The Amazon rainforest

[Imploding Turtle]

Good job we don't need it for anything important, eh?

[tim_noone]

Good job we don't need it for anything important, eh?

Books...

[ClaretDiver]

I kinda like breathing oxygen TBH!

[Vegas Claret]

saw this earlier

[wickdkewlclaret]

saw this earlier

That statement just highlights exactly what is wrong with humans, and sums up exactly where we have gone wrong.

Jobs been ****** for while now, business as usual.

[Lord Beamish]

saw this earlier

Medieval Gothic Cathedrals dont grow on trees, you know.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Medieval Gothic Cathedrals dont grow on trees, you know.

I thought that’s why it burned so fast?

[CJW]

So glad I only have 20-25 years left (tops).
I genuinely fear for anyone being born today (and there's too many of them btw).

[Hipper]

Millionaires have been telling as about the Amazon forests (Sting), as have others. We're just not listening.

It's been declared a 'Climate Emergency' but is anybody actually doing anything. Have you changed anything about your way of life? I haven't.

[theroyaldyche]

Got some celebrity twa ts on twitter posting pictures from years ago of historical fires

[NottsClaret]

It's a worry for sure. Although the cricket's on at 11am so it'll have to wait.

Even if it wasn't, I'd be doing nothing about it. Nobody else will either, except maybe that lass in the boat. If a comet was heading directly for Earth, we'd spend the last day or two tweeting about how we're really against that sort of thing.

Still, I've now publicly acknowledged that I'm aware of it and consider it 'bad', so I'm now free to continue with my day, feeling a little bit better than people who aren't aware of it or profess not to care.

[Erasmus]

For anyone who has children this must be considered the major issue of our time. Far more significant than Brexit or any of that nonsense. In fact it should be the most important issue for anyone who has any concern for humanity and the world as a whole. Saying there is no man made climate change is Trump's greatest stupidity.

[AlargeClaret]

The rainforests burn every year and pretty vigorously too. Though this looks like a biggie, Brazil has a huge economy but not sure they can do much about drought? Unless it’s cattle clearances gone crazy

[Wile E Coyote]

the fires were lit by the local farmers with the encouragement of the Brazilian government , it was seen as a way of land clearing for cattle rearing .
Now the brazilians are telling world leaders (specifically the french) to keep their noses out of affairs that don't concern them.

[Imploding Turtle]

Got some celebrity twa ts on twitter posting pictures from years ago of historical fires

I don't believe you. Please link the tweets.

[Imploding Turtle]

Here's one

https://twitter.com/DrSTRANG7/status/11 ... 28897?s=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Devils_Advocate]

Its suggested that some of the fires have been lit on bequest of the big oil company's (supported by the Brazilian President) after losing some key lawsuits to try and remove indigenous people from their land.

I saw a a very sad and desperate interview posted on Twitter from one of the Tribes people whose reserve had been burnt to the ground.

I haven't seen enough reporting and analysis to be 100% sure of this but from what I have read and seen and with the state of the world today it seems a reasonable claim. What is very predictable and saddening is the majority of the worlds reaction to it

[cricketfieldclarets]

The good thing is, this generation now not only want to live and work in a world that gives a **** about climate and the environment, they also have the brains and access to technology to make a change.

[Stayingup]

Its suggested that some of the fires have been lit on bequest of the big oil company's (supported by the Brazilian President) after losing some key lawsuits to try and remove indigenous people from their land.

I saw a a very sad and desperate interview posted on Twitter from one of the Tribes people whose reserve had been burnt to the ground.

I haven't seen enough reporting and analysis to be 100% sure of this but from what I have read and seen and with the state of the world today it seems a reasonable claim. What is very predictable and saddening is the majority of the worlds reaction to it

If what you say is true then the citizens of the world who do care should rise up and burn the buildings of these companies. Extreme yes. But it would be deserved
Who.has suggested it?

[Devils_Advocate]

I've seen a few tweets and comments on Twitter plus some news stories online and the interview I mentioned. I also briefly looked up the lawsuit online to check its not something from years ago being rehashed by people to support a narrative.

