Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: acsinuk on 31/07/2023 10:32:11
-
As the population of a country expands then the requirement to feed, house and transport more people increases proportionally..
But any fossil fuel that we burn whether coal, gas or oil based will produce carbon dioxide which causes global warming.
The following link shows the global use of fuels
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
From these stats for FOSSIL FUEL CONSUPTION WORLD graphs we can see that in 1965 we used 40,000 Trillion Watt hours but now are using 130,000 TWh. of fuel
This ratio of nearly 4 times is nearly identical to the increase in world population. according to UN stats.
https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900
Government are tasked to keep up by using tax moneys to fund developments of housing and roads water, sewage, electric etc.
Governments next important responsibility is to curb landowner profiteering and remove restrictive monopolies using greenwashing to hide behind.
What governments need to do is advise its residents that their large family sizes are what is holding back its ability to increase their standard of living.
After all, if a marriage produces only 2 children then there is no need to build extra housing saving around 50% of all carbon emissions.
-
Pretty much the truth.
Fact is that what has become a reasonably aspirational standard of living requires the expenditure of about 5 kW of "artificial" energy per person, and this cannot be provided sustainably for the present world population. The choice is simple: either reduce the population of future generations or reduce their quality of life. I think the rational choice of anyone who cares about their descendants, is obvious.
Your arithmetic is somewhat flawed by the recent and foreseeably continuing increase in life expectancy. Time was that very few children had more than one living grandparent. My eldest son was the first on either side of the family to actually have four, and it is now fairly common to have surviving great-grandparents, so you actually need to keep the reproduction number below 2 to maintain a stable population, and not much above 1 if you want to reduce future numbers to an indefinitely sustainable level with a reasonable standard of living.
How do we achieve this? By the taxpayer giving every woman $500 every 6 months if she isn't pregnant, and eliminating all child benefits. No compulsion, but plenty of encouragement to do nothing! The overall saving to the Treasury (around $250,000 for every child not conceived) would be substantial.
Note: the calculation is actually based on UK economics but this forum doesn't support the UK currency sign!
-
The problem is nothing new- it's the "tragedy of the commons".
Also, for many people in the developing world where social security is inadequate, the only sensible thing to do is have lots of children and hope that they look after you when you are old.
You can ask them to have fewer kids, but unless you offer a viable alternative, they are not going to listen to you.
What governments need to do is advise its residents that their large family sizes are what is holding back its ability to increase their standard of living.
But a government with that policy would never be voted in. It didn't work well when China did it.
It doesn't help when some people are saying that global warming is either non-existent or "nothing to do with us".
If the problem is not us, then we don't need to change our behaviour to fix it.
-
Being attacked by a shark or abandoning a ditched plane is "nothing to do with me" but it's still advisable to take avoiding action or wear a lifejacket (as appropriate).
My concern is that faffing about with the fuel mix is going to cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time that should be spent preventing the disaster of overpopulation in a planet with shrinking agricultural resources. Worse, it might persuade people that the underlying physics will go away of we flagellate ourselves a bit. Fossil fuels will run out anyway, but climate change is inexorable, so the sensible thing to do is the negative-cost option that will mitigate its effect and lead to indefinite (as long as the sun shines) sustainability.
-
Population growth is already fixed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E&t=1320s): the birth rate is already down to 2 per woman, and we've passed "peak child". The projected growth to 11bn is the result of children already born growing up and having kids of their own.
The real problem is this:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
If the rich 12% cut their consumption, there's enough wealth to give the poor 88% a big increase in living standards and cut total consumption as well.
-
If the rich 12% cut their consumption, there's enough wealth to give the poor 88% a big increase in living standards and cut total consumption as well.
Wealth and consumption are not the same. The King owns vast areas of land and huge quantities of jewellery but doesn't eat any more than I do, and probably doesn't drive much more either. Overall, I doubt that his lifestyle requires much more than 10 - 15 kW, maybe twice my personal consumption.
And however you redistribute wealth, it doesn't improve the quality of the soil, increase rainfall, or decrease summer temperatures. Climate change is going to kill lots of people because of where they are, not how much they own, and the sensible ones are going to migrate to somewhere a bit more temperate, using whatever violence is necessary to get there.
-
Chris Pacham EARTH last night chatted on about global freezing due to to many trees and vegetation causing a lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that leads to an ice age.
But the opposite is also true that too much carbon dioxide in the air causes global ice melts and warming.
We must get to a balance point quickly by adopting policies that will correct the overpopulation in poorer countries by making them more prosperous so they do not need large families.. .
So how to balance the planet
-
Wealth and consumption are not the same. The King owns vast areas of land and huge quantities of jewellery but doesn't eat any more than I do, and probably doesn't drive much more either. Overall, I doubt that his lifestyle requires much more than 10 - 15 kW, maybe twice my personal consumption.
Here's the carbon emissions by income decile just for the UK:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Now imagine it applied here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E&t=2151s).
the sensible ones are going to migrate to somewhere a bit more temperate, using whatever violence is necessary to get there.
I don't dispute it for a minute, my prediction is that we'll carry on pursuing the holy grail of economic growth until civilisation collapses, and only cry "Do something" after it's decades too late. Whilst the politics of economic growth is the only game in town, environmental policy is just a gimmick for scoring points off the opposition, and cutting consumption is something that everyone else needs to do, there isn't a cat in hell's chance of fixing the problem at all, let alone in time. What's needed is a "we've done it, now you" world instead of a "not me, you first" world, and the Prisoners' Dilemma will see to it that we never get that.
"Vote blue, get green...........cut the green crap".
-
Government are tasked to keep up by using tax moneys to fund developments of housing
Could have fooled me! Governments next important responsibility is to curb landowner profiteering and remove restrictive monopolies
Could have fooled me again! Chris Pacham EARTH last night chatted on about global freezing due to to many trees and vegetation causing a lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that leads to an ice age.
But the opposite is also true that too much carbon dioxide in the air causes global ice melts and warming.
I missed that one, I saw the other 2. He said in the 2nd programme the early life was nearly snuffed out by carbon dioxide being sequestered, leading to the CR-T extinction, only saved by volcanic co2 emmissions. My biggest problem with this theory is that co2 is not the major greenhouse gas, water is.
40,000 Trillion Watt hours but now are using 130,000 TWh
Most of this is used to turn liquid water into gaseous stuff.
We must get to a balance point quickly by adopting policies that will correct the overpopulation in poorer countries by making them more prosperous
Jawohl Mein Fuhrer? More prosperity as to western standards, the west uses most of the recourses yet is only a small fraction of the populace, if we bring the projected populace up to western standards we consume resourses 10 times faster and fossil fuels are entirely spent by 2080 or something. War breaks out famine pestilence and death, hey presto not only is the over population problem solved but the best specimens of the human race are the ones who survive. We could survive the apocalypse in deep mines ready to emerge and repopulate the earth once the radiation had subsided.
-
Here's the carbon emissions by income decile just for the UK:
Income, not wealth. But let's look at income anyway:
The graph is per household. If everyone earns the same amount, then a household with four adults will have four times the income of a singleton, and, you'd expect, four times the CO2 emission. But the y axis runs from 6 to 14, so it seems that the household with 10 times the lowest disposable income only discharges 2.3 times as much CO2. Now that is surprising.
Anyway, the best news today was that UK house prices are falling. Since 30% of the UK's economy consists of mortgages, there's half a chance that we might find more productive ways to spend our money than giving it to bankers as interest on secondhand houses. The British Isles could be entirely selfsufficient and indefinitely sustainable at an exceptional standard of living if we reduce the population to somewhere in the region of 10 - 20% of the current level and invest in storage systems for renewable energy. The only people who would suffer en route are economists, because you can't measure the transition by a simplistic metric of economic growth.
-
Anyway, the best news today was that UK house prices are falling. Since 30% of the UK's economy consists of mortgages, there's half a chance that we might find more productive ways to spend our money than giving it to bankers as interest on secondhand houses.
I completely agree, but they still remain unaffordable to people on 30,000 a year, house prices where too high before Corona, now it is just stupid. Economically the money is disappearing, we have no disposable income, people are finding mortgages unaffordable yet interest rates are only at or below around what they where for the rest of history. It is crippling this country, weakness in the pound, inflation and slow growth, it is not a suprise.
The concerns are green belt, population increace and houses, you can only have 2 of the three.
-
War breaks out famine pestilence and death, hey presto not only is the over population problem solved but the best specimens of the human race are the ones who survive.
Wrong and wrong!
War used to be about killing the finest and fittest whilst the criminals and parasites stayed at home and made a profit, but nowadays it also involves destroying civilian infrastructure and annoying people so that they fight another war.
We could survive the apocalypse in deep mines
Who we? Only the rich and the parasites. Anyone else will be required to defend them to the death.
Anyway the other good news, as far as the UK is concerned, is that both the Labour and Tory parties are determined to cap child benefit at 2 children, thus nudging folk towards smaller families. One small step.
-
War breaks out famine pestilence and death, hey presto not only is the over population problem solved but the best specimens of the human race are the ones who survive.
Wrong and wrong!
War used to be about killing the finest and fittest whilst the criminals and parasites stayed at home and made a profit, but nowadays it also involves destroying civilian infrastructure and annoying people so that they fight another war.
We could survive the apocalypse in deep mines
Who we? Only the rich and the parasites. Anyone else will be required to defend them to the death.
Well some of the fittest will go in the war, but most victims of wars loose their lives to famine, disease or just succumb to the stress of the situation.
Admittedly the nazis did try to alter this via humanitarian crimes, and stalin by employing cannon fodder tactics, but still famine and disease. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:text=An%20estimated%20total%20of%2070,war%2Drelated%20disease%20and%20famine.
-
You could subtract the number who would die from famine and disease anyway. The fighting of WWIII will not last 6 years, more like 6 weeks, but the postwar consequences will last for hundreds of years.
The criminals and parasites who start the war will, of course, survive and profit from it - why else would they start it?
-
This is what I was looking for:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/extreme-carbon-inequality/
If you're trying to reduce carbon emissions rather than looking for excuses to do nothing, blaming the poor isn't going to get you very far.
-
I have little interest in carbon emissions, but inexorable climate change is clearly going to impact the poorest more than the richest, so the two important questions are what are we going to do to mitigate the effects of climate change, and how will our descendants live when we have exhausted fossil fuels?
You could argue that per capita carbon emission is actually the cause of wealth or income. Start with the most basic problem of food production. You can scratch a living from the soil by hand cultivation, or even hunting and gathering, but you will have to work very hard to feed yourself. Or you could use an ox to plough the fields - more CO2 emission but a lot more food. Or use a tractor: huge per capita emission (one bloke burning umpteen gallons of diesel per day) but feed thousands, some of whom contribute in other ways to your wellbeing, and the system runs on money, not barter. Then you might consider preservation, storage and distribution of food - selling fresh vegetables from a bike is fine for a very small, dilute population, but if you want to feed London you need to use cans, refrigerators and trucks, and then burn some fuel to clean up the waste and recycle the water without causing another cholera outbreak. People might walk to work, and only work in daylight, but this shortens the working day compared with getting on a bus or switching on a light, so wealth comes from mechanised transport as well as mechanised production.
The wineglass graph is actually a chicken and egg question.
-
Or use a tractor: huge per capita emission (one bloke burning umpteen gallons of diesel per day)
Or...
https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/23270318.cow-poo-power-revs-tractor-ground-breaking-initiative/
-
Or you could use an ox to plough the fields - more CO2 emission but a lot more food..
Every time, an animal in a wholly renewable cycle is claimed to be a source of co2/methane emissions. There is a biological cycle that is there, if the animal thing doesn't eat the plant thing, plant thing rots, producing co2 and methane. If we remove all life from earth the co2 should drop, maybe global warming will end and everyone will be happy.
-
If you're trying to reduce carbon emissions rather than looking for excuses to do nothing, blaming the poor isn't going to get you very far.
What do you recommend?
The said "poor" will require the same recources as the rich soon,
https://www.overshootday.org/
-
f the animal thing doesn't eat the plant thing, plant thing rots, producing co2 and methane. If we remove all life from earth the co2 should drop, maybe global warming will end and everyone will be happy.
Not true. Not all plant material degrades to CO2 and CH4 - coal, oil and sedimentary rocks were all derived either directly or indirecltly from atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis. Geology shows us that the primordial atmosphere was mostly CO2, and plant life is responsible for reducing it to the current negligible concentration..
-
Or use a tractor: huge per capita emission (one bloke burning umpteen gallons of diesel per day)
Or...
https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/23270318.cow-poo-power-revs-tractor-ground-breaking-initiative/
I was a member of a community intending to return to horsepower and save the planet, until I calculated the CO2 emission of a horse. Standing still in a field and doing no work, it emits as much CO2 in a year as a small car covering 8000 miles, or a tractor feeding a few hundred people. And unlike the tractor, it eats much the same stuff as people.
-
f the animal thing doesn't eat the plant thing, plant thing rots, producing co2 and methane. If we remove all life from earth the co2 should drop, maybe global warming will end and everyone will be happy.
Not true. Not all plant material degrades to CO2 and CH4 - coal, oil and sedimentary rocks were all derived either directly or indirecltly from atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis. Geology shows us that the primordial atmosphere was mostly CO2, and plant life is responsible for reducing it to the current negligible concentration..
On the whole, since the carboniferous, microbes are able to deconstruct wood. But I do take your point, peat bogs are able to store much carbon, but then again volcanos are able to issue it forth.
-
The link between CO2 increase and population increase is not coincidental but how do we encourage people tto have smaller families??
Well, if a country produced X million $ of goods and halved its population then the per capita standard of living would double and in fact treble because there would be no need to spend money on new houses, roads, water, sewage expansion etc.
So should world aid to poorer countries be conditional on that country openly agreeing to encourage contraception?
-
I've offered this solution previously, and it kills two birds with one stone.
Since it is the richest countries that generate most CO2, if you want to reduce anthropogenic CO2 you only need to address the richest 10% of the world's population to make the biggest impact.
Two things determine how the rich behave: how much they earn, and how much service they get for their taxes. So we cut all child benefits and pay every woman $600 every 6 months if she isn't pregnant. Thus there is an incentive to limit the number of children they produce. Consider the effect in the UK:
If every woman has one child, the population will decrease to 10% of the present level over 100 years, and in the interim the working fraction (age 20 - 60) will increase from 50% to about 55%, so we have more working people paying less tax (since we will be saving on maternity, infant and child care, education, policing, etc, at about $4 - 600,000 per child not conceived) and getting more space, with indefinitely sustainable energy and agriculture, and a bigger pension. What's not to like?
As with the steam engine, television, penicillin, radar, computers, lasers, constitutional monarchy, and just about every other useful invention, other nations will probably follow suit. Problem solved.
Note: I have used $ because this forum still doesn't recognise the sterling currency symbol!
-
how do we encourage people tto have smaller families??
We already did.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy-peak-baby/
The problem is that all of humanity wants to live like rich westerners.
You can hardly blame them.
So the important thing to do is created a "rich westerner" lifestyle without trashing the planet.
A big part of that is low carbon tech.
Other energy savings etc are also important.
-
Agreed. And the only way you can do that is by maintaining population density at a sustainable level everywhere. It seems sensible, practicable and indeed essential to run a demonstration project in the UK.
-
Agreed. And the only way you can do that is by maintaining population density at a sustainable level everywhere. It seems sensible, practicable and indeed essential to run a demonstration project in the UK.
Sounds good to me; let's start with decarbonising the economy.
Changing to renewables is a pain in the neck, but the sooner we start, the sooner we finish.
(Ironically, I recognise that it's going to take a while and I don't think you and I will see the end of it)
-
I don't have any data for my argument but I believe renewables will fall well short of our energy needs. Unless nuclear achieves a renaissance I see dire times ahead in 40-50years. Population growth has stalled in the western world but it is still surging ahead in many poor countries.
-
Not in the UK Germany France or the states, australia.in the UK electricity is a fifth of our energy use, renewables are 25 percent of that. I don't have any data for my argument but I believe renewables will fall well short of our energy needs. Unless nuclear achieves a renaissance I see dire times ahead in 40-50years. Population growth has stalled in the western world but it is still surging ahead in many poor countries.
-
I don't have any data for my argument but I believe renewables will fall well short of our energy needs.
Then the species will die. (There's some wriggle room on the timescale)
Which is why I think we will get renewables sorted out.
-
The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,
there is no incentive for any electricity producer to invest in grid storage, and
an all-electric future will also require an enormous investment in power distribution (more taxes or current charges) and
replacement of practically every industrial and domestic heating system (more capital investment to stand still, so no competitive advantage).
But reducing the population to reduce demand to a sustainable level will only require 10 - 20% of that investment.
-
Nature itself may sort the problem out. With the current global population and air travel connecting virtually everywhere conditions are ripe for devastating zoonoses, most likely viral. In addition bacterial infections long thought to have been conquered are making a comeback, largely due to overuse of antibiotics. All organisms without a predator eventually overrun their environment and then collapse- I don't see humans as being fundamentally different in this respect.
-
I agree with both the last 2 posts by Paul and Alan that if we just let things drift on some calamity natural or not will reduce the population substantially..
.
Just look at Indian sub continent and south/central America though; we are seeing riotous unrest because the local people there are looking for someone to blame for not developing their economy and increasing their standard of living quickly enough. But our/their politicians are ignorant or not telling people the truth that we ourselves might be to blame.
.
Why should we blame ourselves??
.Well, if we only had 2 surviving children per family then there would be no requirement to build extra houses, roads, water/electric infrastructure; just a case of passing on our own houses/land to our children. This in fact has always been the way normal inheritance has worked but families had to be larger then as there was no medical backups..
-
But reducing the population
How do we do that quickly?
In the UK the birth rate is already less than the death rate.
