Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Earth Overshoot Day reminds us how far we are from sustainability
42 views
Skip to first unread message
David P
Aug 2, 2023, 3:00:22 PM8/2/23
to
Earth Overshoot Day reminds us how far we are from sustainability
By Jane O’Sullivan, August 1, 2023, The Overpopulation Project
Earth Overshoot Day falls on 2 August this year. This is the day on which, according to the Global Footprint Network (GFN), humanity has used up the whole year’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. After this date, we are living in overshoot, using biocapacity beyond the level that the Earth can renew. According to this analysis, we would need 1.7 Earths for current human consumption to be sustainable.
The world’s richest countries use up their fair share much earlier in the year. Qatar, thanks largely to water desalination, air-con and a lot of oil wealth, reached overshoot day on 10 February (Figure 1). If everyone consumed like Qataris, we would need nearly 10 Earths. In North America, the date was 13 March, and 3 April in Sweden. To be sustainable, everyone would have to consume at the level of people in Kyrgystan or Nicaragua.
[Figure 1: Country Overshoot Days: the date at which countries have used their sustainable share of world biocapacity for the year, according to the Global Footprint Network.]
Human consumption of natural resources went into overshoot around 1970. As GFN emphasises, world population increased 121% since 1970. If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural improvements have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of those additional people live in abject poverty. Not an ideal solution to overshoot.
GFN does not emphasise the role population growth plays in overshoot on their website. Promoted solutions include all the usual measures: renewable energy, eating less meat, reducing food waste, etc.
A 2021 study by Lucia Tamburino and Giangiacomo Bravo usefully compared countries’ ecological footprints and population densities (using biocapacity rather than land area to assess density on a comparable basis), to see “whether changes in consumption patterns and technological improvements may alone bring back humanity’s footprint below planetary limits without reducing human well-being to unacceptable levels, or whether the population lever needs to be used as well, at least in the long run.”
They found the vast majority of countries consume more than their national biocapacity. Almost half of these need to increase consumption per person to achieve adequate living standards. Only a handful of countries were achieving decent living standards without exceeding their biocapacity. A few rich countries, like USA and Denmark, could restore sustainability by lowering consumption per person and still afford decent living standards. Most of them, including most of Europe, Japan and China, have insufficient biocapacity to provide adequate living standards for all their people and would have to reduce population as well as per capita consumption to achieve sustainable wellbeing.
[Figure 2: A sprawling slum in Mumbai, India.]
By focusing on Ecological Footprint per person, Earth Overshoot Day emphasises each person’s relative level of consumption, which is important. But it de-emphasises how population growth reduces the available biocapacity per person, which is equally important.
A country with a stable population living sustainably from the resources within its borders might still be classed as driving overshoot in the current GNF approach, if its per capita consumption was higher than Earth could support for all people everywhere. In contrast, a country like Nigeria is seen as a victim of overconsumption elsewhere, despite quadrupling its population since 1970 and therefore disproportionately contributing to reducing the sustainable standard of living for everyone.
The different perspectives of per capita consumption and population density were explored in our 2020 blog “Earth overshoot day and population.” It would take five Earths if everyone had the ecological footprint of USA residents, but only 2.2 Earths if they also had the same population density as USA. In contrast, the ecological footprint of the average Indian resident is below Earth’s biocapacity of 1.6 global hectares per person, but if all countries had India’s population density, we would need 2.7 Earths even if we all lived like Indians.
[Table 1. How many Earths would it take if the whole world had both the per capita ecological footprint and the population density of each country? From Tamburino and Cafaro]
These are salutary findings, but how well does Ecological Footprint methodology describe the conditions needed for sustainability? It has been widely criticised for not considering a sufficiently wide range of human impacts (e.g. here and here). For instance, the impression is given that a surplus of national biocapacity over national consumption makes a country ecologically sustainable. There are many countries which have more biocapacity than their population currently uses, but which are nonetheless degrading their ecosystems. Brazil and Australia are two that stand out.