Ive not looked into the sources of the news stories or looked closely at the people at the root of the tweets yet hence Im not 100% but its worth putting out there with caveat as it gives more chance to get validation either way of whether its true or not.

Got a heavy weekend on the booze but once im sober again I plan to do a bit more digging cos as you say if there is truth in it is disgusting.

[Taffy on the wing]

The rainforests burn every year and pretty vigorously too. Though this looks like a biggie, Brazil has a huge economy but not sure they can do much about drought? Unless it’s cattle clearances gone crazy

Maybe you aren't paying attention! Brazil has a new President similar in nature to Trump etc, he has stated that the Amazon is a free-for-all.....and calls Global warming a hoax! Besides the trees and their benefits, thousands of yet to be discovered plants and animals are being destroyed....along with the homes of indigenous people........not to mention miners polluting the waters and killing isolated tribes..........Think the Congo in the 19th century......Give a fcuk and stop voting Conservative!
aah ....i feel better now...I'll just check the Cricket score

[houseboy]

Feel terrible about the Amazon situation - they are the lungs of our planet and if that goes so do we (pretty much). However the West has been destroying the environment for hundreds of years and now they want to stop the situation. The problem is the West has made it's money and built on it with other things now, we are 'established'. Many countries, including in South America, depend on the Amazon for a lot of it's income, not just for timber but felling it for farms and coffee plantations etc. It seems to me that is is hypocritical of the West to try to stop these countries doing what they can to financially survive.

[Billy Balfour]

Money will always come first until it's too late - then it will be worthless.

[Imploding Turtle]

The rainforests burn every year and pretty vigorously too. Though this looks like a biggie, Brazil has a huge economy but not sure they can do much about drought? Unless it’s cattle clearances gone crazy

The fires are almost entirely man-made.

[Bin Ont Turf]

An over populated planet is the problem.

And that isn't going to change (barring a big meteor strike or a Black Death type situation).

[Imploding Turtle]

An over populated planet is the problem.

And that isn't going to change (barring a big meteor strike or a Black Death type situation).

You keep going to that dry well, don't you? Overpopulation isn't the problem, and if it was then there'd still no way to solve that without killing billions. So your argument is ******* worthless.

[Spiral]

It's a worry for sure. Although the cricket's on at 11am so it'll have to wait.

Even if it wasn't, I'd be doing nothing about it. Nobody else will either, except maybe that lass in the boat. If a comet was heading directly for Earth, we'd spend the last day or two tweeting about how we're really against that sort of thing.

Still, I've now publicly acknowledged that I'm aware of it and consider it 'bad', so I'm now free to continue with my day, feeling a little bit better than people who aren't aware of it or profess not to care.

Have to admit, using performative indifference to rail against performative concern is quite a novel approach.

[bfcjg]

The deliberate destruction of the Amazon is a crime against humanity, sounds dramatic but it's our oxygen it's our clean air the eco system and water it supports is crucial. Apart from Macron the world leaders appear not to give a sh1t. Even extinction rebellion are doing F all they should be outside the Brazillian embassy doing something to raise awareness.

[Bin Ont Turf]

You keep going to that dry well, don't you? Overpopulation isn't the problem, and if it was then there'd still no way to solve that without killing billions. So your argument is ******* worthless.

Of course it's the problem you headcase.

More people,more resources needed, be it oil, wood or beef etc.

Man doesn't/won't change until he has no choice.

[Imploding Turtle]

The deliberate destruction of the Amazon is a crime against humanity, sounds dramatic but it's our oxygen it's our clean air the eco system and water it supports is crucial. Apart from Macron the world leaders appear not to give a sh1t. Even extinction rebellion are doing F all they should be outside the Brazillian embassy doing something to raise awareness.