So, messing with that's not going to do much,
Are you proposing a cull?
-
The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,
https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156?fbclid=IwAR3vfPknEgAf6pxK934zG0P7Mia18wfSdUvsI8kt9qVfO52p3IQz6COe__U
-
The sky report shows clearly that no point in building more wind turbines until the 400kV grid line over the border is reinforced.
The nat grid have at least a100 foot servitude for the existing line so immediately they must build an extra 2 quad lines one each side of the existing line. There is no time for worrying about planning consents and the government should insist on the grid starting immediately and offer to pay all pre-ordering costs upfront to avoid delays.
-
the government should ... pay all pre-ordering costs upfront to avoid delays.
Many land owners are already very rich without your proposed plan to hand them a blank cheque backed by the taxpayer.
-
But reducing the population
How do we do that quickly?
In the UK the birth rate is already less than the death rate.
So, messing with that's not going to do much,
Are you proposing a cull?
No cull necessary, and panic solutions are never advisable. Adoption of my plan to cut child benefits and pay women for not being pregnant should result in a smooth decline in birthrate with a corresponding reduction of treasury costs and increase in tax revenues.
-
Adoption of my plan ...should result in a smooth decline in birthrate ....
The birthrate is less than the death rate.
We have already achieved the goal you seek.
-
The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,
https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156?fbclid=IwAR3vfPknEgAf6pxK934zG0P7Mia18wfSdUvsI8kt9qVfO52p3IQz6COe__U
Sadly, this is partly BS. If it were entirely true, there would have been serious blackouts in the recent past, but there haven't been.. Subsidies are paid whenever potential supply exceeds demand, and thereby hangs a significant problem.
If we had 100% windpower and adequate distributin capackty the installed genrating capacity would have to support full demand on the least windy days, so we'd need at least 900% overcapacity to cope with, say, last week's weather (or lack of).
The logical solution is either to require that every renewable installation is accompanied by 5 days' storage capacity, or to build enough nuclear stations to meet peak demand when the wind doesn't blow. Neither makes economic sense, and getting rid of all fossil fuels (assuming everyone can afford to replace his bus/car/boiler/furnace/oven/truck/locomotive) will increase electricity demand by a factor of 5.
Reducing the population reduces demand smoothly over maybe 100 years, to a sustainable level.
-
We have already achieved the goal you seek.
The goal is a UK population of 5 - 10,000,000. I don't think we have achieved that, or are likely to without some radical changes.
-
We have already achieved the goal you seek.
The goal is a UK population of 5 - 10,000,000. I don't think we have achieved that, or are likely to without some radical changes.
How do we do that quickly?
If your idea managed to get people to stop having children completely and we blocked immigration, how long would it take for the required 60,000,000 people to die?
-
About 60 years.
"Quickly" isn't essential. Any reduction in population is immediately beneficial, and a planned continuous reduction to a set target is best of all.
-
Report
The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,
https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156?fbclid=IwAR3vfPknEgAf6pxK934zG0P7Mia18wfSdUvsI8kt9qVfO52p3IQz6COe__U
Sadly, this is partly BS. If it were entirely true, there would have been serious blackouts in the recent past, but there haven't been.. Subsidies are paid whenever potential supply exceeds demand, and thereby hangs a significant problem.
Subsidies will only increace, more nuclear power with guaranteed price points and inflexible generation coupled with more wind is being installed. Wind is going to end up costing more than the touted 4pkwh at present. Fortunately many proposed offshore wind farms are being dropped because the price point is now just too low. Onshore is much cheaper, but in such a crowded little island finding an area where the noise is not a nuisance is difficult.
-
Nukes are not inflexible, as the French and Russians have shown. It just happens that the economically optimum run cycle is very long so nuclear provides a very cheap base load (which will become more important as industry and heavy transport decarbonise) and a technically feasible quick response capacity.
The use of hydrogen for transport and heating can simplify the transition to zero carbon, and either wind or nuclear can provide the primary source for a stored-hydrogen grid. The problem with nuclear is the very large investment of fossil fuel required to build and fuel a nuclear reactor - it's probably no longer economic to do so, and the absence of UK expertise and capital in this field, plus the recent history of budget and timetable overruns doesn't bode well even for a doubling of capacity this century.
-
If we had 100% windpower and adequate distributin capackty the installed genrating capacity would have to support full demand on the least windy days, so we'd need at least 900% overcapacity to cope with, say, last week's weather (or lack of).
Last week's weather had far too much wind. It just wasn't in the right place.
E.g.
"In early August 2023, a series of wildfires broke out in the U.S. state of Hawaii, predominantly on the island of Maui. The wind-driven fires prompted evacuations".
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hawaii_wildfires
One way to look at the issue is as a storage problem, the other as a distribution problem.
For Hawaii, distribution is a non- starter but it's rather unusual in that regard.
Trying to do the whole lot by distribution is tricky too.
But to only focus on one option is short-sighted.
I'm not saying that getting the international agreements will be easy.
The question is are we more likely to get the people to agree to distribute electricity, or to stop having children?
Given how much effort people put into having kids, my money is, at the least, on a combination.
-
"Quickly" isn't essential.
This is like saying we will have enough food when the truck arrives in six months.
Sure, but we will be dead by then.
Now, to some extent, that solves the problem of over-use of resources.
But the carbon dioxide we release is going to mess up the climate for the survivors long after we are gone.
Waiting 60 years is not an option.
It might have been 30 years ago.
-
You don't have to wait 60 years - the benefits begin immediately.
Much of the rest of the world will become very unpleasant during the remainder of this century, both climatically and politically, but it seems entirely sensible for the UK to mitigate the effects of climate change and resource depletion for the benefit of our own children and grandchildren - and indeed ourselves.
Any other options to offer?
-
Any other options to offer?
Stop making excuses for continuing to make it worse.
-
I'm baffled. In what way is my investment in heat pumps and hydrogen vehicles, campaigning against meat farming, and refusal to attend in-person conferences, making things worse? I'm even promoting cold-cathode x-ray systems to save energy!
Or are you suggesting that I should promote a cull?
-
The question is are we more likely to get the people to agree to distribute electricity, or to stop having children?
I'm sure everyone would be delighted if you were to improve electricity distribution. AFAIK over 99% of UK properties are connected to the mains and we haven't had any major blackouts in the last couple of years, but if you think we could do better at no cost or inconvenience, let's hear how.
You say that the birthrate is already below the death rate, so it seems that people are already making the choice. A little explanation and ?1000 per year would, in my opinion, only improve the situation.
-
I'm baffled. In what way is my investment in heat pumps and hydrogen vehicles, campaigning against meat farming, and refusal to attend in-person conferences, making things worse?
They aren't, but this
My concern is that faffing about with the fuel mix is going to cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time
is
making excuses for continuing to make it worse.
-
So spending money and wasting time instead of solving the problem is a Good Thing? Are you an NHS administrator, by any chance?
-
Calling cutting CO2 emissions "spending money and wasting time instead of solving the problem" is a bad thing.
-
But replacing existing vehicles with new ones that require fossil fuels to manufacture and run, doesn't reduce anthropogenic CO2.
Reducing future demand to a level that can be sustained indefinitely from renewables, would.
-
Alan, quick off topic question re cold cathode xray tubes: how do you get conduction with a cold cathode, I can only think of two ways, (1) imperfect vacuum or (2) beta emitter for cathode.
-
Well, having accepted that the global warming problem really is caused by global population increase we need to make a positive plan to correct the situation by assisting expanding countries to reduce their population growths.
The UN should be in the lead but not sure when they will respond with a plan.
-
, doesn't reduce anthropogenic CO2.
Present tense
Reducing future demand to a level that can be sustained indefinitely from renewables, would.
Future conditional tense.
But we don't have time to wait.
If we don't introduce new standards/ paradigms for vehicles, people will still spend money on cars.
The manufacture will still contribute to AGW.
And the fuel use will continue to do so.
If we do change to EV (or whatever) people will still spend money on cars.
The manufacture will still contribute to AGW.
But the fuel use will not continue to do so.
-
As the population of a country expands then the requirement to feed, house and transport more people increases proportionally..
With regards co2 an efficient mass transit system in all major up areas(which would have come in at under the cost of hs2) , better insulated houses and more locally produced food may reduce co2 emissions.
-
Alan, quick off topic question re cold cathode xray tubes: how do you get conduction with a cold cathode, I can only think of two ways, (1) imperfect vacuum or (2) beta emitter for cathode.
(3) Field emission from carbon fiber cathodes.
But it's all a bit of a joke anyway since 90 - 99% of the energy dissipated in the anode is heat, however you do it!
-
If we do change to EV (or whatever) people will still spend money on cars.
And for the foreseeable future, EVs will be powered by fossil fuel (via the electricity grid) when the wind doesn't blow. The problem the motor industry faces right now is that cars are just too damn reliable - 150,000 miles for a petrol engine, twice that for a diesel. So you have to persuade people to buy new cars for a different reason. Beware of capitalism in green clothing!
If we don't introduce new standards/ paradigms for vehicles, people will still spend money on cars.
Another part of the problem. Compare the footprint of a modern Mini with the original. Whatever the name of the car, it has got bigger and heavier every year, and the average size of all new cars has increased.
It's worth looking at Riversimple to see how a really novel paradigm (the first "inorganic" road vehicles were battery electric!) produces a smaller. lighter vehicle, but it runs on hydrogen, not a battery. That's the sensible future for road and rail transport - and possibly for aircraft too.
-
Aircraft? hmm, i'm doubtful. A quick mental calculation tells me about 40Mw would be needed for a current size 737( I could be out on this as it's a mental calculation and the old brain is not as good as it used to be ). "field emission from carbon fibres", that' a new one to me, I must investigate it. And thanks again.
-
As the population of a country expands then the requirement to feed, house and transport more people increases proportionally..
With regards co2 an efficient mass transit system in all major up areas(which would have come in at under the cost of hs2) , better insulated houses and more locally produced food may reduce co2 emissions.
Yes, But Alan thinks waiting for people to die is the solution
-
And for the foreseeable future
There is none so blind as him who will not (for)see.
-
Another part of the problem. Compare the footprint of a modern Mini with the original. Whatever the name of the car, it has got bigger and heavier every year, and the average size of all new cars has increased.
Which is the bigger vote winner a "big car tax" or a "big family tax"?
If you think it's the second, have a look at the pushback that such a policy produced in China.
-
Aircraft? hmm, i'm doubtful. A quick mental calculation tells me about 40Mw would be needed for a current size 737( I could be out on this as it's a mental calculation and the old brain is not as good as it used to be ).
Probably correct, but not a problem. The energy density of hydrogen is pretty much the same as gasoline or jet fuel. Not sure about 737 just yet but smaller twin and 4-engine hydrogen-electroprop aircraft have already flown.
-
Yes, But Alan thinks waiting for people to die is the solution
They die all the time - about 1,000,000 per year in the UK. No intervention needed.
-
Which is the bigger vote winner a "big car tax" or a "big family tax"?
Not sure whether it applies to cars, but vans and trucks are taxed by width in Japan. I'm no keener on taxes than anyone else, but my scheme isn't based on tax.
-
Yes, But Alan thinks waiting for people to die is the solution
They die all the time - about 1,000,000 per year in the UK. No intervention needed.
No, but as you say, it takes half a century to fix the problem in the fastest possible case.
We don't have that long.
my scheme isn't based on tax.
Government benefit payments can be treated as negative tax.
Also, the money for them comes from taxes.
-
No, but as you say, it takes half a century to fix the problem in the fastest possible case.
We don't have that long.
The benefits begin immediately and things just keep getting better. "We" is the UK population, and we are in less of a hurry than others. Some may do likewise, the rest are doomed anyway. Government benefit payments can be treated as negative tax.
Also, the money for them comes from taxes.
So you have rejected both positive and negative taxes, and accuse me of wanting to do nothing. Perhaps you are advocating an imaginary solution?
The money paid under my scheme is money saved by the reduction in child support (health, education....) expenditure.
-
So you have rejected both positive and negative taxes
No, I have advocated one.
But not the one you favour.
Which is the bigger vote winner a "big car tax" or a "big family tax"?
The benefits begin immediately and things just keep getting better.
Very slowly.
-
The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form and aircraft cannot carry huge tanks of compressed gas. Forming hydrogen from electrolysis as aircraft fuel is totally inefficient and what would you do with the carbon left over inside the plane?? I agree that city EV's should be mini or micro size vehicles which can be charged at home.
Getting back to root cause of this post;. Having identified that the global warming problem really is caused by global population increase we need to make a positive plan to correct the situation by assisting expanding countries to reduce their population growths.
The UN should be in the lead but not sure when they will respond with a plan.
-
The reality with all these propositions is that they require concerted global action. I say that this has never happened and never will happen. Human nature is such that even if such a plan was proposed some nations will feel disadvantaged and refuse to agree, whatever is proposed. Also it would require responsible leadership in all countries, just look at current world leaders! I don't want to depress anyone with my cynicism but I think it is important to be truthful and realistic.
-
The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form
Pity NASA and ROSCOSMOS don't know that.
and aircraft cannot carry huge tanks of compressed gas.
pity Piper don't know that https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210401-the-worlds-first-commercial-hydrogen-plane
Forming hydrogen from electrolysis as aircraft fuel is totally inefficient
not a problem if you have surplus wind-generated electricity and no other way to store the energy in a useable form and what would you do with the carbon left over inside the plane??
Please explain! 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O + heat, with no carbon involved, IIRC.
-
The reality with all these propositions is that they require concerted global action.
Only if you want to solve a global problem.
As I see it, whatever we do will not prevent much of the world becoming very unpleasant and inimical to human life in the next 100 years, and remaining so for about 1000 years.
What can be done, however, is to make human life pleasant and indefinitely sustainable in a few places like the British Isles, and I can see no reason not to do so.
-
Quote from: acsinuk on Today at 10:26:39
The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form
Pity NASA and ROSCOSMOS don't know that.
I'm pretty sure that NASA knows what the critical temperature of hydrogen is.
So they don't even try to compress hydrogen to make it a liquid; they cool it.
Only if you want to solve a global problem.
Like a rise in sea levels or changes in climate or even too much CO2 in the air.
Do you have a plan a "Big, beautiful wall" to keep the atmosphere out??
I heard about some guy who said he would do that...
-
Why do you want to keep the atmosphere out of the British Isles?
I don't foresee global CO2 reaching a toxic concentration (around 3%) the next billion years or so. The animals that remove vegetation will all have died from heat exhaustion long before that happens.
-
they cool it.
An efficient way of compressing some gases into a smaller, denser volume..
If the hydrogen feed to the process is provided at comparatively low pressure, the first step of the process is pre-compression.
The ignorance of the Royal Society of Chemistry must be an embarrassment to you.
-
Electrolysis can be reasonably efficient and if one has a source of energy it can be practical. However the problems with hydrogen are (1) metal embrittlement, (2) loss through diffusion and (3) low volumetric efficiency. I have seen some daft ideas using sodium borohydride or some borane as a hydrogen carrier-way too expensive to compete. Ammonia is the best bet, imho.
-
Aircraft? hmm, i'm doubtful. A quick mental calculation tells me about 40Mw would be needed for a current size 737( I could be out on this as it's a mental calculation and the old brain is not as good as it used to be ).
Probably correct, but not a problem. The energy density of hydrogen is pretty much the same as gasoline or jet fuel. Not sure about 737 just yet but smaller twin and 4-engine hydrogen-electroprop aircraft have already flown.
Depends on what you mean, by volume hydrogen is not great, by weight it's fantastic, ideal for aircraft, but the reason they use diesel is because it doesn't go pop easily.
-
. Forming hydrogen from electrolysis as aircraft fuel is totally inefficient and what would you do with the carbon left over inside the plane?? .
It's not that inefficient and I am sure it will improve like all technologies, it is certainly more efficient than turning the windmills off or shutting down nuclear plants and I sure if you have no fuel, some fuel is better!
-
An efficient way of compressing some gases into a smaller, denser volume..
There are big voids in the ground where gas can be stored, Germany has some and has just filled them up for this winter with natural gas at a low price, our government though elected not to develop/maintain such voids because they are obsolete as we are now going green, with such developments as hydrogen, so this winter the UK will be paying through the nose again.
-
Why do you want to keep the atmosphere out of the British Isles?
I don't.
But you want to pretend that the UK is isolated from the rest of the globe, and you can't do that while we share an atmosphere so, how do you plan to do it?
Quote
If the hydrogen feed to the process is provided at comparatively low pressure, the first step of the process is pre-compression.
The ignorance of the Royal Society of Chemistry must be an embarrassment to you.
And the compression doesn't make it into a liquid, does it?
It remains that case that "The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form" and both the RSC and NASA would concur.
I'm getting embarrassed by you apparently arguing in bad faith, but that's a different issue.
-
I'm perfectly happy to share the world's atmosphere, as we already do. It is unpleasantly cold in some places and unpleasantly hot in others, and that won't change even though the average will increase. The British Isles are particularly favored by physics and geography so that life here could be tolerable and even idyllic when most of humanity suffer, if we can reduce the population to a sustainable level.
Praying for a miracle, or even a lifeboat, is all very well, but it makes sense to inflate your lifejacket while you are waiting.
-
the reason they use diesel is because it doesn't go pop easily.
No, because it has a high energy density, a broad liquid temperature range, and can be burned controllably in a turbine. Gasoline pops easily and is also used in aircraft.
-
I sure one could use petrol(gasoline) in a turbine, but I would not recommend it due to it's volatility and hence fire hazard.
-
Praying for a miracle, or even a lifeboat, is all very well, but it makes sense to inflate your lifejacket while you are waiting.
And waiting for people to die- over the course of perhaps a hundred years- is waiting for the lifeboat.