GFN focuses very heavily on the carbon cycle, neglecting most other “planetary boundaries” for sustainable use of the biosphere. GFN places no value on biodiversity or ecosystem functions, and gives virtually no attention to environmental pollutants other than carbon dioxide. It makes no judgement about the conversion of tropical rainforests into oil-palm plantations, other than to assess this as an increase in biocapacity. It does not judge the biodiversity repercussions of fresh water diversions for human use. Soil degradation is only indirectly reflected if it reduces the measured productivity of land.
Misunderstandings arise from the way GFN incorporates fossil fuel use into footprint, by estimating the land needed to draw down the carbon dioxide emitted. As GFN says, 60% of humanity’s Ecological Footprint comes from carbon emissions. This means that most countries are not actually drawing on their own biocapacity to supply the resources they consume to anything like the extent implied by their ecological footprint. They are not even using biocapacity from elsewhere in the world – they are drawing on the stored biocapacity in fossil fuels.
Likewise, even where biocapacity appears to exist in excess, it is not in fact drawing down the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels. For that to be the case, the total biomass would have to increase by that quantity of carbon per year. GFN extrapolates the biocapacity of forests from typical timber yields in managed forests, which is not the same as biomass increase in natural forests. The annual consumption of biomass by non-humans (from fungi to megafauna) is not measured in GFN’s analyses. Nor are wildfires. As a result, Ecological Footprint tells us little about the adequacy of land resources for feeding people and supporting biodiversity, and little about the sustainability of our fossil fuel use.
In the end, Earth Overshoot Day is a useful awareness-raising concept, even if it raises more questions than it answers about the nature of sustainable societies.
https://overpopulation-project.com/earth-overshoot-day-reminds-us-how-far-we-are-from-sustainability/
By Jane O’Sullivan, August 1, 2023, The Overpopulation Project
Earth Overshoot Day falls on 2 August this year. This is the day on which, according to the Global Footprint Network (GFN), humanity has used up the whole year’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. After this date, we are living in overshoot, using biocapacity beyond the level that the Earth can renew. According to this analysis, we would need 1.7 Earths for current human consumption to be sustainable.
The world’s richest countries use up their fair share much earlier in the year. Qatar, thanks largely to water desalination, air-con and a lot of oil wealth, reached overshoot day on 10 February (Figure 1). If everyone consumed like Qataris, we would need nearly 10 Earths. In North America, the date was 13 March, and 3 April in Sweden. To be sustainable, everyone would have to consume at the level of people in Kyrgystan or Nicaragua.
[Figure 1: Country Overshoot Days: the date at which countries have used their sustainable share of world biocapacity for the year, according to the Global Footprint Network.]
Human consumption of natural resources went into overshoot around 1970. As GFN emphasises, world population increased 121% since 1970. If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural improvements have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of those additional people live in abject poverty. Not an ideal solution to overshoot.
GFN does not emphasise the role population growth plays in overshoot on their website. Promoted solutions include all the usual measures: renewable energy, eating less meat, reducing food waste, etc.
A 2021 study by Lucia Tamburino and Giangiacomo Bravo usefully compared countries’ ecological footprints and population densities (using biocapacity rather than land area to assess density on a comparable basis), to see “whether changes in consumption patterns and technological improvements may alone bring back humanity’s footprint below planetary limits without reducing human well-being to unacceptable levels, or whether the population lever needs to be used as well, at least in the long run.”
They found the vast majority of countries consume more than their national biocapacity. Almost half of these need to increase consumption per person to achieve adequate living standards. Only a handful of countries were achieving decent living standards without exceeding their biocapacity. A few rich countries, like USA and Denmark, could restore sustainability by lowering consumption per person and still afford decent living standards. Most of them, including most of Europe, Japan and China, have insufficient biocapacity to provide adequate living standards for all their people and would have to reduce population as well as per capita consumption to achieve sustainable wellbeing.
[Figure 2: A sprawling slum in Mumbai, India.]
By focusing on Ecological Footprint per person, Earth Overshoot Day emphasises each person’s relative level of consumption, which is important. But it de-emphasises how population growth reduces the available biocapacity per person, which is equally important.
A country with a stable population living sustainably from the resources within its borders might still be classed as driving overshoot in the current GNF approach, if its per capita consumption was higher than Earth could support for all people everywhere. In contrast, a country like Nigeria is seen as a victim of overconsumption elsewhere, despite quadrupling its population since 1970 and therefore disproportionately contributing to reducing the sustainable standard of living for everyone.
