vsalon closed today

[fa63]

You forgot to mention that it is also projected to start flattening out:

Originally Posted by adub

Global population projection of 11,200,000,000 by the year 2100

[adub]

Originally Posted by fa63

You forgot to mention that it is also projected to start flattening out:

Projected to flatten out? LOL!!

[fa63]

Why is that so funny? That is the UN projection. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?

Originally Posted by adub

Projected to flatten out? LOL!!

[adub]

Flattening out at 11b, at that point I think the Genie is way out of the bottle.

I find it weird how the global projected population increase isn't often the talking point many of these discussions.

[Mzilliox]

Originally Posted by fa63

As I posted on VS, it doesn't matter whether you believe in climate change or not. We are taught to leave things better than we find them. The same applies to the planet we call home. The strike should be seen as a gentle reminder to us all to take a moment to reflect and think about what you can do to leave Earth in better shape for the next generations to come. It is not political; it is basic human decency.

this

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Except that there are no "believers" in this topic. There are deniers (those who refuse to accept what has scientific consensus) and those who accept scientific consensus and the scientific process.

Really? It's those very believers who have steadfastly opposed nuclear power for the last fifty years. Imagine where we would be and how we would be positioned for electric cars if we were getting 80% of our electricity from nuclear power instead of 20%. The current darling of the left has made opposition to nuclear power part of her presidential platform, all the while pretending to concerned about green house gases. It looks like it's more of a case where each side believes science when it fits their agenda and dismisses it when it does not. The issue is political, and the only part science plays is as something that can be selectively used to attack the opposing side.

[Mzilliox]

Originally Posted by azrider

I wonder if any activists planted a single tree today?

Or

did they make thousands of signs made out of wood, paper & cardboard that they'll eventually throw next to an overflowing trash can.......

i planted a few bruh, dont worry, some of us actually walk the walk and dont just talk. every day, not just yesterday.

[fa63]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Really? It's those very believers who have steadfastly opposed nuclear power for the last fifty years. Imagine where we would be and how we would be positioned for electric cars if we were getting 80% of our electricity from nuclear power instead of 20%. The current darling of the left has made opposition to nuclear power part of her presidential platform, all the while pretending to concerned about green house gases. It looks like it's more of a case where each side believes science when it fits their agenda and dismisses it when it does not. The issue is political, and the only part science plays is as something that can be selectively used to attack the opposing side.

As I am sure you know, nuclear comes with its own environmental "side effects", mainly with water use and waste disposal. Not to mention there are more cost effective alternatives today, such as wind and PV with storage (not that those are without their own side effects). That said, I do agree that opposition to nuclear has been a bit overblown.

[thwart]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Really? It's those very believers who have steadfastly opposed nuclear power for the last fifty years. Imagine where we would be and how we would be positioned for electric cars if we were getting 80% of our electricity from nuclear power instead of 20%.

But... are you and your family members willing to have the nuclear waste repository nearby? OK, in the same state?

And we are certain that nuclear plants will never have catastrophic accidents.

Wind and sun are much less dirty sources of energy.

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by adub

Flattening out at 11b, at that point I think the Genie is way out of the bottle.

I find it weird how the global projected population increase isn't often the talking point many of these discussions.

The moment someone mentions the very large elephant in the room, people start crying racism because the increase is mostly coming from Africa. The problem is too many people. Not addressing it is trying to solve a large problem by fixing up a few corner cases. It's why you cannot take any of this virtue signalling seriously.

It's the same with phony environmentalist who claim they want to protect the USA's wild places yet have allied themselves with party's who refuse to do anything about illegal immigration. Overuse and encroachment is the problem, not too few protected areas.

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Really? It's those very believers who have steadfastly opposed nuclear power for the last fifty years. Imagine where we would be and how we would be positioned for electric cars if we were getting 80% of our electricity from nuclear power instead of 20%. The current darling of the left has made opposition to nuclear power part of her presidential platform, all the while pretending to concerned about green house gases. It looks like it's more of a case where each side believes science when it fits their agenda and dismisses it when it does not. The issue is political, and the only part science plays is as something that can be selectively used to attack the opposing side.

I'm talking climate change, you're talking politics. I think you missed the nuance in the "round vs flat" example.

There are no "believers" when it comes to the science of climate change... there's proof full stop. But there sure are deniers of the science of climate change and then there is politics on top of that. Politics, of course, touches everything.

I'm not interested in discussing politics... nor your politics... furthermore, I understand it ain't allowed round here so I'll abide.

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by thwart

But... are you and your family members willing to have the nuclear waste repository nearby? OK, in the same state?

And we are certain that nuclear plants will never have catastrophic accidents.

Wind and sun are much less dirty sources of energy.

Yeah, France is a apocalyptic wasteland where guys with mohawks wearing assless chaps prowl the badlands looking for a tank of juice and stragglers huddle together in poorly built forts to protect themselves from the mutants.

Good luck getting your base load from solar and wind.

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

The moment someone mentions the very large elephant in the room, people start crying racism because the increase is mostly coming from Africa. The problem is too many people. Not addressing it is trying to solve a large problem by fixing up a few corner cases. It's why you cannot take any of this virtue signalling seriously.

It's the same with phony environmentalist who claim they want to protect the USA's wild places yet have allied themselves with party's who refuse to do anything about illegal immigration. Overuse and encroachment is the problem, not too few protected areas.

and the problem isn't population in isolation. If everyone lived with the resource strain of the average "African" the Earth has resources that could support an estimated 32,3 billion people (if I remember correctly)

It's a massive population that wants to live like the average American (who use the resources of approx. four Earths) that is the problem which couples two distinct factors: 1. Population 2. Lifestyle/resource strain.

[rallizes]

It was only a matter of time before someone mentioned ‘assless chaps’

[fa63]

Going from 7.6 billion to 11 billion is not catastrophic in and of itself. The problem is that we (and the generations before us) have kept kicking the can down the road and asking the next generation to worry about problems related to this population change, while continuing to consume our finite resources irresponsibly. If we don't change very soon, we will never be able to keep up with the consequences of climate change. Without mitigation now, adaptation will become increasingly more difficult.

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

The moment someone mentions the very large elephant in the room, people start crying racism because the increase is mostly coming from Africa. The problem is too many people. Not addressing it is trying to solve a large problem by fixing up a few corner cases. It's why you cannot take any of this virtue signalling seriously.