Ultimately we're the ones responsible for the inaction of our leaders. We're the ones who keep rewarding their inaction by continuing to vote for them. The reason they won't do anything is because it'll hurt the economy to do something and they know that when the opposition criticises them for hurting the economy we're not going to interested in explanations, we're going to blame the people who did something to fight climate change, and we're going to vote against them. And obviously the leaver who benefits from our stupidity isn't going allow their opposition to make that same accusation, so they'll do nothing but pay lip service to the problem.

There's only so much blame that can be placed on the people we keep voting for and listening to. We've known for decades/centuries that politicians are largely only interested in themselves, so we can't blame them entirely when they take the action or inaction that keeps us voting for them.

[Taffy on the wing]

The deliberate destruction of the Amazon is a crime against humanity, sounds dramatic but it's our oxygen it's our clean air the eco system and water it supports is crucial. Apart from Macron the world leaders appear not to give a sh1t. Even extinction rebellion are doing F all they should be outside the Brazillian embassy doing something to raise awareness.

Get thee to the Brazil embassy!

[Imploding Turtle]

Of course it's the problem you headcase.

More people,more resources needed, be it oil, wood or beef etc.

Man doesn't/won't change until he has no choice.

Humanity doesn't NEED those resources you listed. They're just conveniences, and we can use those conveniences in a sustainable manner even at the current population levels. Therefore the population count isn't the problem. The problem is what that population is doing.

Think of it this way. If there was only one person on earth and they were using just as much of these resources as the current population is using, and polluting the planet just as much, would it still be a population problem, or would the problem be how that population is using its resources?

The technology exists for the population to live sustainably. We don't need to be pumping billions upon billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year, but that's what we're choosing to do. That's the problem.

[Spiral]

An over populated planet is the problem.

And that isn't going to change (barring a big meteor strike or a Black Death type situation).

Of course it's the problem you headcase.

More people,more resources needed, be it oil, wood or beef etc.

Man doesn't/won't change until he has no choice.

Bolsonaro relied heavily upon the agribusiness lobby to get elected, and one of his first acts as President was to sign an executive order handing over the regulatory authority of indigenous territory to the agriculture ministry, which is controlled by...wait for it...the agribusiness lobby. On an ostensible and superficial level, Bolsonaro sees conservationism as an impediment to economic growth, but a more accurate understanding would be that, essentially, his efforts to deregulate are little more than him repaying the debt he owes to those who elevated him. It's a non-sequitur to suggest the Amazon needs to be destroyed, possibly irreparably, in order to sustain Human civilisation. The scale of these fires is the product of corruption and nothing more. This is a product of blatant profiteering. You're touched if you think otherwise.

The psychology of all this is interesting. If you need to approve/show indifference to the destruction of an ecosystem to feel like a man, you'd better get your head looked at. Cold indifference to catastrophe is a lamentable, not-uncommon quirk of our times, but such is the ideological vice-grip capitalism has on people's imagination. Small cocks, small minds.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Too many people on this planet.

Greedy people, people not wanting change and selfish people.

Too many people.

[Spiral]

Mate, if someone started a thread on here urging everyone to go vegan (thus reducing their carbon footprint, which is a good start--and there's a clear crossover between vegans, environmentalists, and those who oppose rampant consumerism) you'd be among the first to ostracise them as, to quote...erm...you.., a "venomous sandal wearer". You're all for de-populating the planet, yes? You willing to take the lead?

[Imploding Turtle]

Too many people on this planet.

Greedy people, people not wanting change and selfish people.

Too many people.

Yes, too many greedy people, people not wanting to change and selfish people. So by your own admission you're saying it's not that they exist that's the problem, it's what they're doing with their existence. They're choosing to be greedy. They're choosing to not want to change. They're choosing selfishness.

If someone is earning £500/week but choose to live on £600/week in expenses the problem isn't that they're being underpaid, the problem is that they're choosing to live unsustainably given the resources that they have at their disposal.
Likewise overpopulation isn't the problem because the population we have is sustainable if we choose to exist sustainably.

The only reason you don't understand this is because you're choosing to not understand it.

[Bin Ont Turf]

a "venomous sandal wearer".