The different perspectives of per capita consumption and population density were explored in our 2020 blog “Earth overshoot day and population.” It would take five Earths if everyone had the ecological footprint of USA residents, but only 2.2 Earths if they also had the same population density as USA. In contrast, the ecological footprint of the average Indian resident is below Earth’s biocapacity of 1.6 global hectares per person, but if all countries had India’s population density, we would need 2.7 Earths even if we all lived like Indians.
[Table 1. How many Earths would it take if the whole world had both the per capita ecological footprint and the population density of each country? From Tamburino and Cafaro]
These are salutary findings, but how well does Ecological Footprint methodology describe the conditions needed for sustainability? It has been widely criticised for not considering a sufficiently wide range of human impacts (e.g. here and here). For instance, the impression is given that a surplus of national biocapacity over national consumption makes a country ecologically sustainable. There are many countries which have more biocapacity than their population currently uses, but which are nonetheless degrading their ecosystems. Brazil and Australia are two that stand out.
GFN focuses very heavily on the carbon cycle, neglecting most other “planetary boundaries” for sustainable use of the biosphere. GFN places no value on biodiversity or ecosystem functions, and gives virtually no attention to environmental pollutants other than carbon dioxide. It makes no judgement about the conversion of tropical rainforests into oil-palm plantations, other than to assess this as an increase in biocapacity. It does not judge the biodiversity repercussions of fresh water diversions for human use. Soil degradation is only indirectly reflected if it reduces the measured productivity of land.
Misunderstandings arise from the way GFN incorporates fossil fuel use into footprint, by estimating the land needed to draw down the carbon dioxide emitted. As GFN says, 60% of humanity’s Ecological Footprint comes from carbon emissions. This means that most countries are not actually drawing on their own biocapacity to supply the resources they consume to anything like the extent implied by their ecological footprint. They are not even using biocapacity from elsewhere in the world – they are drawing on the stored biocapacity in fossil fuels.
Likewise, even where biocapacity appears to exist in excess, it is not in fact drawing down the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels. For that to be the case, the total biomass would have to increase by that quantity of carbon per year. GFN extrapolates the biocapacity of forests from typical timber yields in managed forests, which is not the same as biomass increase in natural forests. The annual consumption of biomass by non-humans (from fungi to megafauna) is not measured in GFN’s analyses. Nor are wildfires. As a result, Ecological Footprint tells us little about the adequacy of land resources for feeding people and supporting biodiversity, and little about the sustainability of our fossil fuel use.
In the end, Earth Overshoot Day is a useful awareness-raising concept, even if it raises more questions than it answers about the nature of sustainable societies.
https://overpopulation-project.com/earth-overshoot-day-reminds-us-how-far-we-are-from-sustainability/
Jonathan Harston
Aug 2, 2023, 3:27:31 PM8/2/23
to
On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+1, David P wrote:
> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural improvements
> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
> those additional people live in abject poverty.
Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural improvements
> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
> those additional people live in abject poverty.
In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
In 2020 about 5% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
Even taking population increase into account, that's a REDUCTION from
2bn to 0.3bn.
Rod Speed
Aug 2, 2023, 6:45:38 PM8/2/23
to
David P <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
> Earth Overshoot Day reminds us how far we are from sustainability
> By Jane O’Sullivan, August 1, 2023, The Overpopulation Project
Just more mindless bullshit.
> Earth Overshoot Day falls on 2 August this year.
Just more mindless bullshit.
> This is the day on which, according to the Global Footprint Network
> (GFN), humanity has used up the whole year’s worth of Earth’s
> biocapacity. After this date, we are living in overshoot, using
> biocapacity beyond the level that the Earth can renew. According to this
> analysis, we would need 1.7 Earths for current human consumption to be
> sustainable.
Even sillier.
<all the rest of this even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>
> Earth Overshoot Day reminds us how far we are from sustainability
> By Jane O’Sullivan, August 1, 2023, The Overpopulation Project
> Earth Overshoot Day falls on 2 August this year.
