untried technology AND there's discussions going on about building another 6 nuclear power plants.
Meanwhile the cost of renewable energy as a whole continues to fall.
 
bobmac said:
I thought the point was that the protesters should be at Hinkley
£22bn to make expensive electricity that nobody will want, creating dangerous waste that will last 1000s of years using new untried technology AND there's discussions going on about building another 6 nuclear power plants.
Meanwhile the cost of renewable energy as a whole continues to fall.
Click to expand...
So nobody will want electricticity🤔 As I said, a mixed bag of power generation seems a better way to me.
 
Grant85 said:
IMI suspect we are now well past the tipping point and that just the existence of 8 billion people and provision of the food and electricity to keep them alive would do the damage
Click to expand...
Dan Brown picked up on it in his book Inferno, but they reversed the ending for the movie.
 
SocketRocket said:
Is that something I am not aware of?
Click to expand...
What are you not aware of?
Assume you mean trees absorb CO2, taking the carbon atoms out of the atmosphere for themselves and expelling oxygen atoms. That's why trees are a treasure.
If there is not enough CO2 in the air then trees die. If there is too much CO2 it leads to the greenhouse effect. Then we need more trees.
In addition the carbon which has been stored within the ground for millions of years is now being released as fossil fuel.
So it's a double whammy.
 
stefanovic said:
What are you not aware of?
Assume you mean trees absorb CO2, taking the carbon atoms out of the atmosphere for themselves and expelling oxygen atoms. That's why trees are a treasure.
If there is not enough CO2 in the air then trees die. If there is too much CO2 it leads to the greenhouse effect. Then we need more trees.
In addition the carbon which has been stored within the ground for millions of years is now being released as fossil fuel.
So it's a double whammy.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
VOIP
Replies
14
Views
700
Ross61
Ross61
J
And I thought I understood WHS
Replies
5
Views
541
JollyRedDevil
J
T
Machine Precision
Replies
3
Views
373
jim8flog
jim8flog
Orikoru
I Am Terrible In The Wind And I'm Sick Of It
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
11K
patricks148
patricks148
splashtryagain
Tyre help please 👃
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Deleted member 21784
D
Top