You've given a great example of it in your first post.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Likewise overpopulation isn't the problem because the population we have is sustainable if we choose to exist sustainably.

Just one small example......


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technolog ... martphones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Claret Till I Die]

For anyone who has children this must be considered the major issue of our time. Far more significant than Brexit or any of that nonsense. In fact it should be the most important issue for anyone who has any concern for humanity and the world as a whole. Saying there is no man made climate change is Trump's greatest stupidity.

This

[Hipper]

You can argue about population and sustainable living but the facts are incredible.

When I was born in 1953 the world population was around 2.5 billion. It is now 7.6 billion - three times more. The predictions for 2050 are around 10 billion.

Yes I'm sure it is possible for all these people to live sustainably although I've yet to see any evidence for this.

Let's say then that the 2.5 billion in 1950 lived sustainably. Surely to accommodate three times more people as we have now we would need to reduce the standard of living for everyone? You might argue that technology will come to the rescue. Well it clearly hasn't yet. And of course it won't. And then with the increase to 10 billion we would need to reduce standards further.

You might say that we can't do anything about population size because we would have to resort to unacceptable methods. Surely though we can make an effort to prevent further increases. But we don't. Perhaps that also is too difficult.

So what then? Reduce rich people's (and that includes all of us) standard of living until everyone, including also future births, have the same sustainable standard of living. Clearly that won't happen. The rich and powerful won't allow it and you as an individual would not give up what you have.

So, we can't reduce the population, we can't stop increases, technology won't solve this problem, and those that have will not give up their wealth.

Where do we go from here?

[Imploding Turtle]

You can argue about population and sustainable living but the facts are incredible.

When I was born in 1953 the world population was around 2.5 billion. It is now 7.6 billion - three times more. The predictions for 2050 are around 10 billion.

Yes I'm sure it is possible for all these people to live sustainably although I've yet to see any evidence for this.

Let's say then that the 2.5 billion in 1950 lived sustainably. Surely to accommodate three times more people as we have now we would need to reduce the standard of living for everyone? You might argue that technology will come to the rescue. Well it clearly hasn't yet. And of course it won't. And then with the increase to 10 billion we would need to reduce standards further.

You might say that we can't do anything about population size because we would have to resort to unacceptable methods. Surely though we can make an effort to prevent further increases. But we don't. Perhaps that also is too difficult.

So what then? Reduce rich people's (and that includes all of us) standard of living until everyone, including also future births, have the same sustainable standard of living. Clearly that won't happen. The rich and powerful won't allow it and you as an individual would not give up what you have.

So, we can't reduce the population, we can't stop increases, technology won't solve this problem, and those that have will not give up their wealth.

Where do we go from here?

"Yes I'm sure it is possible for all these people to live sustainably although I've yet to see any evidence for this. "

Really? Carbon neutrality is possible already. Today. The ONLY reason we haven't implemented it is because of money. Not money as in it's unaffordable, money as in vested interests want to protect their investments. If we chose to live sustainably then the fossil fuel industry's share value would plummet. That's the money being protected. We couple plaster every building and window with solar panels. We could build massive wind farms. But we don't, because our politicians don't want to, because their donors don't want them to. We could even have had fusion power by now if we took researching it seriously and properly funded it. But that's another thing they don't really want.


"Let's say then that the 2.5 billion in 1950 lived sustainably. Surely to accommodate three times more people as we have now we would need to reduce the standard of living for everyone?"

Why?

"You might argue that technology will come to the rescue. Well it clearly hasn't yet. And of course it won't. And then with the increase to 10 billion we would need to reduce standards further."

Why? The sun isn't going to shine less powerfully just because more people exist. The wind isn't going to blow less strongly. Tides will still go in and out. All we need is more capacity for collecting the energy to fuel the extra population, which is what we'd have to do anyway with our current fossil fuel generation.

"You might say that we can't do anything about population size because we would have to resort to unacceptable methods. Surely though we can make an effort to prevent further increases. But we don't. Perhaps that also is too difficult."

