Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You are talking tripe the planet is not fine and neither is wildlife in this country. We have one of the worst records for protecting wildlife in the entire world. Try reading other threads and learning about what is going on, rather than ranting endlessly about how everything is fine.

You misread what I'm saying.

Even if all the bees and mankind and all animal and plant life ceased to be, eventually life would find a way - the Earth has been in much worse states than it is in now. It literally was a random pile of molten rocks floating in space and once initially formed was smashed into by something as big as Mars (producing the moon in the process) and life recovered from that.

The main things the Earth needs to fully recover* is water and to be in the 'golidlocks' (habitable) zone in distance from the sun.

I personally would like 'mankind' to 'do something' - but if all current life failed and died then the chances of the Earth being a dead hunk of rock forever is pretty far-fetched. It's survived stuff like being conked into every 50 million years by giant meteors and suffering nuclear winter for hundreds of years, full on snowball Earth ice-ages and full on non-ice ages where there is no ice on the entire planet.

If it can survive all that crap, then 'it' can survive us.


*By recover I mean have flourishing life across the globe which might take decades or millions of years or less or more. No one really knows.

[duvva 💅]

The problem with parts of humanity surviving is on the whole it’ll be the worst parts, the least deserving, the ones who do the most damage and all the good stuff will be gone

Except the PGMOL they’ll probably survive 

[jillc]

You misread what I'm saying.

Even if all the bees and mankind and all animal and plant life ceased to be, eventually life would find a way - the Earth has been in much worse states than it is in now. It literally was a random pile of molten rocks floating in space and once initially formed was smashed into by something as big as Mars (producing the moon in the process) and life recovered from that.

The main things the Earth needs to fully recover* is water and to be in the 'golidlocks' (habitable) zone in distance from the sun.

I personally would like 'mankind' to 'do something' - but if all current life failed and died then the chances of the Earth being a dead hunk of rock forever is pretty far-fetched. It's survived stuff like being conked into every 50 million years by giant meteors and suffering nuclear winter for hundreds of years, full on snowball Earth ice-ages and full on non-ice ages where there is no ice on the entire planet.

If it can survive all that crap, then 'it' can survive us.


*By recover I mean have flourishing life across the globe which might take decades or millions of years or less or more. No one really knows.

It doesn't mean you do nothing though does it? You mention bees up there they have just allowed farmers to use a pesticide which will wipe out thousands of more bees, bees which contribute to medicines that the human race rely on, say nothing about pollination and honey as both a food resource and medical one.. If the bees die out, human life will suffer as a consequence. The world is a balance and you mess with that at your peril. Just because some form of  life will still exist it doesn't mean that we don't work to improve things. Thousands and thousands of people have joined wildlife trusts, to do just that. Wildlife helps mental health too, so preserve it for the good of everyone. Just assuming everything will be alright when things clearly are not is a dangerous example to set.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It doesn't mean you do nothing though does it? You mention bees up there they have just allowed farmers to use a pesticide which will wipe out thousands of more bees, bees which contribute to medicines that the human race rely on, say nothing about pollination and honey as both a food resource and medical one.. If the bees die out, human life will suffer as a consequence. The world is a balance and you mess with that at your peril. Just because some form of  life will still exist it doesn't mean that we don't work to improve things. Thousands and thousands of people have joined wildlife trusts, to do just that. Wildlife helps mental health too, so preserve it for the good of everyone. Just assuming everything will be alright when things clearly are not is a dangerous example to set.

I'm a member of the Woodland Trust so my money pays to plant trees. I know climate change is a threat to our civillisation and I'd like 'us' to do something about it. I'm not a 'climate denier' - I just accept that should nothing be done then Life and 'The Earth' will survive.

To put that into context, the Earth has survived many extinction level events that has wiped entire species off the face of the Earth.

Scientists estimate that the species that are around today only represent 0.01% of everything that ever lived. Which means that 99.9% are extinct.

If we experience another extinction-level event caused by humans then is there any evidence that the Earth won't eventually be teeming with life again in x million years time (or less, or more)?