> This is the day on which, according to the Global Footprint Network
> (GFN), humanity has used up the whole year’s worth of Earth’s
> biocapacity. After this date, we are living in overshoot, using
> biocapacity beyond the level that the Earth can renew. According to this
> analysis, we would need 1.7 Earths for current human consumption to be
> sustainable.
<all the rest of this even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
Aug 2, 2023, 6:49:58 PM8/2/23
to
Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
> David P wrote
>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>> improvements
>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
BULLSHIT
>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>> improvements
>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
Fredxx
Aug 3, 2023, 2:38:45 AM8/3/23
to
On 02/08/2023 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:
> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>> David P wrote
>
>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>> improvements
>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>
>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
>
> BULLSHIT
Feel free to justify your claim. I know you can't.
> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>> David P wrote
>
>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>> improvements
>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>
>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
>
> BULLSHIT
Peeler
Aug 3, 2023, 4:02:17 AM8/3/23
to
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 08:49:29 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
Peeler
Aug 3, 2023, 4:03:10 AM8/3/23
to
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 08:45:10 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Xeno addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <id04c3...@mid.individual.net>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
Xeno addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <id04c3...@mid.individual.net>
Rod Speed
Aug 3, 2023, 2:55:50 PM8/3/23
to
Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
HE gets to justify that claim.
THATS how it works.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>> David P wrote
>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>> improvements
>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
>> BULLSHIT
> Feel free to justify your claim.
That was HIS claim.
>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>> David P wrote
>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>> improvements
>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
>> BULLSHIT
> Feel free to justify your claim.
HE gets to justify that claim.
THATS how it works.
Peeler
Aug 3, 2023, 3:07:28 PM8/3/23
to
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:55:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Fredxx
Aug 3, 2023, 6:58:14 PM8/3/23
to
On 03/08/2023 19:55, Rod Speed wrote:
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>>> David P wrote
>
>>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>>> improvements
>>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>
>>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>
>>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
>
>>> BULLSHIT
>
>> Feel free to justify your claim.
>
> That was HIS claim.
>
> HE gets to justify that claim.
>
> THATS how it works.
And you get to justify saying "BULLSHIT". Which I know you haven't done
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>>> David P wrote
>
>>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>>> improvements
>>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most of
>>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>
>>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>
>>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
>
>>> BULLSHIT
>
>> Feel free to justify your claim.
>
> That was HIS claim.
>
> HE gets to justify that claim.
>
> THATS how it works.
so far and not going to.
If you asked him to justify his claim, then I agree he would have to
supply the evidence. But you didn't ask, and made a statement, which you
can't justify.
Rod Speed
Aug 3, 2023, 7:23:41 PM8/3/23
to
Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>>>> David P wrote
>>>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>>
>>>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>>
>>>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute
>>>>> poverty.
>>
>>>> BULLSHIT
>>
>>> Feel free to justify your claim.
>> That was HIS claim.
>> HE gets to justify that claim.
>> THATS how it works.
> And you get to justify saying "BULLSHIT".
Nope, dope.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>>>> David P wrote
>>>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because most
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>>
>>>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>>
>>>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute
>>>>> poverty.
>>
>>>> BULLSHIT
>>
>>> Feel free to justify your claim.
>> That was HIS claim.
>> HE gets to justify that claim.
>> THATS how it works.
> And you get to justify saying "BULLSHIT".
<reams of your even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>
Fredxx
Aug 3, 2023, 7:50:41 PM8/3/23
to
On 04/08/2023 00:23, Rod Speed wrote:
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>>>>> David P wrote
>
>>>>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because
>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>>>
>>>>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute
>>>>>> poverty.
>>>
>>>>> BULLSHIT
>>>
>>>> Feel free to justify your claim.
>
>>> That was HIS claim.
>
>>> HE gets to justify that claim.
>
>>> THATS how it works.
>
>> And you get to justify saying "BULLSHIT".
>
> Nope, dope.
>
> <reams of your even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>
Oh dear, sign of another lost argument.
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Jonathan Harston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote
>>>>>> David P wrote
>
>>>>>>> If we all consumed like we did in 1970, we should need 2.21 Earths
>>>>>>> now. But so far, it’s “only” 1.7, partly because agricultural
>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>> have increased Earth’s total biocapacity, but largely because
>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>> those additional people live in abject poverty.
