Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

quokula

mad muffin wrote: »

I did say in a different post that mass immigration doesn’t make any sense from an environmental stand point. At a time when eco warrior environmentalists are calling for people not to have children. Then demanding open borders.

When you have more people. They use up more resources. They damage the already fragile environment. But they never talk about this.

You're aware that people who don't cross borders still exist right? We're not taking in refugees from outer space.

recedite

quokula wrote: »

You're aware that people who don't cross borders still exist right? We're not taking in refugees from outer space.

But in an overpopulation scenario, population doesn't keep growing, it crashes due to the onset of starvation and individuals fighting among themselves. Unless migration or contraception are also options...

Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. They can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many drown if the chosen body of water happens to be an ocean, or is in any case so wide as to exceed their physical capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

quokula

recedite wrote: »

But in an overpopulation scenario, population doesn't keep growing, it crashes due to the onset of starvation and individuals fighting among themselves. Unless migration or contraception are also options...

I'm not sure how that relates. I was replying to someone who said that overpopulation contributes to climate change, therefore people moving to Ireland and increasing its population contributes to climate change.

The first statement is true, though that doesn't preclude us from looking at changing behaviours and consumption patterns in a way that allows for the current population to be sustainable. The second statement is false however is it ignores the fact that those people exist regardless of which country they are in.

mad muffin

quokula wrote: »

I'm not sure how that relates. I was replying to someone who said that overpopulation contributes to climate change, therefore people moving to Ireland and increasing its population contributes to climate change.

The first statement is true, though that doesn't preclude us from looking at changing behaviours and consumption patterns in a way that allows for the current population to be sustainable. The second statement is false however is it ignores the fact that those people exist regardless of which country they are in.

I never mentioned climate change. I’m talking about the environment we live in. A thousand people in an area are much easier in the environment than ten thousand.

gozunda

mad muffin wrote: »

I never mentioned climate change. I’m talking about the environment we live in. A thousand people in an area are much easier in the environment than ten thousand.

There are the other issues of peoples moving from low carbon footprint regions to more advanced industrial and higher carbon footprint counties. In those countries already under presure to reduce their emissions - immigration and population increase are additional factors which will keep moving the goalposts.

In those counties which have housing shortages this is a much more serious problem. A country cannot become carbon neutral and keep building new high quality all mod cons housing units. Both concrete and wood construction methods are huge emitters of carbon. Even using offsetting - it would be almost an impossible problem to overcome whilst at the same time trying to support indiginous industries.

We could of course do what the EU is doing and outsource production to other non EU among countries so that the EU's green credentials stay shiney. In this way other countries get lumped with the carbon emissions and are then lambasted or fined for doing so. You've really got to love creative accounting tbh ...

recedite

quokula wrote: »

people moving to Ireland and increasing its population contributes to climate change.

... is false however is it ignores the fact that those people exist regardless of which country they are in.

As individuals, they would exist either way (unless they starve or die in warfare). But you are ignoring the fact that as long as we keep taking them, their home countries will keep producing and exporting more of them.

recedite

Syria - population in 1955; 3 million
population in 2010; 21 million
population now; back down to 17 million


The country simply cannot sustain 21 million people. War, famine or mass migration are inevitable at that population level.
Check out this article from 2013...

In Syria, a devastating drought beginning in 2006 forced many farmers to abandon their fields and migrate to urban centers. There’s some evidence that the migration fueled the civil war there, in which 80,000 people have died. “You had a lot of angry, unemployed men helping to trigger a revolution,”

Tensions between nations are also high. Since 1975, Turkey’s dam and hydro­power construction has cut water flow to Iraq by 80 percent and to Syria by 40 percent. Syria and Iraq have accused Turkey of hoarding water.
Hydrologists say that the countries need to find alternatives to sucking the aquifers dry—perhaps recycling wastewater or introducing desalination—and develop equitable ways of sharing their rivers.

marieholmfan

Blueshoe wrote: »

He might also not be jealous of the attention.

I'd say he's jealous of her.

blinding

mad muffin wrote: »

I did say in a different post that mass immigration doesn’t make any sense from an environmental stand point. At a time when eco warrior environmentalists are calling for people not to have children. Then demanding open borders.

When you have more people. They use up more resources. They damage the already fragile environment. But they never talk about this.

Because what they are preaching makes no sense :eek:

blinding

mad muffin wrote: »

I know I’m a bit late to the conversation. Was Skype not an option?

Not glamorous enough / eye catching and not totally pointless enough .

They are doing a great job discrediting the Green lobby . Are they doing it on purpose ?

blinding

recedite wrote: »

Syria - population in 1955; 3 million
population in 2010; 21 million
population now; back down to 17 million


The country simply cannot sustain 21 million people. War, famine or mass migration are inevitable at that population level.
Check out this article from 2013...