If so. What's changed.

When we talk about 'The planet' we mean the planet NOW and the life on it NOW. But the Earth has never worked like that. We only think that NOW is normal because we are here now. We only think that the life around NOW is normal because we are here now.

Life always finds a way. The only way it would really struggle is when in about 4 billion years the Sun expands beyond the Earths orbit. I think everything is likely to be fucked then

[killer-heels]

Wow, does the Woodland Trust really give people such scientific knowledge to say pah, it will be fine.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Wow, does the Woodland Trust really give people such scientific knowledge to say pah, it will be fine.

I suggest you read what I actually wrote.

When you say 'it will be fine' what do you mean?

[killer-heels]

I suggest you read what I actually wrote.

When you say 'it will be fine' what do you mean?

Earth and life. Dont do anything, then it will still be fine.

[Red-Soldier]

I'm a member of the Woodland Trust so my money pays to plant trees. I know climate change is a threat to our civillisation and I'd like 'us' to do something about it. I'm not a 'climate denier' - I just accept that should nothing be done then Life and 'The Earth' will survive.

To put that into context, the Earth has survived many extinction level events that has wiped entire species off the face of the Earth.

Yes, but we are driving this latest one.  The others were natural phenomena.  We are the cause of the latest climate change and species loss, thus, we should be doing something about it.  I don't want most of the species on the planet to become extinct and for ecosystems to collapse.

[jillc]

Yes, but we are driving this latest one.  The others were natural phenomena.  We are the cause of the latest climate change and species loss, thus, we should be doing something about it.  I don't want most of the species on the planet to become extinct and for ecosystems to collapse.

In one.

[GreatEx]

The problem with parts of humanity surviving is on the whole it’ll be the worst parts, the least deserving, the ones who do the most damage and all the good stuff will be gone

Except the PGMOL they’ll probably survive 

"Except" implies that the PGMOL aren't the worst, the least deserving!

Andy's right, life will go on on Earth even if we coal roll our way to 5, 6, 10 degrees of warming. After all, the water doesn't go anywhere, it just changes form, and our distance from the Sun won't change appreciably for millions of years. It's just that the rapid extinction of species and mass starvation of humans, competing for dwindling habitable spaces and arable land, will lead to an unprecedented kick in the balls era that puts WW2 in the shade, and I'm sure none of us want to be here for that, nor our kids or grandkids. So yeah, let's try to take the edge off.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Earth and life. Dont do anything, then it will still be fine.

The Earth will be fine.

Life (of one kind or another) would be fine.

Current life would likely to be fucked. Humanity certainly would be fucked along with human civillisation.


I'd like to change the title from 'Save the Planet' to 'Save Humanity' - then perhaps some people might care. Ultimately this climate change will affect humanity itself. If humanity wants to stop that then humanity needs to try and do something about it. If humanity can't be arsed then humanity will likely be fucked. The Earth will keep spinning and a new bunch of species will be along in a little while - perhaps even some of the ones around now will survive (Depending on what happens, obviously)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yes, but we are driving this latest one.  The others were natural phenomena.  We are the cause of the latest climate change and species loss, thus, we should be doing something about it.  I don't want most of the species on the planet to become extinct and for ecosystems to collapse.

I know we are driving this one, which is why I wrote "If we experience another extinction-level event caused by humans..."

I also think 'we' should be doing something about it. I personally pay for a few hundred trees a year. Not much, I admit, but something. If everyone did that, it would probably help. I also put money into other green charities and raise money here and there.

We know that pretty much all life as it is now will cease to be at some point and we know the ecosystem as it is now will at some point collapse.

The question is, does humanity want to save itself, the current ecosystem and the life within that ecosystem.

I think it should. I have doubts it will or can.

[duvva 💅]

"Except" implies that the PGMOL aren't the worst, the least deserving!