Decarbonising the economy is inflating your life jacket while you wait.
-
I sure one could use petrol(gasoline) in a turbine, but I would not recommend it due to it's volatility and hence fire hazard.
Ever heard of avgas?
Aviation spirit is about as "bangy" as ordinary petrol; slightly less volatile.
-
Avgas? no I never heard that term, I presume it is short for aviation gasoline. How does aviation petrol rate on the octane scale?
-
And waiting for people to die- over the course of perhaps a hundred years- is waiting for the lifeboat.
No need to wait. 2800 Brits will die tomorrow, and every day thereafter for the next 70 years or so. All we need to do is not replace them. Doing nothing is always an option worth exploring.
Decarbonising the economy is inflating your life jacket while you wait.
But there aren't enough of those lifejackets to go around, and they haven't been proved to float. It's just an expensive form of prayer to a god that most of the world can't afford to worship. I've no objection to folk praying but action (or in my scenario, inaction!) is better.
-
Avgas? no I never heard that term, I presume it is short for aviation gasoline. How does aviation petrol rate on the octane scale?
100 octane low-lead is the standard, but some ex-Soviet radial engines work with 90 or less and quite a few small units run on MOGAS UL (another obvious acronym). Sadly, small diesels haven't been particularly reliable in aircraft which is a pity as AVTUR and JETA (guess what?) are cheaper and more widely available. You can burn pretty well anything from chip fat to AVGAS in an aviation turbine but the former tends to clog the injectors and the latter is very expensive.
The downside of hydrogen for small road vehicles is the lack of an immediately-available refuelling grid but where all journeys are predictable base-to-base it is an ideal fuel. Hence heavy goods vehicles, buses, trains and aircraft are ideally suited.
-
Doing nothing is always an option worth exploring.
Yes. But persuading biology not to reproduce is not "doing nothing", is it?
. 2800 Brits will die tomorrow, and every day thereafter for the next 70 years or so
If we do nothing the death rate is likely to rise pretty abruptly at some point.
But the idea of this sort of planning is to avoid using the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse as your control mechanism.
But there aren't enough of those lifejackets to go around
The only reason for that is that the ship will not order enough for everyone because someone told them that "doing nothing" was an option.
-
But persuading biology not to reproduce is not "doing nothing", is it?
You might do well to consult a book about mummies and daddies. Multicellular species have to put quite a bit of effort into making, and sometimes raising, their offspring. If, despite all the sweat, you enjoy heterosex, ?1000 a year will buy a lot of pills and condoms.
But the idea of this sort of planning is to avoid using the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse as your control mechanism.
Exactly my point. If the human population exceeds a sustainable level, you can expect famine, pestilence, war and conquest. We can't make more land or water, but we can make fewer humans.
The only reason for that is that the ship will not order enough for everyone because someone told them that "doing nothing" was an option.
After 27 very expensive global conferences where everyone pledged to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they have increased by 46%. The only exception was 2020 when one of the horsemen made an unscheduled appearance.
Now if the Gadarene swine are all rushing towards the cliff edge, and you can't avoid being swept along with them (because we share the atmosphere), why not choose a route that will give you a soft landing?
-
1000 [pounds] a year will buy a lot of pills and condoms.
True but it will buy very little fertility treatment.
You are underestimating how much most people want kids.
They are prepared to pay many thousands a year for the privilege.
Exactly my point. If the human population exceeds a sustainable level, you can expect famine, pestilence, war and conquest.
So, you ether change the number of people - which is impractically slow so the horsemen get here first- or you change what is sustainable.
After 27 very expensive global conferences where everyone pledged to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they have increased by 46%.
Because they listened to the people who said " You don't really need to do anything; waiting for people to die is easier".
-
Good morning, BC. I made a similar point some time ago on a similar discussion: when one looks at the lengths infertile couples will go to, at huge expense, to have a child it gives one an idea of the strength of such desires. The broody female feels her life to be incomplete without said offspring and is truly a force to be reckoned with. My solution: equine viral arthritis, this will cripple the horses of said horsemen and it has the benefit of being wildly contagious!!
-
You are underestimating how much most people want kids.
They are prepared to pay many thousands a year for the privilege.
I don't intend to prevent anyone from spending their money or having children. But I'm not prepared to subsidise their choice, and I'm happy to help those who don't want children to enjoy their life to the full.
-
you change what is sustainable.
By telling the poor to enjoy their poverty? Very Christian. Very immoral.
-
Because they listened to the people who said " You don't really need to do anything; waiting for people to die is easier".
I don't recall that being in any COP resolution. They all witter on about carbon dioxide, not people or their aspirations.
But instead of blaming everyone else for their rush to extinction, why not prevent your own - or at least that of your grandchildren - and save the local environment even if the rest of the planet is doomed.
Decarbonisation is inevitable anyway when the fossils have all been oxidised: my plan merely makes the transition feasible and desirable.
-
you change what is sustainable.
By telling the poor to enjoy their poverty? Very Christian. Very immoral.
And, once again, you seem to be going for the "bad faith argument" .
I have already pointed out that what we should be doing is not restricting people's aspirations, but ensuring that the aspirations are met in innovative ways which don't trash the planet.
But you ignore that and come up with some stupid deliberate misinterpretation.
-
But instead of blaming everyone else for their rush to extinction, why not prevent your own - or at least that of your grandchildren - and save the local environment even if the rest of the planet is doomed.
I'm reminded of the observation that having a "no smoking" area in a pub is like having a "no pissing" area in a swimming pool.
Eventually people realised it was a bit silly and banned smoking in the pub.
How long will it take you to cotton on to the fact that there's only one planet, and one atmosphere and one sea level.
We already know what happens when the UK thinks it can "go it alone" and, as a consequence, our economy is down the pan.
Why would you think we can do it with global environmental issues?
(Come to think of it, there may be an obvious answer there)
-
I don't recall that being in any COP resolution. They all witter on about carbon dioxide, not people or their aspirations.
And then the politicians went home and faced their electorates.
And, for some mystical reason...
hey listened to the people who said " You don't really need to do anything; waiting for people to die is easier".
The question is who told the voters that "it will all work out OK anyway"?
-
Good morning, BC. I made a similar point some time ago on a similar discussion: when one looks at the lengths infertile couples will go to, at huge expense, to have a child it gives one an idea of the strength of such desires.
It's not just the ones with fertility issues.
Every time a newspaper editor is short of copy, they run a story about how much it costs to raise children.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/starting-family-baby-costs/
Call it quarter of a million or so over 20 years
12.5K per year
It makes Alan's suggestion that 1000 a year will make a difference to many people's choices laughable.
But he still keeps making it.
Not that it matters; it's a guaranteed vote loser. It's just not going to happen.
-
I have a no smoking area in my house, and also ban the carriage of firearms. I don't give a damn what other people do in their own homes but if they followed my lead, they'd have a better life. I didn't wait for everyone else to move first.
I think you will agree that
1. Whilst the composition of the atmosphere is pretty much the same everywhere, the climate isn't.
2. It will inevitably get hotter everywhere for the foreseeable future, but
3. We may disagree about the cause but it the effect may remain tolerable in the British Isles if we take measures to mitigate its effect here.
So why not do so, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (and imported food) at the same time?
-
And then the politicians went home and faced their electorates.
and got re-elected. The question is who told the voters that "it will all work out OK anyway"?
Nobody. They all said it is going to be a disaster, and nobody has done anything about it except blame the rich/poor/everyone else.
-
The birth rate in the British isles is down but can you realistically control immigration? Here in Ireland the population has risen 15% in a relatively short time, largely through immigration, and we now have an acute housing shortage. For some reason many migrants seem to think the UK is the ultimate destination with no capacity limitation.
-
the effect may remain tolerable in the British Isles if we take measures to mitigate its effect here.
Or it may not, so it's sensible to try to halt the change.
and got re-elected.
Because they had manifestos that didn't include a "one child" policy- because that's what it would get called.
-
can you realistically control immigration?
The politicians could.
But most of them have at least a nodding acquaintance with economics so they won't.
If the birth rate is less than the death rate the average age will increase.
In the limit, that means most of your population are pensioners.
And even the fact that you can shift effort from teaching to geriatric care won't save the economy.
So the politicians stir up hatred by blaming immigrants for problems with the NHS (when, in fact, about 15% of the staff are immigrants without whom the problems would be a whole lot worse).
Then they say "only our party will protect you from the immigrants".
And then they make a big fuss about a boat which might some day house a tiny fraction of them.
Meanwhile, they don't actually stop them, because they know the economy needs productive people and the vast majority of immigrants are productive.
-
Or it may not, so it's sensible to try to halt the change.
By all means do so by any means you can afford. But remember that it is not possible to sustain the current UK population at its present level of energy consumption from local renewables, and the rest of the world will be competing for the dwindling food and any new energy sources it can find. .
Because they had manifestos that didn't include a "one child" policy- because that's what it would get called.
Both major UK parties are already committed to restricting child benefit to 2 children. Doesn't seem to have affected the election of corrupt and incompetent parasites any more than putting me in midfield in a black and white strip would stop people supporting Spurs - modern elections are about tribal loyalty, not logic.
-
can you realistically control immigration?
Immigration to the UK was effectively controlled from 1066 until 1995, so the answer is yes.
It is important to distinguish between visitors, migrants (seasonal workers who leave when their contract is complete), immigrants (invited with a view to permanent residence), refugees (fleeing or rescued directly from a hostile territory), and invaders (anyone else).
-
Every time a newspaper editor is short of copy, they run a story about how much it costs to raise children.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/starting-family-baby-costs/
Call it quarter of a million or so over 20 years
12.5K per year
It makes Alan's suggestion that 1000 a year will make a difference to many people's choices laughable.
You have quoted the cost to the parents. Cost to the taxpayer is the same order of magnitude. I'm just offering an informed choice, with a considerable saving to yourself (13,000 per year) and the taxpayer (about 10 k per year) if you take my money. If you don't, your net costs will increase because there are no direct benefits (currently around 1.2k) payable after the first child.
-
Immigration to the UK was effectively controlled from 1066 until 1995
It still is.
Anyone who has travelled abroad to and from the UK might have noticed a gate of some sort where they had to show a passport.
The folk checking documents are, in fact, part of the process by which we do control immigration.
Many of those travelling are tourists or "invaders" as you would put it. But remember that it is not possible to sustain the current UK population at its present level of energy consumption from local renewables
I remember it, that's why I see that this
By all means do so by any means you can afford.
misses the point.
We can't afford not to reduce our impact.
Because we can't reduce our numbers quickly, so we have to do something else.
-
What happens a lot in Ireland is migrants turning up at ports having destroyed their passports in transit and then claiming refugee status. I don't know if this happens on your side of the pond. If we need new blood to keep the economy going to pay for pensioners( like me), it will be difficult to reduce the population.
-
Many people make the error of assuming that you need children to support the elderly.
Fact is that in a civilised society, children don't work and pay taxes, but consume social services and benefits paid for by the "working fraction". In these islands you can assume that the 0 - 20 cohort are not part of the active workforce. You can also approximate the age distribution by assuming that everyone retires at 60 and the cohort undergoes a linear decrease from 60 to 100. This gives you a working fraction of exactly 0.5, whose income and taxes support the other half.
Now if you reduce the birthrate to one child per female, the working fraction immediately increases and eventually reaches a maximum of around 0.6 whilst the total population decreases, thus making more tax revenue and natural resources available per capita. Some of the working fraction are of course employed servicing the needs of children: fewer children means more medical, nursing, social care and even education available for the elderly.
As for undocumented persons turning up on the shores of these islands, they can't be migrants (who would have a passport and work permit) or refugees (the only feasible sea crossings are from safe countries) so they must be invaders. Any visitor who has lost his passport in transit will at least have purchased a ferry ticket, so he can be put on the next return ferry to Spain, France, Norway or wherever he came from, and buy a new passport.
-
Many of those travelling are tourists or "invaders" as you would put it.
The literate will have noticed that I distinguished between visitors (who arrive through those gates) and invaders. (who don't).
-
Because we can't reduce our numbers quickly, so we have to do something else.
Who "we"?
Clearly not the rest of the world, who are mostly intent on increasing their consumption of resources and generation of carbon dioxide.
As you say, simply reducing the CO2 emission of the UK isn't going to make much of an impact globally though it might finally realise the Tory dream of destroying the economy.
-
Who "we"?
What significant number of people can actually reduce their numbers fast enough to avoid a crisis?
-
As you say, simply reducing the CO2 emission of the UK isn't going to make much of an impact globally though it might finally realise the Tory dream of destroying the economy.
Many people think progress can be quite profitable.
-
What happens a lot in Ireland is migrants turning up at ports having destroyed their passports in transit and then claiming refugee status. I don't know if this happens on your side of the pond. If we need new blood to keep the economy going to pay for pensioners( like me), it will be difficult to reduce the population.
Many people make the error of assuming that you need children to support the elderly
You do need the young to look after the old, in China in a few years there will be 2 parents 4 grand parents to look after from one worker, and possibly 2 children to support. Between a couple that is 16 people from 2 workers.
At present it is the flip side with 4 grandparents and 2 parents looking after 1 child so it has to right itself eventually, unless you believe in the continually inreacing populace model, where there are many dependants for each worker leading to poor education etc.
-
The literate will have noticed that I distinguished between visitors (who arrive through those gates) and invaders. (who don't).
Plenty of illegal immigrants - who might be classed as invaders- arrive through the same gates on migrant visas or tourist ones- and then "overstay".
-
2 parents 4 grand parents to look after from one worker, and possibly 2 children to support. Between a couple that is 16 people from 2 workers.
What is the retirement age in China? Assuming the worker is aged 20 - 60, it is unlikely that he will be supporting all four of his own grandparents (don't they have contributory pensions in China?). AFAIK it takes a male and a female to make a child and assuming that 20-60 year old females work, that is only one child per worker, not 2. So at the most, each worker will be supporting himself and maybe 1 - 2 others, not 16. If he has more children, he will be supporting more, not fewer, people.
At present it is the flip side with 4 grandparents and 2 parents looking after 1 child
So which is true: do you need the child to look after his elders (unlikely) or are the elders supporting the child (pretty obviously)? Why would that change?
-
Plenty of illegal immigrants - who might be classed as invaders- arrive through the same gates on migrant visas or tourist ones- and then "overstay".
A different problem but arguably easier to solve by a reverse process. We're getting away from the subject here, but one option is to provide all citizens and legitimate visitors with an "entitlement" card for public services. Tourists and migrant workers get a time limited card. No valid card, no benefits or free NHS services. The fun bit is that the card carries any data that you would like others to access, such as allergies, medications, emergency contact numbers, you name it. A whole other subject, perhaps.
-
What significant number of people can actually reduce their numbers fast enough to avoid a crisis?
You miss the point. You can't avoid climate change, but within a defensible geographical area you can mitigate its effect by reducing the population to an independently sustainable level. Best choice would be an island with a temperate climate and plenty of wind and rain.
-
Many people think progress can be quite profitable.
So far, the profits seem to be going to Chinese solar panel, battery and nuclear reactor manufacturers, Danish windmill manufacturers, Elon Musk, HS2 consultants and lawyers, and bankers lending money on unaffordable houses.
-
2 parents 4 grand parents to look after from one worker, and possibly 2 children to support. Between a couple that is 16 people from 2 workers.
What is the retirement age in China? Assuming the worker is aged 20 - 60, it is unlikely that he will be supporting all four of his own grandparents (don't they have contributory pensions in China?). AFAIK it takes a male and a female to make a child and assuming that 20-60 year old females work, that is only one child per worker, not 2. So at the most, each worker will be supporting himself and maybe 1 - 2 others, not 16. If he has more children, he will be supporting more, not fewer, people.
it is a worst case scenario, but a good illumination. 2 (2 child policy now) young children, parents about 40 (women leaving childbearing later) and you can make the rest up yourself, births at age 16 age 20 and 30.
One child per worker, themselves and their ancestors=8, multiplied by 2 for a family unit = 16At present it is the flip side with 4 grandparents and 2 parents looking after 1 child
So which is true: do you need the child to look after his elders (unlikely) or are the elders supporting the child (pretty obviously)? Why would that change?
It didn't change? but an increacing birth rate economists love, even if it means that the living standard is poor, more people to labour even if the gdp per capita fails to increace, but economists would also like the pensions to come with mandatory cyanide pills.
-
increacing birth rate economists love
Because it means increased demand for decreasing resources, hence more money circulates, so the bankers who employ the economists are happy and everyone else suffers. The only other people who benefit from an increasing population are the sexual perverts who trade in religion: more suffering leads to more people praying for an end to suffering, or blaming members of the other religions for their fate, hence war and profit for the parasites.
"More workers" isn't a Good Thing. One of the most interesting job interviews I attended was at a Mars confectionery factory. My interviewer, the chief production engineer, said "There are 600 people working here. Our job is to reduce that to 10 whilst maintaining output." "More consumers", however, is very desirable - unless you are worried about CO2 emissions and resource depletion.
-
Many people think progress can be quite profitable.
So far, the profits seem to be going to Chinese solar panel, battery and nuclear reactor manufacturers, Danish windmill manufacturers, Elon Musk, HS2 consultants and lawyers, and bankers lending money on unaffordable houses.
And if our government wasn't still focussed on oil drilling and coal mines, maybe we could get a share of that profit too.
-
But you need coal and oil to make solar panels, batteries, nuclear reactors, windmills, cars, railways and houses! There isn't enough reliable wind to make and process cement, steel, lithium or copper.
And governments don't determine investment - they only permit or prohibit it.
-
And governments don't determine investment - they only permit or prohibit it.
or subsidise it, or tax it, or fund it.
-
Direct funding is rare except for weapons, and where a public service such as a railway company fails.
