Anyone done a comparison of total deaths year by year? Sounds like we may have a net reduction in death because of COVID-19 (so far). I worry for those with conditions that need treatment but cannot (e.g. cancer) due to fear/risk of infection.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Anyone done a comparison of total deaths year by year? Sounds like we may have a net reduction in death because of COVID-19 (so far). I worry for those with conditions that need treatment but cannot (e.g. cancer) due to fear/risk of infection.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
What’s Michael Moore’s Actual Agenda?
The failure to engage with “Humans” shortfalls is yet another example of the poverty of political will for the climate. "Planet of the Humans" was a timely warning back when it was shot ten years ago. But serving it up as a fresh analysis today presumes— and preys upon— audience ignorance. Its attack on renewables, energy-efficient transport, and environmental organizing, based on their past evolution under capitalism, excises the most crucial approaches for limiting climate chaos.
The film instead offers up "consumerism" as the proposed sacrifice. This seems like a good start— except for one thing. Counseling austerity accords with what the government and its billionaire benefactors already WANT to inflict upon the population. A gutted health care system, withholding of protective gear, sacrificing front line health workers, dumping food rather than transporting it to the hungry— are not all of these systemic austerity measures?
In erasing both the Green New Deal, and the Sunrise Movement and its diverse group of energized young people across American, Moore and company vilify climate leaders and remedies, boosting population control, and chooses consumerism over systemic change. This focus not only arms the right-wing, who have thoroughly embraced "Humans" for their Koch-funded denialism, but he also positions and rebrands himself as a political populist, Trump-style. His real goal may be public office and his real target donors. But what are the values he actually espouses? They’re not evident from the film and he is not being transparent about them. Based on "Humans," and the "Mommy isn’t happy!" story, it begins with enlisting white suburban Mom’s, and further marginalizing others.
The failure to engage with “Humans” shortfalls is yet another example of the poverty of political will for the climate. "Planet of the Humans" was a timely warning back when it was shot ten years ago. But serving it up as a fresh analysis today presumes— and preys upon— audience ignorance. Its attack on renewables, energy-efficient transport, and environmental organizing, based on their past evolution under capitalism, excises the most crucial approaches for limiting climate chaos.
The film instead offers up "consumerism" as the proposed sacrifice. This seems like a good start— except for one thing. Counseling austerity accords with what the government and its billionaire benefactors already WANT to inflict upon the population. A gutted health care system, withholding of protective gear, sacrificing front line health workers, dumping food rather than transporting it to the hungry— are not all of these systemic austerity measures?
In erasing both the Green New Deal, and the Sunrise Movement and its diverse group of energized young people across American, Moore and company vilify climate leaders and remedies, boosting population control, and chooses consumerism over systemic change. This focus not only arms the right-wing, who have thoroughly embraced "Humans" for their Koch-funded denialism, but he also positions and rebrands himself as a political populist, Trump-style. His real goal may be public office and his real target donors. But what are the values he actually espouses? They’re not evident from the film and he is not being transparent about them. Based on "Humans," and the "Mommy isn’t happy!" story, it begins with enlisting white suburban Mom’s, and further marginalizing others.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Coronavirus tracked: the latest figures as countries fight to contain the pandemic | Free to read
Scroll down to death rates compared to historical
Wishful thinking , a few countries excepted. The reports of overflowing morgues should have been a clue
mspohr
Well-Known Member
'The parallels between coronavirus and climate crisis are obvious'
'The parallels between coronavirus and climate crisis are obvious'
I’m sorry,” says Emily Atkin, not sounding very apologetic, “but if you still refuse to see parallels between climate change and coronavirus then honestly you’re just stupid.”
“Both are global crises which threaten millions of lives with clear science on how to solve them which governments have been too slow to act on; the same people who promote climate denial are refusing to accept the science of coronavirus, too.
'The parallels between coronavirus and climate crisis are obvious'
I’m sorry,” says Emily Atkin, not sounding very apologetic, “but if you still refuse to see parallels between climate change and coronavirus then honestly you’re just stupid.”
“Both are global crises which threaten millions of lives with clear science on how to solve them which governments have been too slow to act on; the same people who promote climate denial are refusing to accept the science of coronavirus, too.
We can get either methane from regular cow diet or CO2 + H from cows by adding 1% of their food with seaweed..
mspohr
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/04/human-climate-niche/
In a stark new finding about the planet’s rapidly warming climate, a study finds that for every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of global average warming, 1 billion people will have to adapt or migrate to stay within climate conditions that are best suited for crop production, livestock and a sustainable outdoor work environment
In a stark new finding about the planet’s rapidly warming climate, a study finds that for every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of global average warming, 1 billion people will have to adapt or migrate to stay within climate conditions that are best suited for crop production, livestock and a sustainable outdoor work environment
mspohr
Well-Known Member
'Promiscuous treatment of nature' will lead to more pandemics – scientists
'Promiscuous treatment of nature' will lead to more pandemics – scientists
Humanity’s “promiscuous treatment of nature” needs to change or there will be more deadly pandemics such as Covid-19, warn scientists who have analysed the link between viruses, wildlife and habitat destruction.
Deforestation and other forms of land conversion are driving exotic species out of their evolutionary niches and into manmade environments, where they interact and breed new strains of disease, the experts say.
'Promiscuous treatment of nature' will lead to more pandemics – scientists
Humanity’s “promiscuous treatment of nature” needs to change or there will be more deadly pandemics such as Covid-19, warn scientists who have analysed the link between viruses, wildlife and habitat destruction.
Deforestation and other forms of land conversion are driving exotic species out of their evolutionary niches and into manmade environments, where they interact and breed new strains of disease, the experts say.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right?