They were not doing too bad until somebody wound up one group to go against Assad with terrible consequences .

recedite

blinding wrote: »

They were not doing too bad until somebody wound up one group to go against Assad with terrible consequences .

Ireland was doing OK with 8 million people, until the spuds picked up a disease.
There's always a tipping point to overpopulation, and when that point is reached, something will always happen.

blinding

recedite wrote: »

Ireland was doing OK with 8 million people, until the spuds picked up a disease.
There's always a tipping point to overpopulation, and when that point is reached, something will always happen.

There was plenty of food in Ireland to feed the People .

It was sent out of the Country .

There was no talk of widespread famine in Syria pre one group going against Assad . Were they wound up to take this route and by whom were they wound up .

Pa ElGrande

recedite wrote: »

Syria - population in 1955; 3 million
population in 2010; 21 million
population now; back down to 17 million


The country simply cannot sustain 21 million people. War, famine or mass migration are inevitable at that population level.
Check out this article from 2013...

The seeds of the Syrian conflict are in the corrupt "Arab socialist" regime that ran that country for years, prior to the conflict the regime decided on "reform" which dispossessed small farmers forcing them into the towns with no employment available for them, add in the conflict in Iraq and Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia and all the previous decades of tension and you have a multi-way civil war.


Climate change and the Syrian civil war revisited

In light of the above we can now return to our main questions:is there clear and reliable evidence that climate change-related drought in Syria was a contributory factor in the onset of the country's civil war?; and,if and where yes, was it as significant a contributory factor as is claimed in the existing academic and expert literature?On each step of the claimed causal chain, our answers are no. We find that there is no clear and reliable evidence that anthropogenic climate change was a factor in northeast Syria's 2006/07e2008/09 drought;we find that, while the 2006/07e2008/09 drought in northeast Syria will have contributed to migration, this migration was not on the scale claimed in the existing literature, and was, in all probability, more caused by economic liberalisation than drought; and we find that there is no clear and reliable evidence that drought-related migration was a contributory factor in civil war onset. In our assessment, there is thus no good evidence to conclude that global climate change-related drought in Syria was a contributory causal factor in the country's civil war.

source

Pa ElGrande

blinding wrote: »

There was plenty of food in Ireland to feed the People .

It was sent out of the Country .

There was a much worse disaster hit the Irish population proportionately in 1740/41 that was due to climate change caused by a Siberian volcano. The root of the 1840s famine is rooted in the economic system operated in Ireland a combination of Absentee landlords (little property ownership rights for Catholics) and the protectionist corn laws drove the demand for labour skyward. In 1839 there was a major hurricane (Oíche na Gaoithe Móire), the village I lived in was rebuilt over the next few decades on higher ground after being washed away in this hurricane. There was substantial damage to property as a result of this and many did not have the resources to fully repair the damage caused by the time the 1840s disaster hit. Demand for agricultural labour continued to fall even after the 1940s famine, the population bottomed out in the 1950s. An interesting incident due to the mass migration of Irish to the United states was the 1844 Philadelphia nativist riots. Not unlike today that mass migration causes problems for the established populations.

mikeym

Lads shes Greta The Great

topper75

recedite wrote: »

Ireland was doing OK with 8 million people, until the spuds picked up a disease.
There's always a tipping point to overpopulation, and when that point is reached, something will always happen.

Are we talking the blight of 1845-47? It is called the GREAT famine for a reason. It differentiates it from the 6 or 7 that Ireland had experienced in that century alone up to that point.

I wouldn't share your definition of 'doing OK'.

Read Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh's Ireland Before the Famine and you'll probably change your opinion. Ireland was ludicrously overpopulated. We are headed to that figure again but this time it is supported by a massive global food supply network and intensive domestic farming and processing. We are creating a vulnerability though by pushing back over the 8m point.

gozunda

topper75 wrote: »

Are we talking the blight of 1845-47? It is called the GREAT famine for a reason. It differentiates it from the 6 or 7 that Ireland had experienced in that century alone up to that point.I wouldn't share your definition of 'doing OK'.Read Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh's Ireland Before the Famine and you'll probably change your opinion. Ireland was ludicrously overpopulated. We are headed to that figure again but this time it is supported by a massive global food supply network and intensive domestic farming and processing. We are creating a vulnerability though by pushing back over the 8m point.

I would agree that the significant increase of population of Ireland in the mid 1800s placed huge pressures on the country and it's natural resources. Tree cover during this period was one of the lowest in the history of the country - with even roadside bushes and scrubby vegetation being harvested for domestic fuel. The vestiges of farmland high in mountain areas can still be seen to this day.