Subsidy was pretty much ruled out, first by Thatcher then by adherence to EU rules (which didn't apply in other countries, of course), and is now mostly limited to tax breaks on very early investment (EIS and venture capital) or bribes to foreign companies. Subsidising actual production of anything is anathema, unless the prospective factory owner happens to be related to the relevant Minister, whereupon planning restrictions magically disappear and "no contest" contracts are awarded In the Public Interest.
-
Direct funding is rare except for weapons, and where a public service such as a railway company fails.
Subsidy was pretty much ruled out, first by Thatcher then by adherence to EU rules (which didn't apply in other countries, of course), and is now mostly limited to tax breaks on very early investment (EIS and venture capital) or bribes to foreign companies. Subsidising actual production of anything is anathema, unless the prospective factory owner happens to be related to the relevant Minister, whereupon planning restrictions magically disappear and "no contest" contracts are awarded In the Public Interest.
By which (possibly unique) criterion the Chinese government is better than ours.
But it's not as if either of us think much of our government.
A competent government could actually achieve something.
Even the French manage to sell us nuclear electricity.
-
Competent and government? hmm, I thought they were mutually exclusive.
-
Even the French manage to sell us nuclear electricity.
Because the rules don't apply in France.
Electricite de France S.A. (literally Electricity of France), commonly known as EDF, is a French multinational electric utility company owned by the French state.
Likewise Statoil (now Equinor) the Norwegian state-owned fossil fuel company that invests its profits in renewables, Deutsche Bahn (ridiculously cheap fares, pay disputes all settled nationally rather than with 28 different companies...) and so forth.
Maggie casts a long shadow, and her successors seem bent on further destruction.
-
Maggie casts a long shadow, and her successors seem bent on further destruction.
What I cannot understand about Margaret thatcher is that she I held up as something to aspire too. Just last year Liz Truss was espousing her similarities to the late Baroness. As prime minister Ms Thatcher sold stuff for money to fund tax cuts that led to inflation and crash crippling the economy, the late 80s and early 90 are thatchers testament. Why is she held in such high regard?
-
Why is she held in such high regard?
The people who elect Tory Prime Ministers (which includes most media proprietors and the Director of the BBC) made a lot of money. Nobody else's opinion matters or is ever heard. For heaven's sake, man, who do you think runs this country and tells you what is good for you?
-
Why is she held in such high regard?
The people who elect Tory Prime Ministers (which includes most media proprietors and the Director of the BBC) made a lot of money. Nobody else's opinion matters or is ever heard. For heaven's sake, man, who do you think runs this country and tells you what is good for you?
But that is a minority, masses of people look at Margaret thatcher with misty eyed patriotism. Another mass look at her with distane. But for my generation, a measured summation of her reign is that she was crap.
-
Just last year Liz Truss was espousing her similarities to the late Baroness
You seem to be expecting rationality from Truss.
Why?
-
masses of people look at Margaret thatcher with misty eyed patriotism.
Machiavelli pointed this out many years ago. The best way to ensure your popularity is to start a war. Thatcher was good at picking enemies she could defeat, and was lucky with both Scargill (who had made the error of not holding a legal strike ballot, and thereby losing some of his own supporters) ) and Galtieri (who was also unpopular and needed a war).
B Liar tried the same tactic but failed because his declared casus belli was of no interest to the UK electorate, even if it had been true.
Hitler, Putin, Trump....patriotism has nothing to do with the competence of the top parasite.
-
But that is a minority, masses of people look at Margaret thatcher with misty eyed patriotism.
The majority recognise Thatcher as a vandal.
-
You are drifting off the point that population explosion is responsible for increased CO2 emissions.
So to solve economic immigrates over running us we need action in the countries that are causing the increase.
Why should the politicians be blamed for parents having too many children?? Well firstly they should explain to parents that they should only have the number of children that they can afford to find a job for and even build a house each for them. No one should be allowed to abandon their children just because they are 18 and grown up.
Most of Africa, South Asia and south/central America have a problem of teenager unrest with no jobs or work blaming politicians for not expanding their economy quickly enough. But it is their own parents that are to blame.
Politicians should however, insist that foreign donations will not undermine their economies which is happening in Africa where farmers cannot compete with free food aid that is dumped on them by mechanised nations with grain mountains to get rid of.
Further third world politicians should insist that the free maize is treated with a contraceptive to avoid pregnancies in refugee camps which is making their problem worse.
-
Further third world politicians should insist that the free maize is treated with a contraceptive to avoid pregnancies in refugee camps which is making their problem worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-
You are drifting off the point that population explosion is responsible for increased CO2 emissions.
It's certainly responsible for increasing anthropogenic CO2, but I don't think CO2 is the driver of climate change.
IMHO climate change is as inevitable now as it always has been. We just happen to be reaching the end of a period during which the planet was able to sustain a huge increase in human population and an enormous increase in the per capita consumption of resources which itself led to an increase in human longevity. Problem is that for the foreseeable future the climate will not permit such luxury for so many people, so we will have to reduce the number of people voluntarily to an indefinitely sustainable level before nature imposes mass famine on our descendants.
As with all scientific advances, it's a good idea to carry out a "tech scale" trial to explore and encourage major investment in a novel process, and the British Isles is an ideal pilot plant, being effectively isolated from every other part of the world. Whether anyone else follows is up to them.
-
I don't think CO2 is the driver of climate change.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You are drifting off the point that population explosion is responsible for increased CO2 emissions.
Not necessarily just yet, Chinas population is decreasing, yet its co2 emissions are increacing rapidly, *many times what it was at their peak population, even if we deduct the co2 that is used for export of goods, it is still more.
*it will be
-
Energy independence, preserve rainforests, etc., are all desiderata sui generarum, precisely because climate change is inevitable - they won't prevent it.
-
Energy independence, preserve rainforests, etc., are all desiderata sui generarum, precisely because climate change is inevitable - they won't prevent it.
Alan, I'm sure you are capable of being equally unclear in English.
-
Desirable on their own account, without external reference.
It's a good idea to live in a clean and tidy world, and bequeath an indefinitely sustainable infrastructure to your descendants. As the climate becomes increasingly inimical to human life, the few survivors will be grateful for your foresight in preserving the best aspects of civilisation.
You can't stop the train, but you can get off the track.
-
As the climate becomes increasingly inimical to human life, the few survivors will be grateful for your foresight in preserving the best aspects of civilisation.
And if they see that we failed to even try to stop making it worse, they will despise our generation for eternity.
-
All the actions on the "climate hoax" screen are worth doing, as I said earlier, and will indeed reduce CO2 emissions. The problem arises when you (or more likely your grandchildren) discover that they haven't halted climate change and you still have too many people to feed, but no longer have the technology to increase production or clean up the sewage.
It would therefore seem logical to pursue a zero-cost demonstration of damage mitigation whilst doing whatever the Faithful think might influence the laws of geophysics.
-
Chris Packham seems to want us to demonstrate about the abandonment of unobtainable targets in the reductions of CO2 emissions .
He appeared not to have understood that we cannot ban oil without replacing its versatile energy with some other form of energy source.
Renewable wind and solar are not sufficient to power our electric grid 24/7. We should certainly consider starting to rehabilitate our existing and closed nuclear power stations.
Development of electric vehicles for inner city use is advancing well but motorway vehicles will realistically remain hybrid and continue to use diesel and petrol as their exhaust gases can be absorbed by roadside green vegetation which will photosynthesise the CO2 and produce oxygen for us or our animals to breath.
-
motorway vehicles will realistically remain hybrid and continue to use diesel and petrol as their exhaust gases can be absorbed by roadside green vegetation which will photosynthesise the CO2 and produce oxygen for us or our animals to breath.
How wide do the green verges need to be to achieve that goal?
-
The problem with hybrid petrol and diesel vehicles is that they generally emit as much CO2 per ton-mile of payload as nonhybrids. The small gain from regenerative braking is offset by the additional mass of the battery. The original purpose of hybrids was to reduce inner-city pollution by running electric at low speeds and using the battery to boost acceleration, to meet California standards, but they offer no advantage on motorways and just cost more - and their manufacture involves more CO2 emission than a nonhybrid. Great for taxis and delivery vans, but pure electric or hydrogen is much better.
-
The problem with hybrid petrol and diesel vehicles is that they generally emit as much CO2 per ton-mile of payload as nonhybrids. The small gain from regenerative braking is offset by the additional mass of the battery. The original purpose of hybrids was to reduce inner-city pollution by running electric at low speeds and using the battery to boost acceleration, to meet California standards, but they offer no advantage on motorways and just cost more - and their manufacture involves more CO2 emission than a nonhybrid. Great for taxis and delivery vans, but pure electric or hydrogen is much better.
They also wear tyres, roads and themselves faster due to their weight.
-
Transport of add types will always require a fuel to energise it. Our objective is to get clean fuel at minimum cost.
So IMHO we have sensibly agreed to open a coal mine and now to resume exploiting oil in the north sea all of which will bring jobs for our children and save foreign currency.
It is a shame that the Welsh coal mines and power stations are not still operating or that Port Talbot steel works cannot also be brought back on line
Number one priority however, is to get the nuclear plants built to drive the base load of 20 GW or so all of which gives our kids more work and assists industry to expand economically.
Population explosion caused CO2 emissions to rise and drives global warming but using clean fuels help us all.
-
Population explosion caused CO2 emissions to rise and drives global warming but using clean fuels help us all.
Not necesarry as I said China has a falling population but it's co2 is rising as they seek western lifestyle standards, co2 per person if you subtract shipping and manufacture of western goods from China is still beneath that of the UK, even though China is mostly coal powered.
-
It is doubtful whether nuclear power is still affordable. Back in the 1950s and 60s the energy breakeven period for a nuke was between 5 and 10 years - beyond the horizon for private investment but a sensible investment of cheap fuel and political capital for a government.
Privatisation of electricity supply, and the increased cost (in "real" terms) of every aspect of building and decommissioning a nuclear power station, plus the complete absence of cost control in major public works and the steadily decreasing cost of electricity on the days when the wind blows, means that you will just be burning fossil fuel (to make concrete , steel, and all the other stuff you need for a nuclear reactor) with no likelihood of ever generating more energy or money than you spent on the project. Better to use it for road and air transport until the hydrogen grid is built.
-
Our objective is to get clean fuel
we have sensibly agreed to open a coal mine and now to resume exploiting oil
Do you know what "clean" means?
-
It means whatever the seller wants it to mean. Like every other adjective in politics and economics.
-
. Better to use it for road and air transport until the hydrogen grid is built.
We used to have.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas
-
My point precisely. The change to methane hasn't diminished the grid's capability to handle pure hydrogen, and the change was managed very efficiently in regional sectors thanks to it being a nationalised utility at the time, so no scientific reason for not changing back.
It will of course need investment in gas storage to replace the LPG farms (but that technology is well-established) and electrolysis plant (plenty of commercial suppliers available). Less efficient conversion of wind to useful power than batteries, admittedly, but vastly more flexible, no need to replace all domestic and industrial boilers and furnaces - just change the burner jets - and much better power to weight ratio and recharge times for surface vehicles and aircraft.
-
My point precisely. The change to methane hasn't diminished the grid's capability to handle pure hydrogen, and the change was managed very efficiently in regional sectors thanks to it being a nationalised utility at the time, so no scientific reason for not changing back.
It will of course need investment in gas storage to replace the LPG farms (but that technology is well-established) and electrolysis plant (plenty of commercial suppliers available). Less efficient conversion of wind to useful power than batteries, admittedly, but vastly more flexible, no need to replace all domestic and industrial boilers and furnaces - just change the burner jets - and much better power to weight ratio and recharge times for surface vehicles and aircraft.
Surely the order of hydrogen conversion is houses first, half of all Uk energy use is natural gas at present. I don't think that steel is going to be a big factor, given we don't really produce any, but maybe we could produce green steel at a lower price than coke and grow an industry that way.
-
Green steel my anal orifice. The wind drops, the furnace switches off, and another week's production doesn't go down the drain - or anywhere. Quality control? You jest. Likewise green cement.
It's actually easier per kilowatt to convert industrial users (the other half of the UK consumption of LPG) because there are fewer, bigger burners, everyone knows where they are, and you can plan the replacement with a reasonable certainty that someone will be there on the day and let you in to do the work. The problem arises if a factory is on the same grid branch as Mrs Jones who doesn't hold with this newfangled hydrogen stuff, so the day after you convert Smith's Garage, Mrs Jones's kitchen blows up - or worse, the kettle won't boil*
*the Blitz spirit. "House demolished? Have a nice cup of tea, dear."
-
Green steel
Produced using hydrogen gas, if you have a ready supply, no c02, I mean we could have half the world asking their governments to buy it over coked steel because of climate change.
-
But, to misquote Mrs Beeton, first make your hydrogen. Our ridiculous government is now giving your money to a bunch of foreigners to make "green steel" in Wales by adding fairy dust to the ore that has been mined by non-carbon-emitting elves.
-
But, to misquote Mrs Beeton, first make your hydrogen. Our ridiculous government is now giving your money to a bunch of foreigners to make "green steel" in Wales by adding fairy dust to the ore that has been mined by non-carbon-emitting elves.
I see. That is rubbish of course, green steel does not produce steel, merley recycle it. It's so big in Scandinavia because they are virtually all powered by very low cost hydro electric, along with their heating, electric cars are also big business due to the high oil price. If I lived in Norway I'd have an electric car too, the pay back date is about 10 years.
-
But, to misquote Mrs Beeton, first make your hydrogen. Our ridiculous government is now giving your money to a bunch of foreigners to make "green steel" in Wales by adding fairy dust to the ore that has been mined by non-carbon-emitting elves.
I see. That sort of green steel is a misconception of course, that steel does not produce steel, merley recycle it. It's so big in Scandinavia because they are virtually all powered by very low cost hydro electric, along with their heating, electric cars are also big business due to the high oil price. If I lived in Norway I'd have an electric car too, the pay back date is about 10 years.
-
Hydroelectricity and in a few rare cases geothermal are the only industrially useful renewables available at present. Unlike solar, wind or tidal power they are available in the required quantity at a fixed cost 24/7. Problem is that you need seriously big mountains or dangerously unstable tectonics, which are absent from the UK.
That said, 10 years is a long time in terms of car life, and vehicle batteries degrade with use or non-use. But it is fun to drive up a Norwegian mountain in an electric vehicle and avoid all that gear changing!
-
Green hydrogen is only produced by pure electrolysis but the gas cannot be liquified without extremely expensive cooling and pressurising. To use hydrogen fuel in a car is nonsense as the source of electric fuel is a battery so why not just drive the motor/wheels directly.
To liquify hydrogen we normally combine it with carbon and hydrocarbon is of course diesel or refined into petrol and produces water and CO2.
Alternatively, we could press the hydrogen into nitrogen and make costly ammonia NH3 but only 50% concentrated or it becomes unstable/explosive. Another alternative is hydrogen peroxide but even a concentration of 10% could be dangerously explosive on hot summer days.
Hydrogen gas is therefore not really suitable as a fuel unless you have a surplus of electric hydro or geothermal power as already established by other posts and have no batteries to charge and store the energy.
For the grid; nuclear is the best low carbon fuel option but population explosion is the real cause of the extra CO2 in the air and climate change.
-
Ammonia liquefies at-33c or by modest pressure and is completely stable as a liquid. Hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizer and not a fuel.
-
Hydrogen gas is therefore not really suitable as a fuel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas
-
Sadly, nuclear is not a low-carbon fuel! The quantity of fossil fuel required to build a nuclear power station is such that the energy payback period is around 10 - 20 years, with a probable life to major overhaul of 25 years. It made sense to build nukes in the 1960s when diesel was cheap, but no longer.
Hydrogen is so unsuitable as a fuel that you can already buy hydrogen-powered trucks and trains - ideal for the present market as they run between fixed depots: we need a better distribution grid to service cars and vans, but it's entirely feasible, and several local authorities already use hydrogen vans.
Liquid hydrogen is good for rockets, but current technology for surface transport uses 150 bar gas tanks. Work is ongoing to certify 300 bar tanks for road use. At more than 10 times the energy density of a battery, a hydrogen tank and fuel cell is the ideal power source for a car.
-
A fuel cell is also around twice as efficient, meaning half the fuelneeded. But as for the infrastructure needed for hydrogen vehicles it is a tough one. Given that in the future over half of vehicles will be driverless I can imagine their will be an all together different version of the horseless carriage.
-
the infrastructure needed for hydrogen vehicles it is a tough one.
It already exists. The primary gas grid, which used to carry 50% hydrogen, now carries methane at 150 bar. No problem in principle switching to 100% hydrogen.
Because you can refuel a hydrogen vehicle in pretty much the same time as a diesel, you don't need to dig up all the roads and install ten million recharging points, just gradually replace garage pumps or build new refuelling stations at convenient points where the primary grid runs near a road.
-
the infrastructure needed for hydrogen vehicles it is a tough one.
It already exists. The primary gas grid, which used to carry 50% hydrogen, now carries methane at 150 bar. No problem in principle switching to 100% hydrogen.
Because you can refuel a hydrogen vehicle in pretty much the same time as a diesel, you don't need to dig up all the roads and install ten million recharging points, just gradually replace garage pumps or build new refuelling stations at convenient points where the primary grid runs near a road.
Are you sure of this? I do not remember my gasometer being 150 or 300 bar rated, nor does it shoot out of my cooker at such a rate, my petrol station also has these tankers arrive so I do not think it has piped fuel at present. Also my petrol station is not sealed against atmospheric interaction, you just sort of stick a hose in the car.
-
The primary gas grid, which used to carry 50% hydrogen, now carries methane at 150 bar. No problem in principle switching to 100% hydrogen.
It's currently busy carrying methane.
Switching would require a changeover comparable with the switch to North Sea Gas in the 70s.