You're literally have to start exterminating people. Or conduct mass sterilisations. Or deny healthcare to everyone. Or all three. There's just no way whatsoever to control the population without it, and in a time frame that will significantly reduce the carbon footprint of humanity. Population is growing because life expectancy is extending. In the 1950s the global fertility rate was almost twice what it is currently, and yet as you point out the population has tripled. This is because infant mortality has been slashed, and life expectancy has extended. Without genocide then population growth is locked in. Unless you can find a humane was of killing 2.5 billion extra people in the next three decades, of course


"Where do we go from here?"

Stop voting for **** who would rather protect their donors investments over protecting your planet. Stop listening to those who lie to you and make you think it's all hopeless, because they're doing that specifically so that you don't threaten the investments of their donors. Educate yourself about the possibilities that exist already to create a carbon-neutral society.

[Paul Waine]

You can argue about population and sustainable living but the facts are incredible.

When I was born in 1953 the world population was around 2.5 billion. It is now 7.6 billion - three times more. The predictions for 2050 are around 10 billion.

Yes I'm sure it is possible for all these people to live sustainably although I've yet to see any evidence for this.

Let's say then that the 2.5 billion in 1950 lived sustainably. Surely to accommodate three times more people as we have now we would need to reduce the standard of living for everyone? You might argue that technology will come to the rescue. Well it clearly hasn't yet. And of course it won't. And then with the increase to 10 billion we would need to reduce standards further.

You might say that we can't do anything about population size because we would have to resort to unacceptable methods. Surely though we can make an effort to prevent further increases. But we don't. Perhaps that also is too difficult.

So what then? Reduce rich people's (and that includes all of us) standard of living until everyone, including also future births, have the same sustainable standard of living. Clearly that won't happen. The rich and powerful won't allow it and you as an individual would not give up what you have.

So, we can't reduce the population, we can't stop increases, technology won't solve this problem, and those that have will not give up their wealth.

Where do we go from here?

Hi Hipper, I was also born in 1953. I'm not concerned about the world population. There's no reason why the world's population can't continue to grow - I hope it does - and more and more of the world enjoys a decent standard of living.

What we've got to think about is the "global world" - rather than the "world of the west." In 1953, Europe was emerging from the awful destruction of WW2, but living standards in Europe were still the highest in the world, with the exception of USA (and Canada). Asia was poor, Africa was poor, South and Central America and Mexico were all poor. The greater part of population growth has been in these poor regions, by far the greater growth in living standards is in these poor regions - and still, today, with some exceptions, living standards in these regions are very much lower than we enjoy in the west.

The interesting thing about birth rate is that it is the poor populations who have the most births. As living standards rise, birth rates decline - as parents more and more understand that more of their children will survive into adulthood.

Of course, a larger world population will consume more of the world's resources. I expect we will see changes in the years ahead as some reources become scarcer and we better understand the consequences of "over-consumption" of other resources.

I'm an optimist - doesn't that come with the territory of supporting Burnley?

[Hipper]

I see little cause for optimism despite what IT and Paul say.

I'm not sure I understand the lack of concern for population growth. I see IT's thinking that there's nothing we can do about it so let's not waste our time looking at it. It is nevertheless a big factor in what is going on.

The controlled burning of the Amazon rain forest for example is to generate more agricultural land to satisfy the demand for food. There is only a finite amount of land that is suitable for food production. There is a limit somewhere. Of course you can grow food in the desert (it is being done now) but it costs more then natural ways (whether it's feasible and ultimately cost effective by using solar panels to generate the energy required for all aspects of this I don't know).

As for energy generation:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... a6502e52fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems that it is feasible to generate all our energy needs from renewables but a massive programme of investment is required. It's happening but too slowly. And when new coal fired power stations are being built in China and India, and large new coal mines opened in the likes of Australia (Carmichael coal mine), where are we going?

