World More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’ - Analysis outlines six major steps that ‘must’ be taken to address the situation

I agree, Climate Scientists. People are, by and large, the most emitting factors, and yes I think we need better population control.

So: when do we genocide China and India? That's like ~35-36% of the world's population right there.
Oh no no no, its european people who have been slated to go first. You know, the ones who generally care most about the environment and pollute the least. I'm sure our Hispanislamic Negralotto successors will be the environmental stewards our planet needs -- that is, after the Chinese tame/enslave them and force them to ackrite.

Here's the six policy goals from the study:

- Get away from fossil fuels in favor of cleaner energy, including wealthier nations helping to subsidize the costs of poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. They do mention nuclear as an acceptable energy source.

- Reduce pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons. Okay.

- Protect and restore Earth's ecosystems, and curtail biodiversity loss. Makes sense, since forests, coral reefs, and other such ecosystems reduce atmospheric CO2.

- Reduce the global consumption of animal products and switch to more plant-based diets. Good luck with that one.

- End strip mining and overexploitation of ecosystems. Okay, but then they make this claim: "Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality." Not holding my breath there.

- Stabilize the rate of human population increase, or even better, gradually reduce it. This would be accomplished by strengthening human rights, including "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women." Huh?


Nothing particularly new, to be honest. They still haven't learned that the wealthy and powerful are unwilling to fall on their swords to help third-world nations.
"full gender equity"

How is that helping? That increases the number of people in the workforce significantly, yes? Mother will be working, and they'll be employing daycare. Is that counterproductive towards those goals? Is a nuclear family the greenest option?
 
Last edited:

PS1gamenwatch

kiwifarms.net
Oh no no no, its european people who have been slated to go first. You know, the ones who generally care most about the environment and pollute the least. I'm sure our Hispanislamic Negralotto successors will be the environmental stewards our planet needs -- that is, after the Chinese tame/enslave them and force them to ackrite.
Or most of Southeast Asia and South Asia and possibly Middle Eastern nations go all DU30 and shoot them for their drug use
 

Stoneheart

kiwifarms.net
- Get away from fossil fuels in favor of cleaner energy, including wealthier nations helping to subsidize the costs of poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. They do mention nuclear as an acceptable energy source.

- Reduce pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons. Okay.

- Protect and restore Earth's ecosystems, and curtail biodiversity loss. Makes sense, since forests, coral reefs, and other such ecosystems reduce atmospheric CO2.

- Reduce the global consumption of animal products and switch to more plant-based diets. Good luck with that one.

- End strip mining and overexploitation of ecosystems. Okay, but then they make this claim: "Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality." Not holding my breath there.

- Stabilize the rate of human population increase, or even better, gradually reduce it. This would be accomplished by strengthening human rights, including "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women." Huh?
so they want us to kill all black people? thats waaay to extreme for me.
 

Cryonic Haunted Bullets

Niemals schlafen! Alles Lügen!
kiwifarms.net
I absolutely despise China and India's hideous pollution-heavy economies of scale.

But they only work because the west is there to buy all their goods. It's coming up to Christmas now, and I can't help but wonder how many millions of plastic Santas will be dumped into landfills come January. All from China and its subsidiaries, all made for and bought by westerners.
I agree that our current culture / economy centered around overconsumption, waste, and planned obsolescence is a seriously bad thing. This blog post about the shortening lifespans of consumer appliances is relevant here: waste has become a matter of economics. It used to be that you would spend about $4500 in today's dollars on a washing machine that was sturdy and would last for 50 years. Now you can buy one that wears out in just 8-10 years for only, say, $500. The homeowner benefits (Americans move pretty often, and appliances are usually sold with the house) but the environment loses: nine new washing machines have been put in landfills for only one old washing machine's worth of consumer spending.

I don't think that it's fair to judge China and India by the same standards as the US, because they're poor industrial companies with much larger populations. China emits 7.7 tons of CO2 per annum per capita, which is half as much as the US. India only emits 1.8 t/a. If I remember correctly, the US makes up 5% of the world's population but uses something like 20% of its energy. The real problem is what will happen when third-world standards of living increase. There are, what, a billion people living in the First World? If China becomes as rich as the US or Europe without also being more efficient, the planet is fucked. I think that we need to be prudent with energy/fuel use around the whole world and set an example for rising economies.
 

Oh Long Johnson

Eat the bugs, bigot
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I agree that our current culture / economy centered around overconsumption, waste, and planned obsolescence is a seriously bad thing. This blog post about the shortening lifespans of consumer appliances is relevant here: waste has become a matter of economics. It used to be that you would spend about $4500 in today's dollars on a washing machine that was sturdy and would last for 50 years. Now you can buy one that wears out in just 8-10 years for only, say, $500. The homeowner benefits (Americans move pretty often, and appliances are usually sold with the house) but the environment loses: nine new washing machines have been put in landfills for only one old washing machine's worth of consumer spending.
This sounds an awful lot like someone trying to sell me a $4500 washing machine.
 

Cryonic Haunted Bullets

Niemals schlafen! Alles Lügen!
kiwifarms.net
This sounds an awful lot like someone trying to sell me a $4500 washing machine.
God fucking dammit, I gotta skedaddle now

But the 4500$ washing machine used more energy
That's a good point. Ultimately, there's going to be a trade off between making lighter, more efficient parts that degrade easily and sturdier parts that require more energy.

Nice of them to make no mention of China and India, the two countries that together are more responsible for every item on that list than North America, South America, and Europe combined.
They also have more people than those continents combined, so that's something.
 