OK we did that; but Gas was under state ownership and there were fewer houses and fewer appliances.
It's not going to be trivial.
BTW would someone tell the ignoramus PC that he's not connected to the 150 bar gas grid in much the same way that he's not connected to the 132KV electricity grid.
-
Not a trivial exercise, but then neither is the exhaustion of fossil fuel, trebling the electricity grid capacity, installing 5 days' electricity storage capacity, ripping up the roads to install charging points, replacing all vehicles with BEVs, replacing all the gas boilers with heat pumps, replacing all domestic gas cookers with electric ones, and converting the whole of industry to whatever electrical machinery can melt steel and fire ceramics.
In comparison, undoing the 1960's gas conversion exercise district-by-district and ending up with a wholly sustainable energy supply looks like a doddle. In fact there aren't all that many new gas appliances compared with say 1966 - previously many homes had several gas fires and possibly two wallmounted water heaters: almost all new and refurbished stock has a single boiler.
All it takes is a competent government - the alternative being civil war.
-
Also my petrol station is not sealed against atmospheric interaction, you just sort of stick a hose in the car.
Worth looking at existing LPG pumps (there are quite a few at garages) and hydrogen dispensers. The nozzle makes a gastight seal to the vehicle, and unlike LPG, the hydrogen filler doesn't accumulate ice as you fill!.
Whilst garages don't generally have piped supplies of liquid fuel, all major airports do - there is a JETA1 grid that AFAIK also supplies the military.
-
Also my petrol station is not sealed against atmospheric interaction, you just sort of stick a hose in the car.
Worth looking at existing LPG pumps (there are quite a few at garages) and hydrogen dispensers. The nozzle makes a gastight seal to the vehicle, and unlike LPG, the hydrogen filler doesn't accumulate ice as you fill!.
Whilst garages don't generally have piped supplies of liquid fuel, all major airports do - there is a JETA1 grid that AFAIK also supplies the military.
I have seen the hydrogen dispensers, about the size of a shipping container, butane is known to be more easy to handle than propane, plastic containers of butane with flint* on top are in the pockets of smokers world wide, hydrogen under pressure is a quite different story. Don't forget that lpg is so appealing because it is not under the same tax rates as oil, I doubt it would compete without that.
*ferrocerium
-
LPG doesn't attract the same tax rate per liter as oil, but has a rather lower energy density and its combustion in an IC engine is less efficient than gasoline or diesel so in terms of cost per mile it isn't all that economical. And tax rates are based on politics, not physics, so have no rational basis. Butane is a poor road fuel because it has a very low vapor pressure at ambient temperatures: propane is a lot easier to control.
The current hydrogen road fuel dispensers are very large because there are no (or very few) underground tanks. The 150 bar tank on a small car (which gives you about 300 miles of range) is about the size of the conventional gasoline (400 mile) tank.
-
whatever electrical machinery can melt steel
"The German-born British inventor Sir William Siemens first demonstrated the arc furnace in 1879 at the Paris Exposition by melting iron in crucibles. "
From
https://www.britannica.com/technology/electric-furnace
Whilst garages don't generally have piped supplies of liquid fuel, all major airports do
I'm a long way from convinced about hydrogen powered planes.
-
Lpg has a density lower in volume but higher for mass, one would imagine that it would be ideal for jet engines, clean burning easily mixed, but for some reason it inst used, perhaps it's those 4 bar pressure vessel's weight
https://www.gasproducts.co.uk/gas-regulators/propane-gas-regulators-high-pressure/reca-912-0-5-4-bar-high-pressure-propane-gas-regulator.html
-
The green hydrogen fuel has to be made by electrolysis of water at say 15p per kWh. Then the gas has to be pressurised to 150 bar and shipped to a new fuel depot which might add possibly a cost of 30p per unit which in terms of physics is possible but the economics is suspect..
Rehab old nuclear stations with mini nuclear units enclosed underneath a lake full of water. Safer than a submarine and no huge concrete structures to waste health and safety money on.
But climate change is caused by high CO2 in the air which is caused by the demands of increases in world population.
Look at Cox's Bazaar, it had 700,000 Rohingya refugees in 2017 fleeing Myanmar but now has over a million with kids/teenagers with no jobs and no hope of improvement in the future unless they can escape from this frustrating camp poverty.
Who is responsible for this unsustainable 20% increase in the population in refugee camps but those who think they are doing the right Christian thing by feeding the poor?.
But understand this, free grain will undercut any local farmers production and stop locals refugees kids having jobs. Grain mountains rise in the west who have a months of supply in hand in case the harvest fails next year. But when the new harvest is good and arriving at their grain silos the old must be disposed of; so why not give it to a NGO or UN? what better way of losing it? This can only sensibly be corrected by getting the UN to acknowledge the problem and advise NGO's to treat free food aid with a contraceptive before passing it on. Not treating free food is causing climate change due to population increase and much serious poverty in any and all refugee camps.
-
treat free food aid with a contraceptive before passing it on.
Do you think that will become acceptable if you say it often enough?
-
I'm a long way from convinced about hydrogen powered planes.
The hydrogen-powered Tu-155 prototype made its first flight on 15 April 1988.
The technical problems have been solved by several manufacturers including Boeing and Airbus, who expect to have production aircraft for sale by 2035, but the problem of fuel distribution is more significant than for land vehicles. Piston engine planes rarely fly intercontinental nowadays because AVGAS is hard to come by but JETA1 is widely available, and in consequence there is a lot of interest (but sadly not much success) in small aero diesels which can run on jet fuel. A significant part of the takeoff weight of an airliner is fuel*, so you plan to arrive almost empty. No problem if you only have a single route, like hydrogen trains, trucks and buses, but the economics of airlines are deviating away from 747s and A380s, which need specialised ground handling, towards 737/A320 and smaller ships that can "fill and go" from almost any municipal airstrip.
So the likelihood is that hydrogen aircraft will enter the market from the bottom, with small trainers and commuter planes using fuel cells rather than batteries (we already have battery-powered trainers with 1-hour endurance and a battery swap for the next pupil), long before hydrogen jets run scheduled flights.
*obviously less of a problem with hydrogen, with 3 times the gravimetric energy density (J/kg) of kerosene, but with only half of the volumetric energy density (J/ltr) you have to sacrifice loadspace for fuel tanks.
-
Lpg has a density lower in volume but higher for mass, one would imagine that it would be ideal for jet engines,
See reply #182 above. Same economic problem - there's plenty of JETA1 available everywhere - and no less CO2 emission than any other fossil fuel.
-
The green hydrogen fuel has to be made by electrolysis of water at say 15p per kWh.
You can actually be paid to take electricity. Lpg has a density lower in volume but higher for mass, one would imagine that it would be ideal for jet engines,
See reply #182 above. Same economic problem - there's plenty of JETA1 available everywhere - and no less CO2 emission than any other fossil fuel.
Yes but it is lighter, . A significant part of the takeoff weight of an airliner is fuel*, so you plan to arrive almost empty.
Given 747s are being retired for 777s because of the increaced efficiency one would think that anything lighter would be sized upon?
-
Quote from: alancalverd . Same economic problem - there's plenty of JETA1 available everywhere - and no less CO2 emission than any other fossil fuel.
Yes but it is lighter,
Not a lot. Similar problem to hydrogen - slightly higher energy per unit mass, but lower energy per unit volume,so you need to sacrfice loadspace. And again, not widely available, so only a limited number of routes can be flown.
from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:15
. A significant part of the takeoff weight of an airliner is fuel*, so you plan to arrive almost empty.
Given 747s are being retired for 777s because of the increaced efficiency one would think that anything lighter would be sized upon?
Probably the first airliner type that will be available in a hydrogen format. The extreme range that allows London-Perth in a single hop makes it the target for single-route zero-carbon flights, but I don't see hydrogen replacing liquid fuels for Ryanair/Easyjet short-haul operations (like London-Belfast-Malaga-London in a day) for a long time.
-
Not a lot. Similar problem to hydrogen - slightly higher energy per unit mass, but lower energy per unit volume,so you need to sacrfice loadspace. And again, not widely available, so only a limited number of routes can be flown.
Its10 percent lighter as per mass. Nearly there Alan, what possible reason(s) could there be for not adopting propane on board an airplane an energy saving measure? The airlines are throwing away perfectly good airframes and engines because of energy saving s of around 10 percent? A gas is even more handy as the stowage is even easier, a gas will fill the entire container it is in.
-
Its10 percent lighter as per mass. Nearly there Alan, what possible reason(s) could there be for not adopting propane on board an airplane an energy saving measure?
Because
(a) it's 30% bulkier so you need a bigger fuel tank
(b) the fuel tank needs to be pressurised, so is heavier
(c) the fuel isn't available in bulk at all municipal airports
(d) rapid refuelling with LPG involves a pressure drop across the nozzle that can precipitate ice - can be quite a problem if it's raining!
No problem building a plane to fly in clear calm skies with liquid hydrogen fuel. Sadly, you have to fly in the weather you've got, with the fuel you can buy, so you design the plane appropriately.
Not sure that anyone is throwing way perfectly good airframes. They have a certified life and at some point you need to overhaul or scrap major parts. Eventually it becomes cheaper to replace the whole ship, and a 10% reduction in fuel cost for the same journey amounts to a 2 - 5% increase in profit, which will repay the interest on the purchase loan. That said, airframes do last a long time. Some passenger-carrying 747s are over 40 years old and my little Cessna, at 50, is regarded as "a bit modern" by other spam-can aviators.
-
Safety Alan, gas has an ability to mix with air ever so easily, any leak and you have a bomb at 35000 feet, even if it doesn't bring down the plane there is a good chance a leak wil damage the control surfaces and the fuselage will be heading back to earth like a dart.
-
Safety is important but LPG and jetA1 are both hydrocarbons and will produce CO2 as a product so changing over is not helpful to climate change.
In fact climate change is due to increase in world population and not treating free aid food with a contraceptive is making the situation much worse. Look at the problem in Gaza and see what happens. They rely on free aid and are not producing their own food, most teenagers are out of work , huge unemployment being made worse by UN free aid.
To solve the problem all pro Hamas and anti Israel Palestinian's will need to be killed OR exiled 2000 miles into a Palestinian refugee camp by declaring themselves as refugees and asking the UN please to transport them 3,300 km to their new home.
-
Safety is important but LPG and jetA1 are both hydrocarbons and will produce CO2 as a product so changing over is not helpful to climate change.
In fact climate change is due to increase in world population and not treating free aid food with a contraceptive is making the situation much worse. Look at the problem in Gaza and see what happens. They rely on free aid and are not producing their own food, most teenagers are out of work , huge unemployment being made worse by UN free aid.
To solve the problem all pro Hamas and anti Israel Palestinian's will need to be killed OR exiled 2000 miles into a Palestinian refugee camp by declaring themselves as refugees and asking the UN please to transport them 3,300 km to their new home.
Are you proposing genocide?
-
No, to avoid bloodshed the Gaza city refugees need a new home and western Sahara would be ideal for them as they pride themselves as fishermen.
They will need to feed themselves and become self sufficient in every way using technical aid from everywhere but refusing free food aid unless it has been treated with a contraceptive.
This will avoid impoverishing their children and avoid the population explosion that is causing global warming. as is happening in Cox's Bazaar.
-
No, to avoid bloodshed the Gaza city refugees need a new home
What's wrong with their old home?
Oh, I remember now...
It got invaded.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
How about moving the invaders instead?
Incidentally, we really need to knock this stupidity "refusing free food aid unless it has been treated with a contraceptive." on the head once and for all.
Do you understand that children eat food?
Do you understand that the chemicals used in contraceptives would massively and permanently disrupt the development of children who ate it?
That's effectively proposing genocide again.
Just stop suggesting it- if you really think destroying them is a good idea but don't have the guts to say so explicitly, at least pretend you are a decent human and stop suggesting it implicitly.
-
No, to avoid bloodshed the Gaza city refugees need a new home and western Sahara would be ideal for them as they pride themselves as fishermen.
They will need to feed themselves and become self sufficient in every way using technical aid from everywhere but refusing free food aid unless it has been treated with a contraceptive.
This will avoid impoverishing their children and avoid the population explosion that is causing global warming. as is happening in Cox's Bazaar.
The people of western Sahara may complain. jeebus and Co where fishermen, so maybe a mission to the holy land in the name of Christianity would help?
-
gas has an ability to mix with air ever so easily,
The good thing about hydrogen is that it disperses very quickly, upwards, unlike kerosene and gasoline which hang around and stick to metal surfaces. A jet engine is a blowlamp with a turbo booster, quite unlike a fuel cell. And if your liquid fuel, be it AVGAS, JETA or LPG, didnt mix easily with air, it would be useless.
-
their
Who "they"? The area you have marked as "Palestine 1946" was delineated in 1920 by the League of Nations and contained less than a million inhabitants with no single identity of tribe or nation, practically all of whom will have died by now.
Just a couple of days ago, the land was claimed as "ours" by the UN representative of the scum who govern Iran.
-
Who "they"?
Gaza city refugees
-
And if your liquid fuel, be it AVGAS, JETA or LPG, didnt mix easily with air, it would be useless.
Yes but they are gassified prior to, it would be impossible to make a jet with a liquid, it is the necessity of premixing the fuel with the oxydiser, even ice cars achieves this to some degree depending how hot the engine is. Premixing is a blow torch, not doing so is your kitchen cooker.
-
Not getting into the current phase of this thread but I think the politics should be dropped as it will only lead to flame wars with the thread being locked, my 2cents.
-
Not getting into the current phase of this thread but I think the politics should be dropped as it will only lead to flame wars with the thread being locked, my 2cents.
I agree Paul, possibly get the politics deleted.In an attempt to subvert such posts perhaps you should start a ?Paul's big thread on the middle east" in just chat, or would it be new theories?
-
Who "they"?
Gaza city refugees
Improbable. As I said earlier, the inhabitants of the artificial territory known as Palestine in 1920 are all dead by now, not living in Gaza City.
-
it would be impossible to make a jet with a liquid,
Pity nobody ever told the folk who make and fly them. Poor benighted souls, spraying liquid kerosene into what they naively call a "combustion" chamber in the vain hope of generating thrust. I used to do the same thing with a hot-air balloon. Complete waste of liquid fuel, obviously, as it was magic fairy dust that made it fly.
-
Petro, I have no intention of doing so, as all my interests are of a scientific nature. I do however empathise with suffering people, regardless of race, anywhere on our planet.
-
Not getting into the current phase of this thread but I think the politics should be dropped as it will only lead to flame wars with the thread being locked, my 2cents.
Probably a good point
But...
Can we address the acceptability of this independently of the politics?
refusing free food aid unless it has been treated with a contraceptive.
-
it would be impossible to make a jet with a liquid,
spraying liquid kerosene into what they naively call a "combustion" chamber
Do you mean aeros hole or similar?
-
It's just a nozzle, not even as fine as a diesel injector.
-
It's just a nozzle, not even as fine as a diesel injector.
aero-sol
The term aerosol commonly refers to the particulate/air mixture, as opposed to the particulate matter alone.
-
What is sprayed in is a liquid, not an aerosol. It vaporises pretty quickly.
-
What is sprayed in is a liquid, not an aerosol. It vaporises pretty quickly.
Aero sol
-
No. Vapor is a molecular state, aerosol is a particulate or droplet state.
-
No. Vapor is a molecular state, aerosol is a particulate or droplet state.
Aerosol is a mixture, not a liquid. Vapour is not a liquid.
-
So you squirt a liquid with a flash point of around 50 degC into a combustion chamber with a flame temperature of around 2000 degC. Where is the aerosol?
-
I suspect it would be in a cloud of suspended particles in the exhaust.
-
The exhaust will be water vapour and carbon dioxide with maybe a trace of soot(very little in a modern engine, older ones were a bit dirtier) but still no aerosol.
-
The exhaust will be water vapour and carbon dioxide with maybe a trace of soot(very little in a modern engine, older ones were a bit dirtier) but still no aerosol.
Is soot in air not an aerosol? Are the petrol fumes at start up liquid in a non aerosol form, is "add blue" functionless?
-
At start up petrol(gasoline) is in the form of a spray which rapidly evaporates during compression. Adblue is urea(as in urine) and it's purpose is to react with nitrogen oxides(nasty pollutants) and reduce them to nitrogen gas. Soot may or may not be in the form of an aerosol, I don't know offhand, but the amount in a modern engine is negligible.
-
At start up petrol(gasoline) is in the form of a spray which rapidly evaporates during compression. Adblue is urea(as in urine) and it's purpose is to react with nitrogen oxides(nasty pollutants) and reduce them to nitrogen gas. Soot may or may not be in the form of an aerosol, I don't know offhand, but the amount in a modern engine is negligible.
Do tell Alan.
-
My posts related to kerosene and jet engines. Soot in the exhaust is an indication of incomplete combustion, rarely seen in modern civil aviation (when you are paying for the fuel, you want to burn it all) but I saw some impressive soot trails when the French military turned on the afterburners to intercept a wayward airliner.
-
My posts related to kerosene and jet engines.
as in the spray?
-
Seems logical.
-
The problem is global warming caused by population expansion; messing about with reducing engine emission's is off the point.
So, the UN is mostly responsible for the population expansion and resulting global warming by sending free medicine and food to refugee camps thus reducing child mortality and stopping farming so the recipients can never become a self-sufficient nation.
But, to stop the bloodshed in Gaza we must understand that Gaza is a refugee city and its inhabitants should be acknowledged as such. Those that cannot live peacefully with Israel may need to be exiled to a new refugee camp possibly in Western Sahara but at least 2,000 miles from the Israel border to avoid a catastrophic situation developing further.
-
The problem is global warming caused by population expansion; messing about with reducing engine emission's is off the point.