>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's an outright lie to start with.
>>>
>>>>>> In 1970 about 60% of the world's population lived in absolute
>>>>>> poverty.
>>>
>>>>> BULLSHIT
>>>
>>>> Feel free to justify your claim.
>
>>> That was HIS claim.
>
>>> HE gets to justify that claim.
>
>>> THATS how it works.
>
>> And you get to justify saying "BULLSHIT".
>
> Nope, dope.
>
> <reams of your even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
Aug 4, 2023, 2:11:48 AM8/4/23
to
Peeler
Aug 4, 2023, 4:46:05 AM8/4/23
to
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
--
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Pomegranate Bastard addressing the trolling senile cretin from Oz:
"I repeat, you are a complete and utter imbecile."
MID: <mpelth1engag7090p...@4ax.com>
Brian Gaff
Aug 4, 2023, 4:54:13 AM8/4/23
to
I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same script, it
would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything, then
why should we?
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jonathan Harston" <j...@mdfs.net> wrote in message
news:fe1ae012-134a-4a04...@googlegroups.com...
this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same script, it
would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything, then
why should we?
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jonathan Harston" <j...@mdfs.net> wrote in message
news:fe1ae012-134a-4a04...@googlegroups.com...
Fredxx
Aug 4, 2023, 8:11:34 AM8/4/23
to
On 04/08/2023 09:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
> this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same script, it
> would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything, then
> why should we?
One big issue with democracies is that politicians don't think any
> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
> this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same script, it
> would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything, then
> why should we?
further than the next general election.
Wind farms and solar farms can be put in place in timescales of months
or a few years. Nuclear power investment, the only way of minimising CO2
production, is measured in years or 10s of years. And the only practical
route to nuclear power investment is by governments, no private
enterprise would consider a long term investment.
Historically nuclear power was pushed by governments as a by product of
nuclear weapons but for obvious reasons that has had its heyday.
For interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Smolley
Aug 4, 2023, 10:42:19 AM8/4/23
to
Vir Campestris
Aug 4, 2023, 12:36:39 PM8/4/23
to
If the population had stayed the same, and a lower percentage lived in
abject poverty, then obviously the number would have gone down.
It's possible that a lower percentage of a larger number means either
more, or less, people are living in abject poverty.
The thing I'd take issue with is the idea that back in 1970 we were in
balance. "Give me spots on my apples but leave me the birds and the
bees" as Joni Mitchell wrote in that very same year. Referring to DDT in
particular, and pollution in general. We already knew then that we were
poisoning the earth, and it's also clear we are using fossil resources
much faster than they are being replaced. Thousands, if not million
times faster - the Carboniferous Period was 60 million years when a lot
of the stuff was laid down, and we've used up a big chunk of it in the
last couple of hundred years.
But... where's the DIY content?
Andy
Joe
Aug 4, 2023, 1:27:52 PM8/4/23
to
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:36:34 +0100
Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> But... where's the DIY content?
>
I have pointed out before that there is a uk.politics.misc, where
Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> But... where's the DIY content?
>
everything imaginable is on-topic. It is heavily polluted but broadly
by the same people (person?) that infest this one, so the same filters
work.
--
Joe
Rod Speed
Aug 4, 2023, 8:50:31 PM8/4/23
to
Brian Gaff <brian...@gmail.com> wrote
> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
> this.
Yep, it isnt even clear that the minimal climate
change we have seen is actually a bad thing.
> If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same script,
Not even possible.
> it would have been solved by now,
That is very argable indeed given that the only really
viable 'solution' is nukes for power generation and
even then it is far from clear that that would have
fixed the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> As long as there is denial, then other
> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything,
> then
> why should we?
And in our case, even if we did ban all power generation, cars, trucks
and aircraft tomorrow, that would have no measurable effect what
so ever on world climate.
> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
> this.
change we have seen is actually a bad thing.
> If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same script,
> it would have been solved by now,
viable 'solution' is nukes for power generation and
even then it is far from clear that that would have
fixed the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> As long as there is denial, then other
> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything,
> then
> why should we?
and aircraft tomorrow, that would have no measurable effect what
so ever on world climate.