Clop

kiwifarms.net
- Stabilize the rate of human population increase, or even better, gradually reduce it. This would be accomplished by strengthening human rights, including "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women." Huh?
This one's my favorite, and I think everyone already guessed as much.

Here, I'll translate it for you: Equality for everyone, especially women.

Oh shit, wait, my mistake, they actually do use the word "equity."
achieve full gender equity
So literally communism. Nice. When they don't even pretend it's equality anymore, it's time to opt the fuck out and run for the shelters, shit's about to get real.

family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access
Why the fuck do Americans still call abortion clinics this shit anyway?
 

Cryonic Haunted Bullets

Niemals schlafen! Alles Lügen!
kiwifarms.net
This one's my favorite, and I think everyone already guessed as much.

Here, I'll translate it for you: Equality for everyone, especially women.

Oh shit, wait, my mistake, they actually do use the word "equity."

So literally communism. Nice. When they don't even pretend it's equality anymore, it's time to opt the fuck out and run for the shelters, shit's about to get real.
Equity and equality aren't the same thing at all. Equity means equal opportunity; when women are able to have their own careers and live independently, they tend to have fewer children.
 

Forever Sunrise

Avatar? I don't need no stinkin' avatar.
kiwifarms.net
How is that helping? That increases the number of people in the workforce significantly, yes? Mother will be working, and they'll be employing daycare. Is that counterproductive towards those goals? Is a nuclear family the greenest option?
There's a lot of social justice nonsense tied up in these words. But full gender equity is not a bad idea. The idea is not to make a magical utopia where all jobs are populated exactly by 50% men and 50% women, but to remove various barriers and social stigmas that prevent members of one gender from performing fulfilling work traditionally associated with the other gender. In the west, this has turned into a whole bunch of lunatic jabbering over nothing, but it's still a factual reality in the every-day lives of developing countries. A lack of equity means a lack of choice for not just women, but men as well.

In places like Africa and India, a lack of equity makes it all but impossible for men and women to work together to solve problems and make the best usage of their particular talents. It also makes labor exploitation much easier, and prevents women from seeking help if they find themselves trapped in such a situation. Plus, a larger workforce isn't inherently an anti-green thing. People still have to eat whether or not they're working, so from the perspective of resource-management, it's better they be working than lazing around.

There's also the extremely important and often-ignored fact that if a woman doesn't even have the option to work or engage in pursuits besides having children, she's probably going to end up having a lot more of them that she otherwise might. That's why population growth in areas with poor gender equality tends to be so high; a woman is only valued in her ability to make more children.
 

Clop

kiwifarms.net
Equity and equality aren't the same thing at all. Equity means equal opportunity; when women are able to have their own careers and live independently, they tend to have fewer children.
You're right, they're not the same. But you use 'equity' when you want the outcome to be the same.


It is certainly not equality, but fuck me if "opportunity" is a bullshit word to describe the leeway being given.
 

Manwithn0n0men

kiwifarms.net
There's a lot of social justice nonsense tied up in these words. But full gender equity is not a bad idea. The idea is not to make a magical utopia where all jobs are populated exactly by 50% men and 50% women, but to remove various barriers and social stigmas that prevent members of one gender from performing fulfilling work traditionally associated with the other gender. In the west, this has turned into a whole bunch of lunatic jabbering over nothing, but it's still a factual reality in the every-day lives of developing countries. A lack of equity means a lack of choice for not just women, but men as well.

In places like Africa and India, a lack of equity makes it all but impossible for men and women to work together to solve problems and make the best usage of their particular talents. It also makes labor exploitation much easier, and prevents women from seeking help if they find themselves trapped in such a situation. Plus, a larger workforce isn't inherently an anti-green thing. People still have to eat whether or not they're working, so from the perspective of resource-management, it's better they be working than lazing around.

There's also the extremely important and often-ignored fact that if a woman doesn't even have the option to work or engage in pursuits besides having children, she's probably going to end up having a lot more of them that she otherwise might. That's why population growth in areas with poor gender equality tends to be so high; a woman is only valued in her ability to make more children.
When women have jobs, they make less babies
BUT when women have jobs they consumer more resources [more then the babies consume]

When poor people have electricity they make less babies
but when they have electricity they pollute more
 

Stoneheart

kiwifarms.net
t used to be that you would spend about $4500 in today's dollars on a washing machine that was sturdy and would last for 50 years. Now you can buy one that wears out in just 8-10 years for only, say, $500. The homeowner benefits (Americans move pretty often, and appliances are usually sold with the house) but the environment loses: nine new washing machines have been put in landfills for only one old washing machine's worth of consumer spending.
new washing machines use less energie and water and they are better for your cloth if you dont cheap out.
they are also alot more environment firendly because they use less and different materials. no more 50kg of lead in every machine...
 

vertexwindi

Diddy in space, even though he's not
Supervisor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
In 1966 they said oil would be gone in ten years, in 1970 all the world's natural resources will be used up by 2000, in 1971 the new ice age was coming in 2020, in 1989 rising sea levels will obliterate nations if nothing's done by 2000, in 2000 children in the future won't know what snow is, in 2008 the arctic would be ice free as of 2018, and they claimed the same in 2013 but now in 2015.

Yeah no fuck off.
 

Isaac Cox

kiwifarms.net
- Stabilize the rate of human population increase, or even better, gradually reduce it. This would be accomplished by strengthening human rights, including "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women." Huh?
So If gender equality, abortion and girls education are the top contributers to a reduction in population growth. What is the cause of western population decline?

151998165475268.png
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino