Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

I literally turned off all notifications for threads that ive posted on

Just uncheck the follow box at the bottom right of the page.

@87

So how come fossil fuels get subsidies? 

Their view is that renewable energy is now competitive on price alone, so subsidies are not necessary. I only half agree, as we should accelerate the change by providing economic incentives. Without subsidies it is crucial to find some way of correctly taking into account the environmental cost of fossil fuel use in sectors where this is not yet done.

Meanwhile, relevant news is the new clean air strategy launched by Michael Gove.  This aims to reduce the number of people who are exposed to harmful particulates at levels above WHO guidelines. Some excerpts from the announcement:

• Our goal that by 2025, we will halve the number of people living in locations where concentrations of particulate matter are above the WHO guideline limit of 10 ug/m3 by 2025.
• We will legislate to ensure only the cleanest domestic fuels will be available for sale, preventing 8,000 tonnes of harmful particulate matter from entering the atmosphere each year.
• We will put new investment into scientific research and innovation strengthening the UK’s position as a world leader in clean technology and secure further emissions reductions.

This topic is driven by FEAR...fear for the environment, fear for the earth and fear for the human race. Why are so many of us afraid of death?

If we were not afraid of death then none of this would touch us.

Because the fear of death is the underlying issue...why do people feel the need to save the planet?

Because God made it our duty.

If people were entirely selfish and lacked all altruism and empathy, there would be no interest in saving the planet beyond saving their individual selves, but at least some people (I would say most) have cares beyond their own fate.

Only an idiot would think avoiding a deeply undesirable outcome can be derided for being "fearful". Such people should put their fears aside and walk off a cliff (that's irony).

We humans have serious flaws but we also have shown great potential and understanding. Our art, literature, music, scientific understanding, culture (including some chess games!) and achievements (like going to the moon) prove that we have something valuable to offer.  It might be that life is incredibly rare in the universe, most of space seems to be empty, desolate, hostile to life or perhaps in a few areas home to a few bacteria.

Therefore we are lucky to be alive and be surrounded by amazing life forms and we have a responsibility to protect this incredible oasis of life.  

What you call 'Western Liberals' are just people who care and who can, unlike you, see the bigger picture and long term prospects if we just carry on as we are. It is true that not enough people care. Many just want to get on with their lives, oblivious to the fact that their lives cannot continue in the same way without some sort of comeuppance, either now or in the future.

For example 8 million tonnes of plastic is making its way into the ocean every year. If you think that is an intelligent way of going about things you must belong to a very small clique of people who do. Most don't think about it, but when confronted with the stark reality agree that things have to change. And its not just turtles that will suffer - as plastic works its way up the food chain it will almost certainly have health implications for humans as well for fish stocks. 

As you yourself have noted, we have problems arising from our population size. This requires that we use joined up intelligent thinking, international cooperation and have strong enlightened leadership. We cannot wait for corporations to solve these problems - their priority is just to make money. However, if they see that public opinion is turning against them they can be persuaded to be come up with solutions. 

So it not really saving the planet, but protecting our own futures. 

Meanwhile, our kids are breathing in fine particulates causing health problems. 87 no doubt thinks that anyone who tries to do anything about this is a 'Western Liberal' and should stop moaning. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/24/air-pollution-worse-inside-london-classrooms-than-outside-study-finds

I am not sure 87654321 realises he is living in a country and a continent where acceptance of the reality of the science and the prudence of acting on it are universally accepted by all major political parties and self-indulgent science denial has no significant standing. This has not always been so.

So, by your logic, increasing deaths from Ebola can be treated as if they didn't exist as long as life expectancy is going up. How many doctors do you think would agree? So, are you right or are they?

I suggest pondering for a few minutes on the fact that a statistic can be affected in different directions by more than one factor. Understanding such general concepts helps avoid a lifetime of errors.

[For clarity, in the analogy overall mortality took the place of malaria mortality, both of which are affected by multiple factors].

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) think they can fight the scourge of tick-borne diseases  by encouraging people to douse their clothes in a chemical called permethrin.

In a new study, published today (May 24) in the Journal of Medical Entomology, researchers showed that permethrin-treated clothes can seriously mess up a tick's stride. Stick some adult ticks on a pair of regular pants tilted at a 45-degree angle, and 100 percent of them will still be clinging on 5 minutes later. Stick adult ticks on a pair of tilted pants treated with permethrin, though, and 42.5 percent will tumble off entirely. Even those that remain get seriously messed up. The researchers found that only 25 percent of the ticks were moving normally even 24 hours after exposure.

https://www.livescience.com/62652-anti-tick-permethrin-coating.html?utm_source=notification

Are you admitting you did not understand the point, which had no connection with material I do not read (but apparently you do)?

I do keep track of what the WHO and the other UN bodies conclude: their conclusions are widely reported and respected, and based on the general body of scientific knowledge.

Do you understand that if temperatures are higher, there are likely to be more deaths from tropical diseases than if they are not?

Are you even capable of understanding (based on recent posts) that this can still be true even if deaths are reduced by, say, more mosquito nets being used (which would reduce deaths both if temperatures rose AND if they didn't)?