Globally there are issues with countries now relying on global trade to source foodstuffs. Many countries have ignored or sidelined indigenous food production with a reliance cheaper products bought in from elsewhere. For those countries which still a thriving agricultural sector - they are increasingly specialising in a much smaller range of agricultural produce to enable economies of scale.

That said much of Irelands agriculture remains extensive in nature. What has increased is efficiency of production mainly through improved strains / genetics and agricultural practices. However what is interesting that it sometimes takes others to see the value of the agriculture here. In 2017 Ireland was identified as the country best able to feed its people. See:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-food-security/

recedite

topper75 wrote: »

Are we talking the blight of 1845-47? It is called the GREAT famine for a reason. It differentiates it from the 6 or 7 that Ireland had experienced in that century alone up to that point.

I wouldn't share your definition of 'doing OK'.

Read Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh's Ireland Before the Famine and you'll probably change your opinion. Ireland was ludicrously overpopulated. We are headed to that figure again but this time it is supported by a massive global food supply network and intensive domestic farming and processing. We are creating a vulnerability though by pushing back over the 8m point.

I agree. When I said "doing OK" I was just responding to the comparison of Syria doing OK before the civil war (which I agree was encouraged along by outside forces)
So, only in the sense that somebody hanging on by their fingernails is still doing OK.
Another thing to remember here is that modern farming is much more efficient than farming in 1840, but it is also highly dependent on one fossil fuel - diesel. So pushing food production to the limit also pushes global warming

recedite

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Climate change and the Syrian civil war revisited

IMO drought was one of the main causal factors in leading to the social unrest, but it was not caused by global warming. It was, and is still, caused by overpopulation in the region. Rivers are being sucked dry, and underground aquifers are slowly drying up.
That scholarly article refutes only a strawman argument.

Pa ElGrande

recedite wrote: »

IMO drought was one of the main causal factors in leading to the social unrest, but it was not caused by global warming. It was, and is still, caused by overpopulation in the region. Rivers are being sucked dry, and underground aquifers are slowly drying up.
That scholarly article refutes only a strawman argument.

No. The evidence does not support this in Syria however lack of economic opportunity does explain it, when you have a cohort connected to the regime hoovering up bribes to get anything done and scarce opportunities as well as being a minority sect with sectarian tensions exacerbated by the migration over the border from Iraq due to the American invasion and you attempt to reform without tackling the corruption then what happened is logical. They had bumper harvests this year across the region yet the war continues in Northern Iraq burning each others crops.


There is however a simmering conflict over water resources across the wider middle east in general with growing populations so you are correct but all negotiation has been diplomatic thus far with underlying threat of war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOezSxtL05E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAA0_kZ08Dk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taMWUjda3fA

It may not be the desert regions of the Middle East that the shortage of water becomes problem but the Americas which are the breadbasket of the world, both California and the Midwest have water management issues.

blinding

From a Green point of view should Greta stay in America forever after her pointless journey there .

from any point of view

99problems1

Where are all these "environmentalists" calling out all the waste left at EP? Would it be the fact it's the same people commenting on Lidl posts asking them to remove plastic for fruit and veg as it is dumping their tents behind them?

is_that_so

99problems1 wrote: »

Where are all these "environmentalists" calling out all the waste left at EP? Would it be the fact it's the same people commenting on Lidl posts asking them to remove plastic for fruit and veg as it is dumping their tents behind them?

Lidl have a whole plan around sustainability and it's not hard to find.

http://www.abettertomorrow-lidl.ie/

mad muffin

If they had to leave a €100 deposit. They’d sure as hell clean up after themselves. The filthy swines. It’s the entitled generation.

There’s a photo of the camp site. All the crap left behind. And then across the fence there’s the caravan and motor home camp site. All cleaned up after themselves.

this thread sure does go to some funny places

anyway to get back on track, lol @ anyone thinking that making an autistic schoolgirl the frontpiece of your privileged econag campaign gives you any moral authority or should make that campaign immune to questioning or criticism

99problems1

is_that_so wrote: »

Lidl have a whole plan around sustainability and it's not hard to find.

http://www.abettertomorrow-lidl.ie/

Yeah I know....still doesn't stop the facebookers who comment just so they're seen to really care about the environment (they don't)

Thelonious Monk

99problems1 wrote: »

Where are all these "environmentalists" calling out all the waste left at EP? Would it be the fact it's the same people commenting on Lidl posts asking them to remove plastic for fruit and veg as it is dumping their tents behind them?

How do you know its the same people that ask lidl things on Facebook and call themselves environmentalists that left tents in EP??!

Thelonious Monk

99problems1 wrote: »

Yeah I know....still doesn't stop the facebookers who comment just so they're seen to really care about the environment (they don't)

How do you know they dont?