Yep I added a bit to my original post which has   screwed up that little aside which was really just for Andy’s benefit. As it surprises me that someone can get so angry and demonstrative about them yet seem so carefree about something that is slightly more pressing

[Bioluminescence]

I'm a member of the Woodland Trust so my money pays to plant trees. I know climate change is a threat to our civillisation and I'd like 'us' to do something about it. I'm not a 'climate denier' - I just accept that should nothing be done then Life and 'The Earth' will survive.

To put that into context, the Earth has survived many extinction level events that has wiped entire species off the face of the Earth.

Scientists estimate that the species that are around today only represent 0.01% of everything that ever lived. Which means that 99.9% are extinct.

If we experience another extinction-level event caused by humans then is there any evidence that the Earth won't eventually be teeming with life again in x million years time (or less, or more)?

If so. What's changed.

When we talk about 'The planet' we mean the planet NOW and the life on it NOW. But the Earth has never worked like that. We only think that NOW is normal because we are here now. We only think that the life around NOW is normal because we are here now.

Life always finds a way. The only way it would really struggle is when in about 4 billion years the Sun expands beyond the Earths orbit. I think everything is likely to be fucked then

I don't think people are saying the planet won't survive and eventually teem with life again if things go really bad - we know from past events that that's the most likely outcome. The problem is the suffering to come, which was entirely preventable had we started taking serious action sooner. And that those who are already suffering the most are the ones who contributed the least to the problems. We are experiencing two crises that are interlinked - the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis. That's why we talk about now and what we need to do now and what we need to stop doing now. To prevent disasters and deaths. Because knowing that things will be fine in millions of years does nothing to improve things now.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yep I added a bit to my original post which has   screwed up that little aside which was really just for Andy’s benefit. As it surprises me that someone can get so angry and demonstrative about them yet seem so carefree about something that is slightly more pressing

Not sure I'm carefree about the end of human civillisation to be honest

I just believe in Science and Science shows us that life will find a way. Not great for us, but my point it isn't 'The Planet' or 'Life' that is in danger. It's us*


*And our current ecosystem and life currently around us today to an extent.


As I said, I personally do stuff that is 'green' and I believe that 'stuff' should be done. All the point is that I'm making is that 'life' will find a way and the Earth will still be here.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I don't think people are saying the planet won't survive and eventually teem with life again if things go really bad - we know from past events that that's the most likely outcome. The problem is the suffering to come, which was entirely preventable had we started taking serious action sooner. And that those who are already suffering the most are the ones who contributed the least to the problems. We are experiencing two crises that are interlinked - the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis. That's why we talk about now and what we need to do now and what we need to stop doing now. To prevent disasters and deaths. Because knowing that things will be fine in millions of years does nothing to improve things now.

Totally agree.

My point is that the slogans are 'Save the Planet' which isn't really reflective of what is at risk. It's us.

The slogans should be 'Save Humanity' because we're screwing ourselves on our current path.

[duvva 💅]

The thing is all this other stuff we argue about or anything we do in life that is for the future is pointless if we’re not going to be here.

There is only one show in town. The rest of it doesn’t matter if we don’t do something about it - whatever you want to call it or however you want refer to it

[Red-Soldier]

Totally agree.

My point is that the slogans are 'Save the Planet' which isn't really reflective of what is at risk. It's us.

The slogans should be 'Save Humanity' because we're screwing ourselves on our current path.

Not just us mate.  It's all living things!  We have a collective responsibility (especially in the developed world) to look after the planet and all life, not trash it!

[Bioluminescence]

Totally agree.

My point is that the slogans are 'Save the Planet' which isn't really reflective of what is at risk. It's us.

The slogans should be 'Save Humanity' because we're screwing ourselves on our current path.

I'd argue that saving humanity means saving the planet, because we can't survive without a healthy natural environment. We're entirely reliant on other species for environmental services, on complex food webs, on photosynthesisers. They go hand-in-hand.

[Bioluminescence]

Not just us mate.  It's all living things!  We have a collective responsibility (especially in the developed world) to look after the planet and all life, not trash it!