How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right? | George Monbiot
Yes, population growth does contribute to the pressures on the natural world. But while the global population is rising by 1% a year, consumption, until the pandemic, was rising at a steady 3%. High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low. Where population growth is highest, consumption tends to be extremely low. Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people. When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, “it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.” It’s not hard to see why the far right loves this film
Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarchic power, capitalism. Population is where you go when you want to kick down.
We have been here many times before. Dozens of films have spread falsehoods about environmental activists and ripped into green technologies, while letting fossil fuels off the hook. But never before have these attacks come from a famous campaigner for social justice, rubbing our faces in the dirt.
How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right? | George Monbiot
Yes, population growth does contribute to the pressures on the natural world. But while the global population is rising by 1% a year, consumption, until the pandemic, was rising at a steady 3%. High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low. Where population growth is highest, consumption tends to be extremely low. Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people. When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, “it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.” It’s not hard to see why the far right loves this film
Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarchic power, capitalism. Population is where you go when you want to kick down.
We have been here many times before. Dozens of films have spread falsehoods about environmental activists and ripped into green technologies, while letting fossil fuels off the hook. But never before have these attacks come from a famous campaigner for social justice, rubbing our faces in the dirt.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Three Surprising Solutions To Climate Change
“Women have a disproportionate share of decision making around what happens in the home,” Foley said. “In terms of water, cooking, food, food waste, fuel choices, how homes are heated, how they’re built, how they’re used. So this also is a powerful kind of Girl Effect, we call it, on our world. It’s enormous, and combined with family planning access, it’s one of the most powerful climate solutions of all.”
Protect Native Lands
“Analysis after analysis shows that communities that are protecting their forests, their native lands, tend to have forests that are healthier, that have more biological diversity, and those forests inevitably store more carbon,” Foley said. “They are just richer in biomass, and the soils are richer, nine times out of ten. So helping communities preserve their forests tends to preserve the best forests in the world.”
“Women have a disproportionate share of decision making around what happens in the home,” Foley said. “In terms of water, cooking, food, food waste, fuel choices, how homes are heated, how they’re built, how they’re used. So this also is a powerful kind of Girl Effect, we call it, on our world. It’s enormous, and combined with family planning access, it’s one of the most powerful climate solutions of all.”
Protect Native Lands
“Analysis after analysis shows that communities that are protecting their forests, their native lands, tend to have forests that are healthier, that have more biological diversity, and those forests inevitably store more carbon,” Foley said. “They are just richer in biomass, and the soils are richer, nine times out of ten. So helping communities preserve their forests tends to preserve the best forests in the world.”
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
There is a missing piece to this argument: where is the growth in energy consumption coming from ?
Otherwise I agree that Moore and Gibbs do not have a clue.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
But while the global population is rising by 1% a year, consumption, until the pandemic, was rising at a steady 3%. High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Agreed, but that does not tell you where growth in energy consumption is occurring.
Do not misunderstand me --- I am the first to say that the per capita energy consumption in the rich countries is obscene. I'm pointing out a fallacy in the argument that you posted.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It takes energy to make stuff and move stuff and use stuff. More consumption leads to more energy use.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
<<sigh>>
That is true if all else stays the same, but you are missing the point. The author conflated energy consumption with growth in energy consumption.
Look at this graph from the EIA:
I choose BTU of prime energy to avoid arguments over the GHG of NG extraction. If I am reading the source correctly renewables are included in the total so the primary fossil consumption has dropped by ~ 10% in 20 years. Pathetic no doubt for the "west", but a far cry from the allegation that the the 3% annual growth in energy consumption in recent decades is from countries like the USA.
Attachments
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think one factor here is that the rise in consumption of goods in the US creates increased energy use where they are produced, not the US. So while US domestic energy use is not increasing by 3%, the energy embodied in the consumption is increasing.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
That might be true -- does Monbiot reference reputable data to back up that assertion as his argument ? I have never seen it.
Would argue that the "West", and specifically the U.S. being addressed here, is not responsible for much of the excess growth in energy consumption in recent decades. If excess growth in energy use were hidden in trade accounting/externalities, this should show in net exports of goods and services. But as with U.S. data from the last 20 years, growth is more subdued:
Net Exports of Goods and Services
Net Exports of Goods and Services
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think we have got a bit off track here.
Monbiot's argument is as follows:
But this is by no means the worst of it. The film offers only one concrete solution to our predicament: the most toxic of all possible answers. “We really have got to start dealing with the issue of population … without seeing some sort of major die-off in population, there’s no turning back.”
Yes, population growth does contribute to the pressures on the natural world. But while the global population is rising by 1% a year, consumption, until the pandemic, was rising at a steady 3%. High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low. Where population growth is highest, consumption tends to be extremely low. Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people. When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, “it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.” It’s not hard to see why the far right loves this film.
Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarchic power, capitalism. Population is where you go when you want to kick down.
As you read this, you can see that he's not talking about energy at all but talking about population and consumption. I think we went off track when this became about energy, not the effect of too much consumption on the environment which was Monbiot's original point.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I disagree. He is attempting to refute Gibbs & Moore's assertion that pollution and AGW cannot be controlled unless population is reduced by pointing out that the lion's share of the pollution and GHG comes from industrialized (aka 'developed') countries. There is nothing wrong with that argument. He fails when he conflates energy consumption with growth in energy consumption.
It is interesting that both of them fall into the same reasoning trap in not seeing that renewables can solve the pollution and AGW problem of both the population increasing countries and the slovenly developed countries. Moore is blinded by population ideology and Monbiot is blinded by his distaste for Western waste.
Last edited:
Similar threads