China is increasing it's CO2 emmissions yet its population is falling. Even if we scrubbed the lowest half of the population in terms of gdp it would barely make a dent in the worlds CO2. Africa south america and Asia excluding China have CO2 emmissions that are probably absorbed by their land mass and share of the oceans. Chinea Europe and north america generate over 2/3 of global emmissions but have less than 1/3 the populace.
-
The problem is global warming caused by population expansion; messing about with reducing engine emission's is off the point.
So, the UN is mostly responsible for the population expansion and resulting global warming by sending free medicine and food to refugee camps thus reducing child mortality and stopping farming so the recipients can never become a self-sufficient nation.
But, to stop the bloodshed in Gaza we must understand that Gaza is a refugee city and its inhabitants should be acknowledged as such. Those that cannot live peacefully with Israel may need to be exiled to a new refugee camp possibly in Western Sahara but at least 2,000 miles from the Israel border to avoid a catastrophic situation developing further.
There are about 8 billion people in the world, of whom about 2 million live in Gaza (and, realistically, that population is currently falling fast).
So that bit of your post is off topic.
Maybe a mod will be kind enough to move it to a separate thread.
-
Everyone here in Doha wants the war in Gaza stopped but do not know how this can be achieved.
A white flag surrender, armistice or Hamas capitulation which will lead to the arrest of all anti-Israel supporters and their imprisonment to face wartime crimes or mostly into voluntary exile into a UN refugee camp at least 2000 miles away from Israel in say Western Sahara. We need to stop the bloodshed and make Gaza part of Israel or part of Egypt ? It can no longer remain a separate state.
-
Everyone here in Doha
According to your profile, you are in Guildford.
But the real question is why does it matter where you are?
capitulation which will lead to the arrest of all
Why do you think it will lead to that?
In particular, why do you think it will lead to my arrest?We need to stop the bloodshed
Which side is killing the largest number of people?
Wouldn't it be better if they stopped shedding people's blood? make Gaza part of Israel
Why that way round?
Why not leave Palestine alone and make Israel part of it?
-
Until people stop imagining that they "belong" to a tribe, that priests and politicians have anyone's interest at heart than their own, that they have any right to live anywhere other than where they were born, or that the actual combatants benefit from fighting, there will be wars.
Unfortunately homo sapiens seems to become more stupid and gullible with every generation, and thanks to the efforts of terrorists and air forces, the casualties of modern warfare are mostly civilians with no interest in the casus belli or the outcome.
The war in Gaza will continue until Hamas surrenders or is eradicated. But some other scum will take their place and it will all start again, and there will be collateral casualties, for as long as religion and politics survive.
-
Until people stop imagining that they "belong" to a tribe, that priests and politicians have anyone's interest at heart than their own, that they have any right to live anywhere other than where they were born, or that the actual combatants benefit from fighting, there will be wars.
I was born on earth Alan, but my dream is to live on the moon.
it I find Israel to be a bit like an ongoing saga of who started it, frankly it isn't news it's just the status quo, it certainly isn't news for blanket coverage for over 1 month. I find the lack of coverage of Netenyahu and the rejection of his government by many Israelis and the likewise rejection of hamas by Gazans a bit of a problem when news programmes ask us to take them seriously.
There are plenty of other atrocities going on, Burma, Sudan and Isis in Africa, Syria, other political flash points such as Venezuela and the surrounding area, the looting of African recources, problems with Russia throughout conflict areas and Chinese corporate control in other countries, yet we hear nothing of this.
-
Topol said in a TV program about 50 years ago:
"If you open an atlas, Israel is about the size of Yorkshire. If you open a newspaper, it's bigger than Russia."
-
I was born on earth Alan, but my dream is to live on the moon.
A dream does not confer a right.
-
I was born on earth Alan, but my dream is to live on the moon.
A dream does not confer a right.
Noooooooooooooooo!
-
We need to stop the bloodshed
Who we? How?
The stated objective of Hamas is to destroy Israel by killing Jews.
The current objective of the IDF is to destroy Hamas, who are dug in among civilians and under hospitals.
State what resources are available to "us" and how you would deploy them to achieve your objective.
-
Israel has won the war in Gaza and Hamas need to surrender immediately.to protect their women and children.
We know from the protests in Tel Aviv that many Israelites are sympathetic towards other Arabic tribes who also are Abrahams descendants and would be willing to share Israel with them.
In fact, if the non violent Gaza and West bank residents individually each signed a peace declaration in return for full Israel citizenship, then they could vote in the next general election and who knows what could be achieved as they would no longer be second class citizens.
Those people that did not apply for citizenship would automatically become refugees and need to be exiled to a distant UN refugee camp, as they cannot stay inside Israel unless they obtain a valid visa.
-
Israel has won the war in Gaza and Hamas need to surrender immediately.to protect their women and children.
Or
Hamas has won the war in Gaza and Israel need to surrender immediately.to protect their women and children.
It's impossible to tell.
"Those people that did not apply for citizenship would automatically become refugees"
A plan to deliberately create refugees is a bad plan, isn't it?
Here's a radical idea for you.
Israel withdraws from the land which they are occupying illegally and lets the Palestinian people live in their own land.
Those people can choose their own government.
Without the persecution, the people of Palestine will no longer feel any need to support terrorists like Hamas.
What do you see as the problem with that?
On a tangentially related note, when (post 9/11) the Americans decided to bomb Afghanistan, I thought it was a foolish move.
I figured it would be better if they dropped food.
Partly because food is cheaper than laser guided high explosives.
But mainly because it would have utterly undermined the Taliban claim that "The West Hates us and we are at war with them".
In doing so, it would have robbed the terrorists of their support.
I realise it's far too late but what do you think of that plan?
-
Hamas has won the war in Gaza and Israel need to surrender immediately.to protect their women and children.
That is a nonsequitur. The stated objective of Hamas is to destroy Israel. Hamas is a club, not a state, and doesn't claim or pretend to protect anyone. Indeed hiding under "protected" structures like schools and hospitals is the very opposite of civilian protection.
Asymmetric conflict is a relatively modern phenomenon (despite a few improbable biblical accounts: Joshua, Gideon...) with particular problems, e.g. of knowing who has won. Counterinsurgency is often advertised as "surgical" but if it isn't followed up with debridement, antibiotics and remedial therapy, the infection is likely to recur.
-
In doing so, it would have robbed the terrorists of their support.
It must be remembered that the USA supplied weapons and intelligence to the Taliban when they were called Mujahadeen.
-
In doing so, it would have robbed the terrorists of their support.
It must be remembered that the USA supplied weapons and intelligence to the Taliban when they were called Mujahadeen.
True, but that was decades ago and it looks like both sides forgot about it.
The guys fighting the USSR in 1980 were probably not the guys fighting in 2001.
But, when I said their support, I meant their local support from the folks living in Afghanistan.
Those people would be swayed by food better than bombs.
-
The guys fighting the USSR in 1980 were probably not the guys fighting in 2001.
And the scum invading Israel in 2023 are not those who chose to leave in 1946.
This discussion, though quite irrelevant to the question, does highlight a very modern problem. War is generally defined as a state of armed conflict between nations or between defined groups within a nation. This was mostly the case up to and including Vietnam. Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, Hezbollah and now Hamas are not nations but private clubs run for the benefit of perverts and parasites, who declare war on nation states but do not have a defined physical center, boundary, or even a uniform. The winner of a war used to be defined as whoever has effective control of the other's capital and civil activity (at its simplest: replacing or controlling the police and civil service with infantry) at which point a formal surrender of power should end the fight. This criterion clearly can't be applied in the case of a club that has no capital and isn't in position to cede power. Hence the need for a deep purge, and if the bad boys don't have a uniform, everyone is a potential combatant or spy.
-
True, but that was decades ago and it looks like both sides forgot about it.
The guys fighting the USSR in 1980 were probably not the guys fighting in 2001
Very true, that is the trouble. Most of the mujahadeen quite liked the USA, but they where not the Islamic finatics, similarly the Iranians in the west are not the nutters running Iran.
Afghanistan was a missed opportunity after the ussr withdrawal. It is quite easy to arm a group of willing combatants who you favour against a group who you do not, that is effectivley what is happening in the Ukraine and is what happened in Israel, conversely if they are unwilling you get Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan 2021.
-
Those people that did not apply for citizenship would automatically become refugees and need to be exiled to a distant UN refugee camp, as they cannot stay inside Israel unless they obtain a valid visa.
You are aware that is illegal under international law?
-
Now we have a temporary cease fire what is required is for all Hamas fighters like the al Qassam brigade with their families and supporters to hand themselves over to the UN and declare themselves as refugees for exile to a very distant refugee camp by UN.
Those peaceful people who stay on will become citizens of the new Israel/Palestine nation and be given citizenship of the new nation of Israel with full voting rights in the upcoming Israel elections.
-
Now we have a temporary cease fire what is required is for all Hamas fighters like the al Qassam brigade with their families and supporters to hand themselves over to the UN and declare themselves as refugees for exile to a very distant refugee camp by UN.
Those peaceful people who stay on will become citizens of the new Israel/Palestine nation and be given citizenship of the new nation of Israel with full voting rights in the upcoming Israel elections.
Yes but China, population down, emissions up!
-
Due to increased prosperity -> more cars, more meat consumption, more space heating, more manufacturing industry. But more industry, more transport -> more prosperity. And why not? Is there any reason why the rest of the world should not enjoy the same standard of living as me?
-
more space heating,
Or space cooling. In Kuwait there is virtually no building without comprehensive air con. This can be countered by solar panels as the sun is often out, but these also require an energy input that is coming for the most part from Chinese powerstations burning Australian coal.
-
The more people in the world the more energy we need to produce to sustain them comfortable
The average age of residents is nearly 40 so no wonder they are so wealthy.
Gaza refugees average age is in 20's so they are extremely poor in comparison
UN free food/medicine is necessary but is ruining their economy and job opportunities ..
-
The more people in the world the more energy we need to produce to sustain them comfortable
The average age of residents in Kuwait is nearly 40 so no wonder they are so wealthy.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/kuwait-population/
Gaza refugees average age is in 20's so they are extremely poor in comparison
UN free food/medicine is necessary but is ruining their economy and job opportunities ..
-
It isn't immediately clear why wealth is related to age, but you have hinted at the important point that in most western societies, the under-20's do not contribute to the economy, which is why reducing the birthrate is the best way to respond to climate change.
There is a minor complicating factor in that Kuwait has lots of oil and Gaza has no significant natural resources.
-
The more people in the world the more energy we need to produce to sustain them comfortable
You are missing the point.
https://ourworldindata.org/worlds-energy-problem
-
Beg to differ! The point is that people generally aspire to something like a Western standard of living, with clean water on tap, adequate food safely stored and distributed, easy personal transport over significant distances, and control over indoor ambient temperature.
To achieve this in a fertile, temperate place like the British Isles requires an average of 5 kW of "artificial" energy per capita. You might get away with a bit less in some subtropical coastal regions (say the north Mediterranean) but anywhere more continental, more polar, or more equatorial, demands up to twice that amount (see the date for Singapore - high rise buildings in a hot, humid environment need a lot of aircon).
Problem is that
(a) we cannot produce 400 GW sustainably in these windy islands
(b) even if you could generate an average of 5 kW per capita in the places where most people live, there is no storage and distribution infrastructure, industrial or transport powerplant for anything other than liquid fuels or coal.
But we can control the number of capitas that demand the power. By simply reducing births to one per female, you reduce the population by a factor of 5 in 100 years and everyone is better off.
-
Alan, I think you know by now that I agree 100% with your analysis re population. The problem I see is getting sufficient buy-in for such reduction measures, especially from the female of the species. China tried the one child policy which had mixed results, however being such an authoritarian regime it was relatively simple to decree but it led to abuses. In a free country it is much more difficult as a large cohort of females will value a bunch of sprogs above monetary gains.
-
There's a huge difference between compulsion and persuasion. To implement the policy in the UK, we simply pay every woman UKP500 (why no sterling pound sign on this site?) every 6 months if she isn't pregnant, and abolish all child benefits. UKP1000 per year for doing nothing seems like a good offer to any teenager and 20 years of selfimposed poverty seems like an unacceptable alternative.
The Chinese experiment was confounded by an underlying cultural preference for male children,. which led to all sorts of infanticides and hidden children.
Whether anyone else follows suit is up to them, but the advantages should be obvious. It didn't take any persuasion to get the rest of the world to adopt the steam engine, jet engine, penicillin, pneumatic tyre, worldwide web......
There's no great hurry. The climate will become unacceptable for most folk within the next 100 - 500 years, but a significant reduction of population will at least mitigate the harm for our successors and in most cases will lead to a sustainable economy that is not entirely beholden to foreign scum.
-
we simply ... and abolish all child benefits.
In anything like a democracy, that's not going to be simple is it?
You seem to have forgotten that children already exist.
-
We no longer have a recognisable democracy in the UK, just a series of unelected presidents. As long as you can sell your policy to the Daily Mail and Telegraph, or just the 80,000 people who select the next president, it will become law.
Only an idiot (or a Tory government) would abolish benefits for people who already exist.
In the unlikely event of any alternative government being formed, they would simply introduce the non-pregnancy payment, and abolish benefits for any child born more than 21 months later.
I pointed out in another thread the obvious fact that the people who will suffer most from climate change aren't born yet. So why make more of them than could live comfortably?
-
Yes, I certainly support your idea Alan. Financial incentive to reduce over population is ideal for the UK.
But, Gaza and Cox's Bazaar refugee camps demonstrate the real problem that over population can cause and although I originally blamed the UN for unfortunately making the problem worse; it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.
All refugees of course are free to grow or buy their own food if they want a family; so we are not denying them their rights.
-
It is not ethical to force medication on anyone, regardless of motive.
-
it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.
And again...
Is ACS too stupid to realise that many refugees are children.
Why does he want to poison these children?
How many times does he have to say it before he gets banned?
-
Yes, I certainly support your idea Alan. Financial incentive to reduce over population is ideal for the UK.
But, Gaza and Cox's Bazaar refugee camps demonstrate the real problem that over population can cause and although I originally blamed the UN for unfortunately making the problem worse; it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.
All refugees of course are free to grow or buy their own food if they want a family; so we are not denying them their rights.
But israel has an ever increasing population, plus I imagine that those in gaza and the west bank have the lowest emmisssions, if some of the Jewish population emigrated the carbon footprint would be far lower. Again I must bring your attention to China, population down and emmissions up.
-
I'm never in favor of compulsion, and certainly not enforced medication. Not sure I'd call contraceptives poison, but female contraceptives have an embarrassing effect on males, and male contraceptives apparently increase the toxic effects of alcohol, so that's a no-no too.
My plan is to lead by example, and if nobody else follows, that's not my problem.
Other problems can be solved by a worldwide ban on religion. It's something humanity has been crying out for, for at least 2000 years, and would be as beneficial as eliminating malaria, at much less cost.
-
"I'm never in favour of compulsion, and certainly not enforced medication.". Exactly correct. But think about the women in the Sahara desert living on the edge. They have no money or even chemists to go and get free contraceptives from.
Surely these ladies should have the human right to avoid becoming pregnant; many of whom have 4 children by the time they are 20 years old. These children are doomed to poverty and likely become refugees looking to UN to feed and relocate them.
The UN Security Council must take action to reduce the problem of refugees and limits the effects of climate change
-
Not sure I'd call contraceptives poison, but female contraceptives have an embarrassing effect on males,
Children are more susceptible and eat more in proportion to their weight.
In that scenario, I'd call them poisonous.
-
"I'm never in favour of compulsion, and certainly not enforced medication.". Exactly correct. But think about the women in the Sahara desert living on the edge. They have no money or even chemists to go and get free contraceptives from.
That's grounds to provide contraception to those women in the Sahara.
It's not a reason to force it on children in a refugee camp, is it?
So, why did you repeatedly suggest that?
-
I suppose the democratic thing to do is to ask the ladies of the Sahara for their opinion on what would be best for them.
Do they want lots of hungry children ?
Or just a few well fed healthy children?
-
I suppose the democratic thing to do is to ask the ladies of the Sahara for their opinion on what would be best for them.
Do they want lots of hungry children ?
Or just a few well fed healthy children?
Well, you can ask..
If you find any who want their children damaged by overexposure to synthetic hormones while they are babies and children, then you have got the people who agree with your policy here.
They will need to feed themselves and become self sufficient in every way using technical aid from everywhere but refusing free food aid unless it has been treated with a contraceptive.
it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.
-
The problem is that in many parts of the world, nobody asks women what they want, and democracy is a dirty word. God has spoken and all must obey. And you have no right to criticise or interfere with anyone else's culture and traditions - that's imperialism.
So all we can do is demonstrate how to make the next few centuries survivable for our descendants, and hope that the rest of the world will learn from our example rather than starve and boil their own.
-
We all want to stop the war and there are protests in many western nations but both sides are Abrahams children .
But if Israel insists that the nations that protest must accept their fair share of Gaza refugees. What then??
Think of Indian and China; will they get UN aid or are we just moving the problem of over population in self sustaining refugee camps somewhere else?
-
We all want to stop the war
Who we? Some of us want Israel to win the current round, some want a ceasefire so Hamas can regroup and continue its mission to destroy Israel.
It will never end until people stop listening to priests and politicians, who make their living out of conflict.
-
win the current round
Contradictory. Repetition. Self defeating.
-
We all want to stop the war and there are protests in many western nations but both sides are Abrahams children .
But if Israel insists that the nations that protest must accept their fair share of Gaza refugees. What then??
Think of Indian and China; will they get UN aid or are we just moving the problem of over population in self sustaining refugee camps somewhere else?
Why would there be refugees from Gaza?
-
win the current round
Contradictory. Repetition. Self defeating.