Agreed.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'd argue that saving humanity means saving the planet, because we can't survive without a healthy natural environment. We're entirely reliant on other species for environmental services, on complex food webs, on photosynthesisers. They go hand-in-hand.

Yeah but quite a few people don't seem to give much of a shit about 'saving the planet' - perhaps new ideas and slogans are required.

If people were told that they, their towns, their cities, their countries, the tech, their science, their religion, their culture and humanity itself was fucked on the current course then perhaps they'd care a little more.

Worth a try.

Even today you've got Republicans and Tories talking about getting rid of 'green crap'


I suppose many people don't care about the 'green crap' because they feel that it doesn't affect them or their families which is why I think the slogans and ideas are wrong - they don't seem to be getting through. 'Green ideas' shouldn't be an 'out there' 'fringe' 'wacky' 'lefty' set of ideals. They should be normal because unless 'something' is done then humanity is fucked.

[duvva 💅]

Did you miss the news on Labour yesterday Andy?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Did you miss the news on Labour yesterday Andy?

The media has been reporting random, conflicting shite for weeks now.

As I said yesterday, I'll wait to see what's in the actual manifesto because the media sure as shite don't know.

[Bioluminescence]

Yeah but quite a few people don't seem to give much of a shit about 'saving the planet' - perhaps new ideas and slogans are required.

If people were told that they, their towns, their cities, their countries, the tech, their science, their religion, their culture and humanity itself was fucked on the current course then perhaps they'd care a little more.

Worth a try.

Even today you've got Republicans and Tories talking about getting rid of 'green crap'


I suppose many people don't care about the 'green crap' because they feel that it doesn't affect them or their families which is why I think the slogans and ideas are wrong - they don't seem to be getting through. 'Green ideas' shouldn't be an 'out there' 'fringe' 'wacky' 'lefty' set of ideals. They should be normal because unless 'something' is done then humanity is fucked.

It reminds me a bit of the discussions on conservation we had when I was at uni - do you focus on individual species or do you focus on ecosystems? To save individual species you need to protect their ecosystem, so either way you get the result you're after. So maybe there's a place for both approaches.

I completely agree that talking about what's relevant to people is needed. This is something Katharine Hayhoe (I know I keep on mentioning her) does well. She asks about people's hobbies or activities, talks about how climate change is affecting them and what kinds of solutions people are finding. Make it relatable and offer concrete solutions, and people will take action. It's already happening. What we need on top of that is solutions that are easily available and affordable at a systemic level so that everyone can take advantage of them.

I agree about the "green crap" narrative. It's all framed in terms of costs and inconvenience, and while people are struggling with the cost of living and other pressures, they're not going to prioritise things that aren't affecting them directly now. We could probably have a long conversation about our alienation from the natural world as the main reason people don't understand its importance to our lives and wellbeing.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

Yeah but quite a few people don't seem to give much of a shit about 'saving the planet' - perhaps new ideas and slogans are required.

If people were told that they, their towns, their cities, their countries, the tech, their science, their religion, their culture and humanity itself was fucked on the current course then perhaps they'd care a little more.

Worth a try.

Even today you've got Republicans and Tories talking about getting rid of 'green crap'


I suppose many people don't care about the 'green crap' because they feel that it doesn't affect them or their families which is why I think the slogans and ideas are wrong - they don't seem to be getting through. 'Green ideas' shouldn't be an 'out there' 'fringe' 'wacky' 'lefty' set of ideals. They should be normal because unless 'something' is done then humanity is fucked.

New ideas and slogans and perspectives have been available for a very long time. Deep ecology and the concepts of interconnectedness have been around for decades (or millennia, in some cultures). Anyone who gardens or grows food or keeps livestock can see it every day of their lives. And really, most people I talk to now - in sharp contrast to twenty years ago - do recognise the damage that has been done and the need for change. The public is ripe to listen to coherent arguments for transformative action from politicians with more than focus groups and electoral margins on their mind. It's just that the Tories are mostly utterly controlled by big business and greedy billionaires (I guess that's tautological), and Labour have all the courage of a rabbit.