Regarding voting, the three big parties claim to have climate change policies but the government of the day still doesn't seem to implement the more radical solutions required. They know we won't accept them. The Green Party is the only one that will, presumably, be radical but what will it take to elect them? At the moment most of us (including me) seem content to go along as usual. It will not only take a radical change in voting patterns but one of individual attitudes. For that I suggest only some major calamity will activate us.

[bob-the-scutter]

For anyone who has children this must be considered the major issue of our time. Far more significant than Brexit or any of that nonsense. In fact it should be the most important issue for anyone who has any concern for humanity and the world as a whole. Saying there is no man made climate change is Trump's greatest stupidity.

https://youtu.be/UFHX526NPbE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

https://youtu.be/UFHX526NPbE

Patrick Moore has absolutely no credibility.

[Devils_Advocate]

Patrick Moore has absolutely no credibility.

Id never heard of him but it took me less than 10 mins to do a bit of googling and see that his credibility is zero.

Its no wonder we are where we are with things like Trump and Brexit when people will just believe anything presented to them if it says what they want to hear

[morpheus2]

Patrick Moore has absolutely no credibility.

I have always been on the environmental side of this debate, ever since secondary school where I was informed that an area of rainforest the size of Wales was being destroyed every week, voted Green at every opportunity.

I watched his presentation and my cognitive dissonance swayed me slightly to that side, especially when he showed the graph explaining that the carbon level was led by the temperature and not the other way round, so I Googled(v) him and could find nothing positive to support him on the first page so came to the conclusion that he's either very intensely trolled(v) or he has no credibility.

I know for a fact that you will be able to explain in great detail (but in stupid friendly terms for me) this warming=+carbon anomaly, my guess is that Moore is spreading a big fat lie or there is much much much more to it than Moore is letting on!

[Imploding Turtle]

I have always been on the environmental side of this debate, ever since secondary school where I was informed that an area of rainforest the size of Wales was being destroyed every week, voted Green at every opportunity.

I watched his presentation and my cognitive dissonance swayed me slightly to that side, especially when he showed the graph explaining that the carbon level was led by the temperature and not the other way round, so I Googled(v) him and could find nothing positive to support him on the first page so came to the conclusion that he's either very intensely trolled(v) or he has no credibility.

I know for a fact that you will be able to explain in great detail (but in stupid friendly terms for me) this warming=+carbon anomaly, my guess is that Moore is spreading a big fat lie or there is much much much more to it than Moore is letting on!

In detail, no. But i can explain it in laymans terms. Atmospheric temperatures increase when something forces them to increase. Many different things can force temperature increase. CO2 can and does force a temperature increase, but temperature increases also force CO2 increases (positive feedback). One example of how it does this is by the higher temperature causing more than usual ice to melt (deglaciation), this fresh water makes the oceans release more of the CO2 that it holds than it normally does which then causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration - which then causes more warming, which causes more deglaciation, which causes more fresh water to enter the oceans, which causes more CO2 to be released from them, and so on.
So CO2 is an effect of warming and a cause of warming.

Normally the forcing that causes the increase in temperature is just a natural, predictable cycle like the milankovitch cycle (our orbit around the sun, and our planets tilt/wobble which cyclically causes polar warming and cooling), but this time the forcing isn't something directly forcing the temperature up, it's a force forcing the CO2 up. That's us.

[tiger76]

Credit to DiCaprio he's putting his money where his mouth is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49472920

This Bolsonaro is Trump mk II witness his attitude to Macron's wife amongst other comments,i don't agree with Macron on some issues,but he's bang on the money stating the Brazilians need a president up to the job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49474421

[morpheus2]

So CO2 is an effect of warming and a cause of warming.
........ isn't something directly forcing the temperature up, it's a force forcing the CO2 up. That's us.

Phew, yeah thanks, I'm back on board now - I nearly understood a fair old bit of that and I pretty much did think that would be the case.

Yet still, when you watch someone like Patrick Moore confidently and convincingly spouting facts and figures, displaying neat looking graphs, I can see why people might start to think that there is something more to this...I've got to stop watching stuff like that, don't want to slip into the Dark Side again, thank you.