Essentially repetitious, because there's always money to be made from Hamas, but winning one round can make life in Israel more pleasant for a while, so not selfdefeating.
-
can make life in Israel more pleasant for a while, so not selfdefeating
Until this generation of children grow to be old enough to join hamas, and ruin the peace again?
I would awfully like to see this thread split now, it was about population and resources. 15 percent of the population use something like 50 percent of all resources and the world cannot even sustain this rate of depletion. If everyone on earth had a western standard of living, the population would need to be 1.5 billion for it to be sustainable, co2 is just one factor and a factor that would cease to be considered a problem if the population declined to the mentioned level.
-
Until this generation of children grow to be old enough to join hamas, and ruin the peace again?
Yes. This nonsense has been going on for about 6000 years, and will continue for as long as politics and religion are tolerated.
-
If everyone on earth had a western standard of living, the population would need to be 1.5 billion for it to be sustainable, co2 is just one factor and a factor that would cease to be considered a problem if the population declined to the mentioned level.
That is too true, too obvious, and too simple, for anyone to do anything about it. Too many careers depend on promoting the inevitable disaster.
-
If everyone on earth had a western standard of living, the population would need to be 1.5 billion for it to be sustainable, co2 is just one factor and a factor that would cease to be considered a problem if the population declined to the mentioned level.
That is too true, too obvious, and too simple, for anyone to do anything about it. Too many careers depend on promoting the inevitable disaster.
Moaning about CO2 seems like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
-
Just watched Aljazeera Bottom line on Gaza conflict and you should to.
They do not see a solution with existing Israel PM but fail to realise that Gaza is a refugee city and can no longer be ruled by Hamas but only by Israel as a province with full voting rights...
All Hamas supporters must be immediately exiled anywhere 2000 km from Israel by Saudi Arabia or Iran asap.
Not the UN so who would you choose????
-
How would you define and identify a Hamas supporter? Do they wear team colors?
If you managed to do so, and they were welcomed by some other bunch of scum, wouldn't said scum simply rearm them and send them back home rather than accommodate foreigners with no other qualifications, experience or abilities than being terrorists?
Worse still, your beloved "Hamas supporters" might even have slightly differing religious views from their unwilling hosts, which would make Northern Ireland look like a vicarage tea party in comparison.
-
There aren't many Christians in Gaza but, if I was one of them, and I saw that Hamas was at least trying to hold the fort against Israel's attacks and invasion, I might have a lot of sympathy for them.
Would I be involuntarily deported to Saudi Arabia under ACS's plan?
-
If I lived in Gaza and saw that the IDF was trying to rid the country of a bunch of religious criminals who have held us all to ransom by indiscriminately attacking Israeli citizens and hiding under schools and hospitals for the last 20 years, I'd defect to the good guys.
-
the IDF was trying to rid the country of a bunch of religious criminals
How successful would that have to be?
Also, how successfully are their actions recruiting more people to the Hamas cause?
If the net effect is to hand more power to the religious nutters*, who is winning?
* on eitehr side.
-
One sure way to unite disparate groups is to attack the nation. Look at the history of Afganistan: when attacked from outside they unite, when free they fight among themselves.
-
Fact is that the Middle East is a basket case, thanks to millennia of organised crime labelled as religion. As long as fools can be persuaded that somebody else's superstitions are important or that some historical misdeed can be righted by killing the descendants of the perpetrators, some scum, whether arms manufacturers or sexual perverts, will profit from it. And in the case of the Middle East, it will all be funded by everyone else's need for oil.
-
The Middle East is mostly desert and as such there is a low limit to its population size if it is to be self sufficient. Well, we all know that green fertile land can support many more people per square kilometre World Bank has some stats on population density of countries https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST .
Problem is overpopulation per square kilometre causes starving refugees that no one wants so turn up at UN refugee camps that are totally and absolutely un-self sustainable. Advanced or forced family planning avoids poverty!!.
-
Starvation wasn't a problem in Gaza before 7 October.
-
Can we rename this thread then, ?the link between the political socioeconomic outlook of the levant region and the future outlook encompassing plans of resolution and the global warming? "
-
The link between global warming and world population increase is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Looking for scape goat politicians, UN/charities, Security council etc to blame is unproductive; we need everyone to understand the need to keep family sizes small so that our children will receive a wealthy inheritance.
Religious leaders the Pope ,Archbishops, Chief Priests, Imams need to agree together what is the best way forward to save the whole world from the huge suffering caused by refugee crisises.
-
Don't confuse overpopulation, which may lead to slow, chronic, and permanent mass migration, with conflict, which produces short-term and hopefully (e.g. Ukraine, Gaza) temporary, limited numbers of refugees.
Nature is inexorable, politics can be reversed by revolution or conquest.
-
But over population is increasing CO2 emissions and at same time much unrest in the countries with low water resources.
Looking at the medium or average age of population on third from right column on worldometers site https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ we can immediately see that those countries with an average age of 25 or less are unstable and if in a desert area likely to be living in refugee camps with no escape from poverty.
-
if in a desert area likely to be living in refugee camps
Huge difference between nomads and refugees.
Saami herders don't experience poverty until they settle in permanent housing and have to pay for water, home repairs, etc instead of finding water and fixing their tents with reindeer hide.
The poorest people in Britain are not refugees (who get government grants) but natives who can't find work, or ex-subpostmasters who have been swindled and prosecuted by Post Office Ltd.
-
Looking at the medium or average age of population on third from right column on worldometers site https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ we can immediately see that those countries with an average age of 25 or less are unstable and if in a desert area likely to be living in refugee camps with no escape from poverty.
How do you distinguish cause from effect?
Are they poor because they have a lot of kids and kids don't earn money, or do they have a lot of youngsters because the infant mortality is high and the only way to ensure that the population is stable, is to ensure that lots of babies are born?
The latter is particularly likely if there's no "welfare state" and your only pension is hoping your kids look after you when you are old.
-
Population stability is not a rational goal. Religious perverts like the idea of increasing their flock of victims, but common sense would limit family size to the number that can be fed from the land they occupy.
The problem with "median age" is that it doesn't tell us much about longevity unless we factor in fertility rate. If you multiply the two together through the worldometer table, you get a fairly constant value around 70 to 80. From this we might conclude that current life expectancy doesn't vary a great deal but people in the poorest countries are just making more babies.
-
Increases in global warming is linked to an increase in world population so what can we do it limit the increase?
Over population leads to fighting over water resources in desert areas in the Sahara which looks religious but is not.
If the desert population can only be stabilised then the water can be shared amicably.
If overpopulation increases then un self sustainable refugee camps spring up but who can help them help themselves??
-
Just how many people actually live in the Sahara?
Chart and table of Western Sahara population density from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
The current population density of Western Sahara in 2024 is 0.00 people per square kilometer, a NAN% decline from 2023.
The population density of Western Sahara in 2023 was 0.00 people per square kilometer, a NAN% decline from 2022.
The population density of Western Sahara in 2022 was 0.00 people per square kilometer, a NAN% decline from 2021.
The population density of Western Sahara in 2021 was 0.00 people per square kilometer, a NAN% decline from 2020.
So who are these non-people fighting, for control of a nonexistent resource?
-
Alan, western Sahara would be ideal place for the population of Gaza to develop a self sufficient economy.
Refugee camps MUST be only temporary one year accommodations. We must return refugees to their land or to somewhere else as permanent camps can never be self sufficient meaning the displaced people will remain destitute for ever.
Look at Cox Bazaar as an example , how can the refugees there ever be self sufficient and look at the birth rate and utter helplessness of its teenagers to find work. No wonder there is so much unrest in refugee camps.
Refugee camps must be dismantled after a year in use and not allowed to fester IMHO
-
Alan, western Sahara would be ideal place for the population of Gaza to develop a self sufficient economy.
Then why does practically nobody live there now?
You can't be selfsufficient without water.
The population of Gaza could live in Gaza (as they have done for many years) if they got rid of the parasitic scum whose sole aim in life is to destroy Israel and leech off the Gazains.
-
Alan, western Sahara would be ideal place for the population of Gaza to develop a self sufficient economy.
I know Alan already said this but I think it's worth repeating.
If you think a desert is an ideal place for people to live, then you are an idiot.
People need water.
-
Well, they could start by drilling several artesian wells because the exiled people will need to become self sufficient as quickly as possible.
My concern is that refugee camps used to be for people whose crops had failed due to drought or other natural causes and UN and WHO would assist with humanitarian aid for one season or so to save lives; a sort of holding operation.
But people displaced forcibly by war are really in a prisoner of war camp situation and the victors should offer them citizenship if they agree to obey their laws or exile them to some far away place like the western Sahara.
-
Wrong. Refugees a people who are running away from something - the clue is in the name. The UN charter requires that they be accommodated in the first safe country they reach. They may not be forcibly transferred to a third country, nor is any third country obliged to accept them.
Prisoners of war are legitimate uniformed combatants who have surrendered and been taken prisoner. They are not free to move, nor encouraged by their captors to do so, and must be treated by their captors according to the Geneva Convention.
Modern warfare creates far more displaced civilians and civilian casualties than military casualties.
Justice requires that, as in legal proceedings, the liability for reparation should lie with the side that fired the first shot. The problem is that if the aggressor loses the fight, he probably doesn't have the wherewithal to compensate the civilian victims. It is therefore in the interests of all civilians to persuade their government not to start a fight. At best, you will end up having to pay the losers, and at worst you will be the losers with no compensation due.
An artesian well is a well that brings groundwater to the surface without pumping because it is under pressure within a body of rock and/or sediment known as an aquifer.
Is there such an aquifer beneath the Sahara? If so, why has nobody exploited it before?
-
The UN charter requires that they be accommodated in the first safe country they reach.
No.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
The charter says they should accommodated in the first safe country where they ask for asylum.
But I share your doubts that you can drill an artesian well in the desert. They are driven by rain, and there isn't any.
There is an aquifer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
But it's deep.
-
The charter says they should accommodated in the first safe country where they ask for asylum.
Wrong. That would mean that asylum must always be granted in the refugee's destination of choice, which is clearly not the case. Simple but subtle difference: a refugee is running away from something, an asylum seeker is asking for protection by his destination country.
The Ukrainian family currently living on my property are refugees. They are not seeking asylum from Ukraine, but temporary safe accommodation whilst their friends and relatives of military age get on with defending their territory without having to worry about potential civilian casualties.
-
Refugees can be internally displaced, within the same country. They can also quite easily return home once the battle front passes through and usually hope to do so, they are not necesarrily the targets of hostile action.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara
-
a refugee is running away from something
Like Russian tanks + bombs.
An asylum is a place of safety.
Well done for providing one.
"Refugee
The definition of a refugee according to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is:
?A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.?"
And
"In the UK, a person becomes a refugee when government agrees that an individual who has applied for asylum meets the definition in the Refugee Convention they will ?recognise? that person as a refugee and issue them with refugee status documentation.
Usually refugees in the UK are given five years leave to remain as a refugee. They must then apply for further leave, although their status as a refugee is not limited to five years."
From
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/
People seeking asylum must be accommodated for long enough to find out if their claim is legitimate.
(Rather than, for example, flown to Rwanda)
-
Alan, I salute your altruism.
-
An asylum is a place of safety.
Legally, it's more. A foxhole a place of safety, a military camp is a place of asylum.
Interestingly, my guests are not in fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,
but of being subject to indiscriminate Russian bombing and shellfire whilst consuming materiel and medical resources that could be of use to the Ukrainian military.
Fortunately the UK government takes a broader interpretation of refugee status than the UN. These good folk will almost certainly seek to extent their residence and work permits until Putin's scum is cleared from Ukrainian soil but they aren't seeking asylum and have every intention of returning home and restoring civilisation ASAP.
-
Alan, Good point about Ukraine but the global climate change is caused by over population and refugee camps need to become self sufficient. Look at the situation in Yemen. https://shelterbox.org/disasters-explained/the-yemen-crisis-explained/#:~:text=Yemen%20is%20one%20of%20the,we%20have%20supported%20vulnerable%20communities..
32 million people of which 21 million need humanitarian aid and 4.5 million have been displaced, many for second or third time since 2015.
The situation is getting worse all the time as the population explodes and somehow we need to stop it, as residents of these camps need to have the God given right to work and live a self sufficient independent life.or they will contiue to rebel.
-
I don't think climate change is caused by overpopulation, and nor do the Powers that Be. If the current religion (you can hardly call it science) is to be believed, the most increasingly populous nations are those with the lowest per capita carbon emissions and therefore the least sinful.
It is obvious that as the climate changes, some areas will become unsustainable by force of nature rather than theocratic incompetence and corruption, and the only way to prevent mass starvation is to reduce the mass.
residents of these camps need to have the God given right to work and live a self sufficient independent life.or they will continue to rebel.
Time to grow up and face facts, my friend. There is no god, and the only rights anyone has are those given by others. The problem is that every time you grant someone a right, you impose a duty on someone else, usually without consulting him.
-
Time to grow up and face facts, my friend. There is no god, and the only rights anyone has are those given by others. The problem is that every time you grant someone a right, you impose a duty on someone else, usually without consulting him.
Robbing peter to pay paul, or is that back to religion again? Fortunately the UK government takes a broader interpretation of refugee status than the UN
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence.
The un doesnt seem to register internal refugees, maybe because it is international.
-
refugee camps need to become self sufficient.
How many towns are self- sufficient?
How many countries?
Or households?
Yet you somehow think that a group of displaced people- in shock and devastated- are somehow going to "have to" do it.
Did you think that through?
-
Yes, I have certainly thought it through. The problem with refugees and refugee camps is they are exploding the problem by having too many children.
Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan and Sahara plus all other refugee camps caused by conflicts like Gaza and Cox's Bazaar need to reduce family sizes to 2 kids only so that they can catch up with western style of living and become self sufficient.
Military solutions are unnecessary; what we need is everyone to agree to limit family size to save the planet.
-
The problem with refugees and refugee camps is they are exploding the problem by having too many children.
What else is there to do?
The total number of refugees in the world is about 20,000,000. There are 22,000,000 settled citizens in Mexico City. The global population excess has very little to do with refugees and an awful lot to do with folk of all sorts breeding beyond their capacity to support their offspring.
-
Alan,
Agreed that it is "an awful lot to do with folk of all sorts breeding beyond their capacity to support their offspring."
But the worst offenders appear to be refugee camps fed by UNHCR and other charities who are surely encouraging the problem of overpopulation rather than solving it
26 million in 2022 by now probably 30 million with extra 2 million from Gaza see link below.
https://www.concern.org.uk/news/these-12-countries-hosted-most-refugees-2022?https://www.concern.org.uk/news/these-12-countries-hosted-most-refugees-2022&gclid=Cj0KCQiA-62tBhDSARIsAO7twbadIf3oJbXP0YwHu-VyDEzOSMOCcxCNlRkY2w7g4DciQL3i-odt6esaAr0mEALw_wcB
Some unscrupulous African states are even offering the UN refugees camps because they want the free UNCHR food which they have not understood will wreck their own economies and force their own farmers to become destitute and potential refugees.. .
-
UNHCR and other charities who are surely encouraging the problem of overpopulation rather than solving it
Solving population problems is not the job of refugee camps.
-
But the worst offenders appear to be refugee camps fed by UNHCR and other charities who are surely encouraging the problem of overpopulation rather than solving it
26 million in 2022 by now probably 30 million with extra 2 million from Gaza see link below.
Serious nonsequitur!
Moving people from their home to a refugee camp does not increase the number of people. There are plenty of good textbooks on human reproduction, and AFAIK none of them suggests that bombing a house results in the occupants becoming pregnant.
-
Moving people from their homes in the bush or desert to a refugee camp would not occur if their population remains nearly constant.
The problem is the refugee camps give free food and medical aid which undermines their traditional self sustaining farming economies in the bush as no point in going home to grow maize and vegetables as you cannot sell the surplus to buy other things.
Look at again https://www.concern.org.uk/news/these-12-countries-hosted-most-refugees-2022?
Syria has 26 million people average age 22 of whom 6 million or more are now refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran/Iraq with no way of self sustaining themselves overseas or at home in Syria..
Yemen's 34 million we have already discussed as a disaster which is getting bigger as average age is only 19 and refugees are fleeing mostly over the Red Sea.
We must find a way of controlling population expansion in refugee camps everywhere!! NOW
-
The problem is the refugee camps give free food and medical aid
The problem is typically war or something from which people, understandably, seek refuge.
What happens after they leave their homes is a bit beside the point.
We must find a way of controlling population expansion in refugee camps everywhere!
We could stop selling weapons...
-
Moving people from their homes in the bush or desert to a refugee camp would not occur if their population remains nearly constant.
Syria has 26 million people average age 22 of whom 6 million or more are now refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran/Iraq with no way of self sustaining themselves overseas or at home in Syria..
The first people to leave a war zone are not usually bush or desert dwellers. Those with open eyes and ears will have noticed that the first refugees from almost any trouble spot to appear on TV are always academics, professionals and businessmen with perfect English and good credit ratings.
-
The clever people with money will arrange to move quickly but what about the poor women and children in the refugee camps.
Look at the https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4ef9c83f9.pdf world map of where more than 50% of women are dependant on refugee food aid marked in green.
These 50% ladies are selling on the free food aid that UNHCR are providing so their countries self sufficiency farming can no longer compete. Worse still they are producing many children as they cannot afford contraceptives thus increasing population expansion which is causing global warming.
Even worse the parents are naturally totally dis-satisfied with live in the camps and tell their children that the rich people and politicians are stealing all their national resources. In a decade when theses kids grow up they heed their parents words and decide that enough is enough and join in camp gangs to roam about stealing things from rich people or selling illegal drugs and who can blame them as their is no way of finding work inside the camp. In the case of Gaza they have even ganged up to fight the Israelites but in reality any other job would have been acceptable if it had been available at age 18.
