The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The world is likely to run out of humans before it runs out of resources.

Meaning what? Extinction of humans? That sure would put an end to climate change worries, wouldn't it.

I do find it interesting, though, that people can predict the world's population growth/decline with such apparent certainty. It seems like there could be cultural/societal/religious/etc. factors that don't show up in statistical analysis, that could potentially totally screw up the theoretical trajectories. It always seems easy to predict the future by what we know today, but the future we don't know could affect its future in ways that we can't imagine... if that's not too 'out there' for people to conceptualize.

That said, it's attractive to believe that the problem of overpopulation will potentially start to sort itself out after we reach 10 - 11 billion. I suspect that most of us won't be around to see it happen anyhow, to know whether the experts were right or wrong...

Then again, maybe once AI gets its foothold into everything, it might become annoyed at these pesky, unpredictable humans (cue Terminator music)...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Build.It

It really depends how the rate at which African farmers get more efficient compares to the rate at which the population grows.

Unless climate change affects African agriculture so that it grows less. As a recent study suggests may happen. Other studies have reached a similar conclusion.

That's obviously not the only possible outcome, but it's the likely one, and as the population continues to grow substantially (even with lower fertility rates) and with parts of the continent relying heavily on food aid already, it appears that Africa is one place you can guarantee won't benefit from climate change.

[craner]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Meaning what? Extinction of humans? That sure would put an end to climate change worries, wouldn't it

The earth’s climate has always changed throughout it’s history and would continue to change with or without humans on it.
Pollution of the planet and the balance of nature on the other hand would be far better off without humans.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by craner

The earth’s climate has always changed throughout it’s history and would continue to change with or without humans on it.
Pollution of the planet and the balance of nature on the other hand would be far better off without humans.

Indeed. And I don't think it is said enough that the planet doesn't give a fuck about us humans 'cause it'll get along just fine with or without us. Limiting climate change is more about continuation of a stable society. If anyone has ideas to share on how we maintain democratic society in the absence of affordable insurance and a stable food supply and destroyed infrastructure from fire and storms etc., then please share. I'm not suggesting total destruction from sea to sea to sea either. I'm saying the balance is more delicate than most people may think.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The UN population fund’s estimates have been too high for a long time. Other studies such as the lancet study show a much quicker decline.

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0...677-2/fulltext

And the lancet study did not include the post-COVID drop in birth rates that has happened nearly everywhere.

The world is likely to run out of humans before it runs out of resources.

Originally Posted by theman23

An here's an economist article from last year discussing the rapidly falling fertility levels in Africa over the last few years:
https://www.economist.com/middle-eas...-than-expected

Good news for Africa. But also a global peak of around 10B is still plenty of people who will want to fight for plenty of things. It's reassuring to see the forecasts aren't predicting catastrophe. But what they are predicting is also not without concern.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

It strikes me as bizarre that for the first time in any of our lives that we now have the governments of the world's largest democracies on our side in terms of ridding ourselves of the oil overlords and adopt new tech that will provide us with the freedom as individuals to generate our own electricity to power our lives, yet somehow freedom is perceived by many to continue to pay the oil overlords and let them retain control.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good news for Africa. But also a global peak of around 10B is still plenty of people who will want to fight for plenty of things. It's reassuring to see the forecasts aren't predicting catastrophe. But what they are predicting is also not without concern.

I don’t have any expectation that a depopulating world will not be without conflict. Certainly Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s threat to invade Taiwan are related to predicted demographic collapse.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Meaning what? Extinction of humans? That sure would put an end to climate change worries, wouldn't it.

I do find it interesting, though, that people can predict the world's population growth/decline with such apparent certainty. It seems like there could be cultural/societal/religious/etc. factors that don't show up in statistical analysis, that could potentially totally screw up the theoretical trajectories. It always seems easy to predict the future by what we know today, but the future we don't know could affect its future in ways that we can't imagine... if that's not too 'out there' for people to conceptualize.

That said, it's attractive to believe that the problem of overpopulation will potentially start to sort itself out after we reach 10 - 11 billion. I suspect that most of us won't be around to see it happen anyhow, to know whether the experts were right or wrong...

Then again, maybe once AI gets its foothold into everything, it might become annoyed at these pesky, unpredictable humans (cue Terminator music)...