[duvva 💅]

It's just that the Tories are mostly utterly controlled by big business and greedy billionaires (I guess that's tautological), and Labour have all the courage of a rabbit.

And this is the biggest problem for me, if we keep voting for the same two parties we’ll keep getting the same visionless directionless gutless leadership that they’ve always shown.

We can’t do this as individuals. We can do our bit and we can maybe encourage those closest to us to do the same, but we need leaders who will take it seriously and lead us on the most important issue there’s ever been.

Neither Labour (disappointingly) or the tories (obviously) have them. So it’s pointless voting for either

[thejbs]

You misread what I'm saying.

Even if all the bees and mankind and all animal and plant life ceased to be, eventually life would find a way - the Earth has been in much worse states than it is in now. It literally was a random pile of molten rocks floating in space and once initially formed was smashed into by something as big as Mars (producing the moon in the process) and life recovered from that.

The main things the Earth needs to fully recover* is water and to be in the 'golidlocks' (habitable) zone in distance from the sun.

I personally would like 'mankind' to 'do something' - but if all current life failed and died then the chances of the Earth being a dead hunk of rock forever is pretty far-fetched. It's survived stuff like being conked into every 50 million years by giant meteors and suffering nuclear winter for hundreds of years, full on snowball Earth ice-ages and full on non-ice ages where there is no ice on the entire planet.

If it can survive all that crap, then 'it' can survive us.


*By recover I mean have flourishing life across the globe which might take decades or millions of years or less or more. No one really knows.

Mars is in the Goldilocks zone too, and once had massive oceans. If earth’s magnetic field continues to degrade at its current rate, we’re Mars in a few millennia.

It’s not a given that the earth will always support life in the geological short-term.

[Red-Soldier]

And this is the biggest problem for me, if we keep voting for the same two parties we’ll keep getting the same visionless directionless gutless leadership that they’ve always shown.

We can’t do this as individuals. We can do our bit and we can maybe encourage those closest to us to do the same, but we need leaders who will take it seriously and lead us on the most important issue there’s ever been.

Neither Labour (disappointingly) or the tories (obviously) have them. So it’s pointless voting for either

To his credit, Brown had a plan for investment, it's just he lost the election in 2010.  We would be in a different place now, had he won.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

https://vimeo.com/380329677

The most terrifying of outcomes, to my money, and one that some of the techno-utopians out there actively seem to welcome.

[reddebs]

https://vimeo.com/380329677

The most terrifying of outcomes, to my money, and one that some of the techno-utopians out there actively seem to welcome.

Just like Total Recall!

[Bioluminescence]

https://vimeo.com/380329677

The most terrifying of outcomes, to my money, and one that some of the techno-utopians out there actively seem to welcome.

Such a contrast with how some cultures view the world. Reading the work of Robin Wall Kimmerer and other Indigenous voices was, in some way, healing and reinvigorating. We don't need more domination and control - we need to reconnect.

Edit to add: I had a conversation with a writer once. She said that what deniers had done well was to provide compelling narratives, and we'd fail to provide our own, focusing instead on facts. This video does a good job of moving the conversation forward.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Mars is in the Goldilocks zone too, and once had massive oceans. If earth’s magnetic field continues to degrade at its current rate, we’re Mars in a few millennia.

It’s not a given that the earth will always support life in the geological short-term.

Well Mars is smaller than Earth - 6 1/2 times smaller - with a diameter half the size of Earth, so that it has less gravity and less ability to hold an atmosphere. It's also about 220 million km away from the sun compared to Earths 150 million km.

Mars is actually the second smallest planet in the Solar System

I belive that Mars lost its magnetosphere because it got hit by something or cooled off. It also would struggle to keep its atmosphere as able to sustain life because it has a way more eccentric orbit than the Earth - which would lead to warmer and colder periods - not helped by the Martian year - leading to even cooler periods between warmer ones being nearer and winter/summer.