This desperate situation arises a decade after the camp's opened with gangs challenging their government for not developing their economy quickly enough and civil unrest causes riots and possibly genocide like in Columbia and now Argentina and Ecuador. Also Chile, Mexico etc.
The problem can only be solved by closing refugee camps within a decade and somehow reducing the number of children in them possibly by treating the free food with a contraceptive thus revitalising their agricultural sectors and creating work.
-
The clever people with money will arrange to move quickly but what about the poor women and children in the refugee camps.
You aren't a refugee until you have moved. Your question is therefore an oxymoron.
What happens next is indeed a matter of concern, and much wider than the longterm prospects of people in refugee camps. The question is what can be done to alleviate poverty and misery wherever they occur, and part of the answer is, surely, to persuade people not to make babies that they have no prospect of feeding. That would at least contain the size of the problem (inevitable in the case of climate change) and permit a rational longterm approach to a solution.
But it is in the commercial interests of many parasites to have a growing population of people with a grievance. You can sell them weapons and use their poverty as an excuse to increase the price of oil. Even better if they are conveniently not located in your actual territory (nobody wants smelly beggars on the palace highway) but a thousand miles away and bound by some ridiculous notion of common superstition or ancestry.
But compulsory medication is redolent of the fascist methods of those very parasites. Far better to educate and empower women than to try to clear up the evergrowing mess caused by not doing so.
-
Those with open eyes and ears will have noticed that the first refugees from almost any trouble spot to appear on TV are always academics, professionals and businessmen with perfect English and good credit ratings.
So... the ones who can afford air tickets get out first.
Astounding!
And I suspect that the first ones of French TV speak perfect French.
Because there wouldn't be any point to interviewing someone who didn't understand your questions and could only reply in a language your viewers would not understand.
-
These 50% ladies are selling on the free food aid that UNHCR are providing
Then what are they eating?
Seriously, where did you get that idea from?
-
These 50% ladies are selling on the free food aid that UNHCR are providing
Then what are they eating?
Seriously, where did you get that idea from?
-
Because there wouldn't be any point to interviewing someone who didn't understand your questions and could only reply in a language your viewers would not understand.
One day, someone will invent interpreters and subtitles. They already exist on my planet.
-
No excuses about interpreters then; but the real problem is global warming caused by population expansion that has resulted in a refugee explosion meaning millions of disgruntled people will have to suffer living in poverty in tented make shift camps.
It would be better if the pharmaceutical industry rather than developing flu vaccines and trying to eliminate the common cold could concentrate their research into developing a user friendly contraceptive to treat free food aid with.
This would be beneficial to the whole world and would allow the recipients to only have children when they could afford to look after them properly.
-
Climate change is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that has eradicated many cultures and civilisations, not to mention entire clades such as dinosaurs.
The difference nowadays is that lots of humans live in marginal territories that cannot sustain them, and many others think that they have a duty to keep them alive.
Conventional contraceptives are cheap - indeed much cheaper than food. Compulsory medication is unethical. The problem is religion and politics, which interfere with common sense.
-
Because there wouldn't be any point to interviewing someone who didn't understand your questions and could only reply in a language your viewers would not understand.
One day, someone will invent interpreters and subtitles. They already exist on my planet.
It's easier to just find someone who speaks the "right" language- especially if that language is English.
-
the real problem is global warming caused by population expansion that has resulted in a refugee explosion
In reality
52% of all refugees and other people in need of international protection come from just three countries: Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan.
"The Syrian refugee crisis began in March 2011 as a result of a violent government crackdown on public demonstrations in support of teenagers who were arrested for anti-government graffiti in the southern town of Daraa. "
From
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/
Ukrainian refugees are due to Russia being run by a lunatic
Afghan refugees are due to religious lunatics.
Why are you seeking to blame global warming for the number of refugees?
They are both big problems, but they are not directly related.
a user friendly contraceptive to treat free food aid with
Why are you still trying to poison children?
-
Alan
"Conventional contraceptives are cheap - indeed much cheaper than food" which substance chemically is this contraceptive powder and will it still be active if boiled in water for 20 minutes?
-
Why would you want to do that?
The combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill is often just called 'the pill'. It contains two hormones - an oestrogen and a progestogen. If taken correctly, it is a very effective form of contraception.
By all means boil your water, then make tea or coffee to wash the pill down. At least that's what my friends and family have been doing for years. This stuff isn't new - the chemistry, technology, packaging and distribution is about 65 years old. Standard presentation is in "one a day" blister packs so only the target population (women) get only the correct dose.
If you start poisoning food with female hormones the male population will develop prominent breasts and luxuriant hair, and you will be wasting half of the product on them. Not sure what would happen to the children but I guess it's all in the physiological pathology textbooks.
-
Thanks Alan, Progesterone | C21H30O2 | CID 5994 is a hydro carbon and I am not sure whether it can retain its contraceptive properties if added to rice or wheat which both require heating to boiling point before being edible . Possibly bored chemist can enlighten us!
The other possibility is to issue patches to all recipients of free food which would allow the charity workers to check that the lady collectors were at least trying to restrict the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.
Just withdrawing free UN food to refugee camps altogether seems a little to drastic.
-
Re: The link between global warming and world population expansion. correction
? Reply #325 on: Today at 00:32:10 ?
Thanks Alan, Progesterone | C21H30O2 | CID 5994 is a hydro carbohydrate and I am not sure whether it can retain its contraceptive properties if added to rice or wheat which both require heating to boiling point before being edible . Possibly bored chemist can enlighten us!
The other possibility is to issue patches to all recipients of free food which would allow the charity workers to check that the lady collectors were at least trying to restrict the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.
Just withdrawing free UN food to refugee camps altogether seems a little to drastic.
-
Unless prescribed by a civil court for the protection of the patient or his victims, compulsory or coercive medication is unethical and probably prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
Times change, apparently (see UNRWA) but AFAIK the majority of relief aid workers have no wish to be labelled as war criminals.
-
Absolutely, aid workers are not war criminals but are causing suffering by suppling free food and medicines which is upsetting the ability of farmers and bush dwellers to be self sufficient or even find work for their children who drift into violent gangs. then armed militia groups who claim allegiance to some greater cause or political group
Result is millions of displaced families with discontented parents with no future; plus world refugee crisis population explosion and global warming.
Problem in Gaza is historical; Philistines/Palestinians never got on with Israel but this is an Arabic problem only.
Up to the Arab countries to solve by arranging an exodus of all refugees from Gaza to other Arabian Mid East or North African countries or for some to Israel if they can live peacefully there.
-
As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. And recent headlines bear this out.
-
Possibly bored chemist can enlighten us!
I have tried repeatedly; but you still want to poison children.
-
By the way; you all seem to be focussed on ACS's wish to do the wrong thing and to do it unethically.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2423408-why-falling-birth-rates-will-be-a-bigger-problem-than-overpopulation/
-
New Scientist seems to have fallen into the conventional trap of ignoring the facts.
In the civilised west, at least, the "working population" is almost entirely aged 20 - 60 and currently accounts for about half of the total.
Decreasing birthrate immediately reduces the number of under-20's, who are mostly dependent on their elders but have not contributed to their own care. Thus the effect of a decreased birthrate is to increase the working fraction of the population whilst decreasing demand on natural resources and benefits and services paid from taxation and investment. Whilst the mean age of the population increases, there are thus more resources and benefits available to the elderly who have been paying taxes and investing in pension funds and suchlike.
If the per capita birthrate remains below replacement level, and life expectancy does not increase faster than the birthrate decreases, so the working fraction continues to grow and the increase in available natural resource per capita eventually leads to a resilient and sustainable population with an increased standard of living. At that point you might consider returning to replacement-level reproduction.
My estimate is that limiting reproduction to 1 child per female would lead to an indefinitely sustainable population in the UK within 100 years. Not a bad target, considering that it doesn't require any sacrifice and life actually gets better for everyone from Day 1.
-
My estimate is that limiting reproduction to 1 child per female would lead to an indefinitely sustainable population in the UK within 100 years.
Other than the catastrophic burden of 1 worker supporting up to 6 people now we are living to the age we do, there is the implausable health care provision that would be needed. At present over a million people work for the nhs, another million in the care sector and another million in social services. That is a ratio of 20 to 1. In 2 generations the ratio would soon be 5 to 1 (ish).
Of course we could continue importing doctors and nurses as we do now, the only problem is that we wouldnt be exporting our own anywhere near as fast, so your population remains stable.
-
Other than the catastrophic burden of 1 worker supporting up to 6 people
If the birthrate were limited to one per female, your one worker would only have to support 2.5 others at most, two of whom had actually been paying into their pension funds for 40 years and therefore do not require support anyway.
-
At present over a million people work for the nhs,
No. About 500,000 people actually work for the NHS, the rest are managers, lawyers and accountants.
As for the "burden on the health service" it must be remembered that a substantial part of the demand is for perinatal and child health services, and if each woman only produced one child (a) the return of women to the fulltime workforce would increase and (b) there would be less demand for nursery workers, teachers, lecturers. college cooks.....
Plus of course you solve the problem of youth unemployment. Instead of running up an unpayable debt to the taxpayer, 50% of "students" (i.e. unemployed teenagers) would simply not exist.
-
My estimate is that limiting reproduction to 1 child per female ... it doesn't require any sacrifice and life actually gets better for everyone from Day 1.
That's not what China found.
So the question is what sacrifice are we prepared to make?
-
The problem with Communist China 50 years ago was
1. the lack of funded pensions
2. a cultural history of the young supporting their parents in old age
3. compulsion
4. a cultural preference for male children, leading to infanticide or abortion and a shortage of females
5. an absence of effective contraception
None of these is a serious problem in the UK. My plan is simply to pay every woman a sensible sum of money every 6 months if she is not pregnant, and to reduce the current two-child benefits cap to one. No compulsion, no stigma, no erosion of human rights, just a clear choice.
The alternative is for the human population to outgrow its food and water supply, particularly as these resources will dwindle over the next 100 - 500 years, and descend into tribal warfare - but this time for a valid reason.
-
Other than the catastrophic burden of 1 worker supporting up to 6 people
If the birthrate were limited to one per female, your one worker would only have to support 2.5 others at most, two of whom had actually been paying into their pension funds for 40 years and therefore do not require support anyway.
Ok. I did say " (ish)
1 child in the next generation , by the time that child grows up there could be 2 generations retired (4 people) and 1 non productive offspring, granted the spouse may work and that people living to see their children retire is on the extreme end and the child is close to productivity, but contrary to that there are people who are long term sick and disabled.
The pension fund is negligible for most. The government takes takes today and pays them out today, they do not invest it. The cost to the government of anybody over 65 is massive, pensions health care social care and it is only increacing, people are living longer, and the associated health problems are also increacing.
Rather than a drastic step of a 1 child policy a far more rational policy is one detailed in the film "Logans Run".
-
the time that child grows up there could be 2 generations retired (4 people)
Consider the population in three cohorts: 0 - 20, 20 - 60, 60 - 100. Let there be N people in the first cohort, and assume for simplicity that all babies are born to women aged 20 - 21.
If we reproduce at replacement level there will be the same number born each year and 2N people in the 40 - 60 range (the working population).
Almost nobody lives to 100 and life expectancy is around 80 so for simplicity assume that we die at a constant rate between 60 and 100. Then there must be N in the oldest cohort and the "working fraction " is 0.5.
So currently, each member of the working population is supporting an average of one other, half under 20 and half over 60.
Now reduce the birthrate to half the replacement level. The under-20 burden decreases immediately but the working population is unchanged for the next 20 years, so the working fraction increases.
After 20 years, the total number of births decreases again so although there are now fewer folk in the working population, the working fraction is still > 0.5.
If life expectancy increases significantly, we can just tweak the retirement age (already done!) or return to apprenticeships and on-the -job training to reduce the effective age at which folk start to contribute to the economy.
-
The pension fund is negligible for most. The government takes takes today and pays them out today, they do not invest it.
The average pension income in the UK is about twice the state pension, so the portion derived from investment (private and company schemes) is not negligible.
The alleged point of privatisation of obvious monopolies was that they could be profitable, if properly managed. Clearly some (railways) are just seen as subsidy farms and others as licensed fraud (water) but there's no reason why energy and telecoms can't be run as state industries at a profit (like oil in Norway), and it's even conceivable that rail could run at a reduced loss and water could be returned to a drinkable and swimmable condition under public ownership rather than emergency bailout (i.e. more fraud).So there is plenty of opportunity for diverting tax revenue to supporting the elderly rather than Tory donors and foreign banks, or even investing taxes into profitable industry.
Longer term, council house rents could subsidise dustbin collections andd social care, instead of "right to buy" mortgages subsidising bankers' bonuses.
Why didn't anyone think of this before? Let's call it "socialism" and see if it gets any votes!
-
The average pension income in the UK is about twice the state pension, so the portion derived from investment (private and company schemes) is not negligible.
Negligible pension fund fornstate pensions.
The point was that the proportion of money spent on retired persons by the treasury would vastly increace, money garnered through tax and spent almost immediatley.
Consider the population in three cohorts: 0 - 20, 20 - 60, 60 - 100. Let there be N people in the first cohort, and assume for simplicity that all babies........................
Yes i get the idea, but in 2 generations for a couple of new born child rearing age there would be 8 grand parents who would be retired and 4 parents who although not retired would be most probably 50 plus. That would be 6 people of working age for 9 non workers. (they could all possibly be unemployed)
Of these 6 working people 4 would probably be approaching retirement and may require government support, i dont know how much an mri scan sets the tax payer back?
-
Yes i get the idea, but in 2 generations for a couple of new born child rearing age there would be 8 grand parents who would be retired and 4 parents who although not retired would be most probably 50 plus. That would be 6 people of working age for 9 non workers. (they could all possibly be unemployed)
2 generations, say 40 years. Average age of the working population is 40 so the average worker will already have lost half of his grandparents assuming a life expectancy of 80.
The simple fact is that there are roughly twice as many people aged 20 - 60 than aged 60 - 100. That's the meaning of "life expectancy", and the reason that tax-funded pensions work at all!
Properly organised, an MRI scan should cost the NHS less than ?150, but thanks to Thatcher and Blair, it's about twice that.
-
The simple fact is that there are roughly twice as many people aged 20 - 60 than aged 60 - 100.
That is the point, the rattio will change and probably reverse.
-
Worth doing the maths. The ratio of workers to retired decreases slightly over time but is more than compensated by the decrease in under-20s, so the working fraction initially increases to about 0.65 and never falls below the present 0.5.
-
Worth doing the maths. The ratio of workers to retired decreases slightly over time but is more than compensated by the decrease in under-20s, so the working fraction initially increases to about 0.65 and never falls below the present 0.5.
Under 20s are not particularly expensive in healthcare, housing benefits or pension payments. They do not require care homes, at most a birth, a few vaccinations, schooling and a bit of afterschool care during term times.
-
Education is the second largest central departmental budget, about 35% of the size of health and social care. Whilst most kids ages 5 - 20 are fairly physically robust, the period -1 to +5 takes up a considerable proportion of hospital, GP and social service budget.
Between the ages of 18 and 21 about half the population acquires a debt of GBP 30 - 80,000, half of which is never repaid and simply represents an ever-growing black hole in public finances.
About half of all police and justice costs are due to the activities of under-20's, though these tend to be hidden under local government tax revenues.
Plus, of course, the direct cost to a parent of about GBP 250,000 to raise a child from birth, of which the munificent taxpayer contributes about GBP 15,000 for the second child. Under my scheme, not having a second child would earn a woman about GBP 45,000 and save her at least another GBP 100,000.
-
But the problem is to find jobs for those kids 16 to 20. In Sahara and middle east with 50% of population under 20, it was great to have large families in old days as there is plenty of land to be farmed and 2 acres will provide a family of 4 people. So ask the chief for an extra 2 acres per child and self sufficiency is guaranteed.
But give one man a tractor and he can manage 10 acres without a large family just one son to take over the farm. It is the large families with no jobs that are causing over population and poverty leading to refugee crisis and global warming
-
In Sahara ...... there is plenty of land to be farmed
Yes, with all that rain and fertile topsoil, it's bursting with crops and livestock. Like Somerset or Tipperary, but warmer. Pray tell us more!
-
But the problem is to find jobs for those kids 16 to 20. In Sahara and middle east with 50% of population under 20, it was great to have large families in old days as there is plenty of land to be farmed and 2 acres will provide a family of 4 people. So ask the chief for an extra 2 acres per child and self sufficiency is guaranteed.
But give one man a tractor and he can manage 10 acres without a large family just one son to take over the farm. It is the large families with no jobs that are causing over population and poverty leading to refugee crisis and global warming
If you think there are people farming in the Sahara, then you have disqualified yourself from further discussion.
-
Worth doing the maths. The ratio of workers to retired decreases slightly over time but is more than compensated by the decrease in under-20s, so the working fraction initially increases to about 0.65 and never falls below the present 0.5.
Under 20s are not particularly expensive in healthcare, housing benefits or pension payments. They do not require care homes, at most a birth, a few vaccinations, schooling and a bit of afterschool care during term times.
The sad truth is that your first day is the most dangerous day of your life.
Very young children are, on average, rather expensive to provide medial care for. Most cost next to nothing.
But, unfortunately, some need a lot of support.
The risk falls until you are about 5.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10346-021-01838-8/figures/6
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
But the problem is to find jobs for those kids 16 to 20.
No, no its not.
After the black death, labour was so scarce that the government upended the principle of capitalism and market forces, essentially catering to the needs of the wealthy land owning minority, much in the way they do today, be it agricultural workers, lorry drivers, nurses or doctors, if the market is against thoes with the power we suddenly turn into an incidious communist state.