Certainly trends can change, but demographers at least have the advantage of a long lead time, which is why I don’t believe assertions that China can turn it around, the time to do so was 20 years ago.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t have any expectation that a depopulating world will not be without conflict. Certainly Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s threat to invade Taiwan are related to predicted demographic collapse.

I would add that the sun setting of oil as the ultimate strategic commodity is probably back of mind for petrodictators everywhere. Oil doesn't have to be over to have lost strategic power for them. Europe's adjustment to loss of Russian fossil fuels is evidence of what countries can do when sufficiently motivated.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

It strikes me as bizarre that for the first time in any of our lives that we now have the governments of the world's largest democracies on our side in terms of ridding ourselves of the oil overlords and adopt new tech that will provide us with the freedom as individuals to generate our own electricity to power our lives, yet somehow freedom is perceived by many to continue to pay the oil overlords and let them retain control.

The best way to get rid of oil is technological development and adoption. The rate of development is just torrid. Very few foresaw the rate of development we have now. But the learning curves have held for the last two decades and the tech gets better and cheaper everyday. Adoption is moving too. When I first joined this forum in 2017, there were oilbros telling me that the government target of 30% EV by 2030 was utter insanity. Now the world is at 11% and rising quickly. In some markets, like the two and three wheelers dominating Asia we're at 49% with Buses at 38%.

https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/

Incentives like EV rebates or penalties like carbon pricing can speed that adoption up substantially. Either way it is happening. Notably, we may not perceive progress in Canada, because North America is generally behind on EV adoption, transit construction and usage, deployment of renewables and even basic home tech like heat pumps and induction stoves (which are becoming standard in homes elsewhere). But just because you don't see it in Canada, that doesn't mean it's not happening. And it's accelerating everywhere.

The biggest tell for me is the utter desperation of petrostates. From the warmongering of states like Russia and Iran to all the mad schemes of economic diversification being attempted in the Middle East. They are all acting like the clock is running out quickly. And it is. Oil doesn't have to end. Demand for it just has to stop growing. And that will start the downward spiral of petrostate influence. There was a time where countries went to war for salt and spices, they became strategic commodities helping food preservation and improving quality of life. Today, that idea seems quaint. Hopefully our grandkids or great-grandkids will think the same of oil.

And to be clear, none of this will be linear. It always seems slow at first. But replacement cycles are driven by reinforcing causal feedback loops which always accelerate adoption trends while savaging the tech or fashion it replaces. You should start collecting quotes from oilbros today. They will get more entertaining with every half decade.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by craner

The earth’s climate has always changed throughout it’s history and would continue to change with or without humans on it.
Pollution of the planet and the balance of nature on the other hand would be far better off without humans.

Agreed.

Not to make a fine point of it, but you’ll note that I wrote “climate change worries”… if there are no humans, there will be nobody to worry about it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Indeed. And I don't think it is said enough that the planet doesn't give a fuck about us humans 'cause it'll get along just fine with or without us. Limiting climate change is more about continuation of a stable society. If anyone has ideas to share on how we maintain democratic society in the absence of affordable insurance and a stable food supply and destroyed infrastructure from fire and storms etc., then please share. I'm not suggesting total destruction from sea to sea to sea either. I'm saying the balance is more delicate than most people may think.

Really makes one think about how narcissistic we are as a species. We wouldn’t give a fuck about the effects of climate change if our own interests weren’t at risk of being affected. Meanwhile we have been reproducing and gobbling up land and resources at an incredible rate for many generations, always to the detriment of the environment and all other species.

Now we have realized that it might affect our bottom line, it’s a global emergency. Nobody gave a shit when we were only losing other species at an alarming rate, but oh my god, my insurance rates!

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Really makes one think about how narcissistic we are as a species. We wouldn’t give a fuck about the effects of climate change if our own interests weren’t at risk of being affected. Meanwhile we have been reproducing and gobbling up land and resources at an incredible rate for many generations, always to the detriment of the environment and all other species.

Now we have realized that it might affect our bottom line, it’s a global emergency. Nobody gave a shit when we were only losing other species at an alarming rate, but oh my god, my insurance rates!

You think beavers care when their dams cause damages to the environment? Or wolves care about the deers it kills and eat? It is an evolutionary trait to care about your "own" first, and fighting that to limit the damage to the Earth is an uphill (but necessary) battle.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Now we have realized that it might affect our bottom line, it’s a global emergency. Nobody gave a shit when we were only losing other species at an alarming rate, but oh my god, my insurance rates!