The Natural Philosopher
Aug 5, 2023, 3:27:15 AM8/5/23
to
On 04/08/2023 13:11, Fredxx wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 09:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
>> this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same
>> script, it
>> would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
>> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything,
>> then
>> why should we?
>
> One big issue with democracies is that politicians don't think any
> further than the next general election.
>
> Wind farms and solar farms can be put in place in timescales of months
> or a few years.
But dont actually work.
> On 04/08/2023 09:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
>> this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same
>> script, it
>> would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
>> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything,
>> then
>> why should we?
>
> One big issue with democracies is that politicians don't think any
> further than the next general election.
>
> Wind farms and solar farms can be put in place in timescales of months
> or a few years.
Nuclear power investment, the only way of minimising CO2
> production, is measured in years or 10s of years. And the only practical
> route to nuclear power investment is by governments, no private
> enterprise would consider a long term investment.
>
The problem is bureaucracy. It doesn't take more than 5 years to build a
nuclear power station - even a traditional one. It takes up to a
decade to be allowed to build one and at least a further 5 years to get
it approved after it is built. Processes that renewables have been
exempted from
There is one in Austria too that never got switched on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUVZbBBHrI4
Also, the government has refused to underwrite the costs if an
absolutely unforeseen event like an asteroid hitting a nuclear power
station requring e.g. Scunthorpe to be rebuilt, and so the insurers wont
touch the nuclear industry either.
Its all called 'cost too much, takes to long, no one wants to do it' but
that is being very economical with the truth. The government has
deliberately made nuclear power commercially unattractive. In the
opposite to the way it made renewables commercially attractive.
The raison d'être of small modular nuclear reactors is to circumvent at
least part of this regulatory bullshit. The theory is that once planning
permission is done, you build a concrete pad, plonk down a number of
type approved, factory made pre loaded reactor modules, hook up the pre
approved safety systems, connect to some standard steam boilers and
steam turbines and off you go in under 5 years.
At this point, provided the government issues guarantees that the plant
wont be closed for political reasons in the next 60 years, and that any
devastation caused by natural events that do nothing but upset ignorant
people, won't result in massive court cases and insurance claims, a
nuclear power statoin is transformed into a gilt edged investment. £5bn
of investment should be *guaranteed* a payback of 7.5% a year *and*
repayment of the principle over a 60 year period, And this is manna from
heaven for pensions fund managers.
Now we are no longer part of Euratom and the EU, we are perfectly poised
to rewrite the regulations, and to repeal the EU Renewable Obligation
directive inspired Climate Change act, scrap any future investment in
renewables and streamline the process of building nuclear power plants
on partciallya wartime footing.
> Historically nuclear power was pushed by governments as a by product of
> nuclear weapons but for obvious reasons that has had its heyday.
>
Nuclear power today has nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons.
The first atomic bombs were dropped long before the first nuclear power
station was built.,
> For interest:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Be careful of wikipedia - it has been rewritten by the Left wherever
they want to rewrite history.
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
"Saki"
Joe
Aug 5, 2023, 4:01:43 AM8/5/23
to
project to create plutonium as well as to provide power.
> The first atomic bombs were dropped long before the first nuclear
> power station was built.,
plutonium is still the preferred fuel.
>
> > For interest:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
>
> Be careful of wikipedia - it has been rewritten by the Left wherever
> they want to rewrite history.
Like the whole of the Net today, not to mention almost all other media.
> > For interest:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
>
> Be careful of wikipedia - it has been rewritten by the Left wherever
> they want to rewrite history.
--
Joe
Peeler
Aug 5, 2023, 4:11:11 AM8/5/23
to
On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 10:50:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around while you talk to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID: <gfkt3m...@mid.individual.net>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around while you talk to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID: <gfkt3m...@mid.individual.net>
The Natural Philosopher
Aug 5, 2023, 5:05:55 AM8/5/23
to
On 05/08/2023 09:01, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 08:27:09 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2023 13:11, Fredxx wrote:
>
>>
>>> Historically nuclear power was pushed by governments as a by
>>> product of nuclear weapons but for obvious reasons that has had its
>>> heyday.