When you talk about Mars being in the Goldilocks zone - it's right on the outer edge (Venus is right on the inner edge) - so given the long winter/summer and also the erratic orbit, it's got far more issues than the Earth trying to keep a viable atmospehre - Earth is smack, bang in the middle of the Goldilocks zone and it's orbit isn't eccentric enough to push it out or in to affect us.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

Such a contrast with how some cultures view the world. Reading the work of Robin Wall Kimmerer and other Indigenous voices was, in some way, healing and reinvigorating. We don't need more domination and control - we need to reconnect.

Edit to add: I had a conversation with a writer once. She said that what deniers had done well was to provide compelling narratives, and we'd fail to provide our own, focusing instead on facts. This video does a good job of moving the conversation forward.

Indeed!

People here will still be going on about "the economy" and "pragmatism" when the crops have all failed, the waters have risen, and the rich beauty of nature has been reduced to ruins.

I don't expect our current crop of leaders to share the wisdom of Kimmerer and others. They might at least be humble enough to try listening though.

[Bioluminescence]

Indeed!

People here will still be going on about "the economy" and "pragmatism" when the crops have all failed, the waters have risen, and the rich beauty of nature has been reduced to ruins.

I don't expect our current crop of leaders to share the wisdom of Kimmerer and others. They might at least be humble enough to try listening though.

The problem is that leaders start from an ideological position and work backwards from there, fitting everything around their ideology and vested interests. Hence their comments about "green crap" when in fact it makes economic sense to cut greenhouse gas emissions and maintain a healthy environment.

I've just seen that a French podcast I like has got a couple of episodes that sound promising, one on the role that individuals are already playing in shaping tomorrow's world. I'm off to listen to that.

[GreatEx]

Can you share the name of the podcast, please? I've been meaning to listen to some French pods to retain my language skills, having made the startling realisation it's been over 16 years since I left the country (I'm so old)

[thejbs]

Well Mars is smaller than Earth - 6 1/2 times smaller - with a diameter half the size of Earth, so that it has less gravity and less ability to hold an atmosphere. It's also about 220 million km away from the sun compared to Earths 150 million km.

Mars is actually the second smallest planet in the Solar System

I belive that Mars lost its magnetosphere because it got hit by something or cooled off. It also would struggle to keep its atmosphere as able to sustain life because it has a way more eccentric orbit than the Earth - which would lead to warmer and colder periods - not helped by the Martian year - leading to even cooler periods between warmer ones being nearer and winter/summer.

When you talk about Mars being in the Goldilocks zone - it's right on the outer edge (Venus is right on the inner edge) - so given the long winter/summer and also the erratic orbit, it's got far more issues than the Earth trying to keep a viable atmospehre - Earth is smack, bang in the middle of the Goldilocks zone and it's orbit isn't eccentric enough to push it out or in to affect us.

I could be wrong as it’s a while since I read about it, but earth is right on the edge of the ‘conservative habitable zone.’ It and Mars are like bookends for that region.  It’s in the middle of the optimistic habitable zone, where it’s more to chance.

My point remains, that life on earth is not a given. It’s a fragile thing.

[Bioluminescence]

Can you share the name of the podcast, please? I've been meaning to listen to some French pods to retain my language skills, having made the startling realisation it's been over 16 years since I left the country (I'm so old)

I know what you mean about being old - it just creeps up on you. The podcast is La Terre au Carré and it's on every weekdays. It's also available on Apple Podcasts and the France Inter or France Culture app (though the latter have ads if I remember correctly). Every podcast starts with phone messages from listeners, of varying audio quality. It's basically a science and environment podcast and they really cover a huge number of topics. There are lots of other podcasts available on France Inter - it's quite the resource.

[GreatEx]

Thanks Bio! Downloaded Wednesday's "bioregionalism" episode, now just need to find an hour of serenity so that I might be able to follow it

[Bioluminescence]

You're welcome and good luck! Would love to hear your thoughts after you've listened to it.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Indeed!

People here will still be going on about "the economy" and "pragmatism" when the crops have all failed, the waters have risen, and the rich beauty of nature has been reduced to ruins.

Counting the pennies while the world burns