Let's be honest. We don't even care that much. Look at the discussion in this thread.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Really makes one think about how narcissistic we are as a species. We wouldn’t give a fuck about the effects of climate change if our own interests weren’t at risk of being affected. Meanwhile we have been reproducing and gobbling up land and resources at an incredible rate for many generations, always to the detriment of the environment and all other species.

Human evolutionary strategy is kind of a fun list of contradictions.

Mostly, I wonder about a better strategy at this juncture. We really didn't have one before other than 'More!' in both a technological development and sheer quantity argument. It wasn't a problem until the population bloomed from 3 billion in 1960 to 8 billion today.

Declining populations aren't fun economics, but economic systems are human creations. Their assumptions can be modified to suit human needs.

Maybe slowly declining Japan is the future. Old Japanese farms return to the earth, the countryside returns to nature. Its cities still produce, but for a smaller population.

If declining technological advancement is the likely future, what do more bodies really contribute, other than more consumers? We are well past the point of where volume makes things more efficient.

[Build.It]

Apparently Canada's coal exports have boomed since 2015, and especially since 2020 (driven by a surge in commodity prices). Both metalurgical coal (used to make steel) and thermal coal (used to generate electricity) exports in $ have gone up significantly over that time frame.


https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...rty-coal-steel


https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...-all-coal-same

Measured by weight, Canada's coal exports are also relatively high, and actually higher than they were in 2005.


https://natural-resources.canada.ca/...al-facts/20071

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's be honest. We don't even care that much. Look at the discussion in this thread.

Absolutely.

There's a lot more to said, but not from me. I've already said more than I wanted to...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

You think beavers care when their dams cause damages to the environment? Or wolves care about the deers it kills and eat? It is an evolutionary trait to care about your "own" first, and fighting that to limit the damage to the Earth is an uphill (but necessary) battle.

You're kidding, right?

No species other than humans have been capable of creating the technology that allows us to do great things and terrible things at exponentially greater levels than we ever should have been able to. A beaver dam or a carnivore hunting its prey are not these things, but you know this.

This power that we have created for ourselves carries with it great responsibility. We have long mastered the power thing, but still seem to struggle with the concept of responsibility.

So let's just keep looking after our "own" like we have been all along, and see where it takes us. Most people won't notice anyhow.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Human evolutionary strategy is kind of a fun list of contradictions.

Mostly, I wonder about a better strategy at this juncture. We really didn't have one before other than 'More!' in both a technological development and sheer quantity argument. It wasn't a problem until the population bloomed from 3 billion in 1960 to 8 billion today.

Declining populations aren't fun economics, but economic systems are human creations. Their assumptions can be modified to suit human needs.

Maybe slowly declining Japan is the future. Old Japanese farms return to the earth, the countryside returns to nature. Its cities still produce, but for a smaller population.

If declining technological advancement is the likely future, what do more bodies really contribute, other than more consumers? We are well past the point of where volume makes things more efficient.

A well thought-out response, and one that inspires further thought and reflection. Thanks for that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Apparently Canada's coal exports have boomed since 2015, and especially since 2020 (driven by a surge in commodity prices). Both metalurgical coal (used to make steel) and thermal coal (used to generate electricity) exports in $ have gone up significantly over that time frame.

Yes, most of it comes from the US through the Port of Vancouver, headed to Japan and China. "The majority of the coal moved through the coal port arrives by train from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, home to the largest coal mines in the U.S. Wyoming is the top coal-producing state – the heart of “coal country.”

The vast coal resources of the Powder River Basin are almost all federally owned. As part of its climate action plan, the Obama administration had imposed a moratorium on new coal-mining leases on public lands. In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that lifted the moratorium, breathing new life into a fossil fuel business that most had assumed was on the way out. Thus far, the Biden administration does not seem to have plans to reinstate the moratorium.

With proposals for new coal export terminals in Washington State and Oregon having been rejected due to environmental concerns and assertions of Indigenous rights, B.C.’s southern coal port is basically the only way out through the Pacific Northwest to Asian markets. And thanks to a loophole that calculates emissions partly on distance travelled from the site of extraction to port, these U.S. thermal coal exports barely pay any carbon tax in B.C." [ricochet media]

Canadian coal production is falling, although there's a mine in Alberta trying to expand and export more coal - although it's said to not have the necessary permits.



(The top graph on your post is inaccurate - the 2015 data is wrong)