>> No, it wasn't, Not since the very early 1960s.
>> Nuclear power today has nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons.
>
> Calder Hall (built and commissioned in *three* years) was a military
> project to create plutonium as well as to provide power.
>
No. Calder Hall built and commissioned in *three* years) was a military
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 08:27:09 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2023 13:11, Fredxx wrote:
>
>>
>>> Historically nuclear power was pushed by governments as a by
>>> product of nuclear weapons but for obvious reasons that has had its
>>> heyday.
>> No, it wasn't, Not since the very early 1960s.
>> Nuclear power today has nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons.
>
> Calder Hall (built and commissioned in *three* years) was a military
> project to create plutonium as well as to provide power.
>
project to create plutonium.
It so happened that it generated a lot of heat in te priocess, so
someone suggested that they might slap a boiler and a generator on the
back and also make electricity.
>> The first atomic bombs were dropped long before the first nuclear
>> power station was built.,
>
> Yes, but atomic bombs continue to be built to this day, and I believe
> plutonium is still the preferred fuel.
which is the good stuff. They are optimised to make elevctricity, and
plutonium is just a medium level waste that needs to be separated out of
spent fuel rods
Plutonuim is also an excellent reactor *fuel*.
"
Plutonium
(Updated April 2021)
Over one-third of the energy produced in most nuclear power plants comes
from plutonium. It is created in the reactor as a by-product.
Plutonium recovered from reprocessing normal reactor fuel is recycled as
mixed-oxide fuel (MOX).
Plutonium is the principal fuel in a fast neutron reactor, and in any
reactor it is progressively bred from non-fissile U-238 that comprises
over 99% of natural uranium.
Plutonium has occurred naturally, but except for trace quantities it is
not now found in the Earth's crust.
There are several tonnes of plutonium in our biosphere, a legacy of
atmospheric weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s.
Plutonium-238 is a vital power source for deep space missions.
In practical terms, there are two different kinds of plutonium to be
considered: reactor-grade and weapons-grade. The first is recovered as a
by-product of typical used fuel from a nuclear reactor, after the fuel
has been irradiated ('burned') for about three years. The second is made
specially for the military purpose, and is recovered from uranium fuel
that has been irradiated for only 2-3 months in a plutonium production
reactor. The two kinds differ in their isotopic composition but must
both be regarded as a potential proliferation risk, and managed accordingly.
Plutonium, both that routinely made in power reactors and that from
dismantled nuclear weapons, is a valuable energy source when integrated
into the nuclear fuel cycle. In a conventional nuclear reactor, one
kilogram of Pu-239 can produce sufficient heat to generate nearly 8
million kilowatt-hours of electricity."
No doubt you wont have read that, because it contains 'facts', not
anti-nuclear propaganda
>>
>>> For interest:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
>>
>> Be careful of wikipedia - it has been rewritten by the Left wherever
>> they want to rewrite history.
>
> Like the whole of the Net today, not to mention almost all other media.
>
--
Rod Speed
Aug 5, 2023, 7:25:31 PM8/5/23
to
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 22:11:24 +1000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 09:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
>> this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same
>> script, it
>> would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
>> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything,
>> then why should we?
> One big issue with democracies is that politicians don't think any
> further than the next general election.
Some do. Thatcher and Blair certainly did.
> On 04/08/2023 09:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I do think that we are in danger of just being overloaded with doom over
>> this. If the worlds governments all decided to work from the same
>> script, it
>> would have been solved by now, As long as there is denial, then other
>> countries point at them and say, if they are not going to do anything,
>> then why should we?
> One big issue with democracies is that politicians don't think any
> further than the next general election.
> Wind farms and solar farms can be put in place in timescales of months
> or a few years. Nuclear power investment, the only way of minimising CO2
> production, is measured in years or 10s of years.
> And the only practical route to nuclear power investment is by
> governments, no private enterprise would consider a long term investment.
> Historically nuclear power was pushed by governments as a by product of
> nuclear weapons
Peeler
Aug 6, 2023, 4:17:50 AM8/6/23
to
On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 09:25:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihla...@mid.individual.net>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rodent Speed:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihla...@mid.individual.net>
0 new messages