4 ms·

Were some people wrong about the limits of resources? Yes. Are resources therefore limitless? No. Did some theorists dramatically underestimate the complexity

Were some people wrong about the limits of resources? Yes. Are resources therefore limitless? No. Did some theorists dramatically underestimate the complexity of the world and rely too much on simple models in the 70s? Yes. Did scientists learn their lesson? Yes. Nobody's been doing that shit for decades. Even so, in your "alarmism" list: > “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” 10.000 deaths a year are attributable to air pollution in London alone. That is despite the widespread introduction of environmental measures that reduced the pollution this quote is warning about: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9... In high pollution areas, regulation and cutting emissions has drastically improved health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) Coal combustion in China’s power plants causes an estimated 250,000 deaths per year. according to the IEA (which is _far_ from an activist/alarmist organization. On the contrary it's been hilariously underestimating renewables: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/931869221386104832 https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/931869221386104832). > “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity_loss "The current rate of global diversity loss is estimated to be 100 to 1000 times higher than the (naturally occurring) background extinction rate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Species_loss_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Species_loss_rate... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-... "Three-quarters of flying insects in nature reserves across Germany have vanished in 25 years."

southern_cross 9y ago
Item number 6 above states that 4 billion people were expected to die, which obviously didn't happen. Governor Jerry Brown just stated (presumably relying on data from "experts") that billions of people might be expected to die soon enough from climate-related issues (heat plus disease). So apparently not much has changed after all! https://www.c-span.org/video/?444172-1/california-governor-jerry-brown-speaks-national-press-club&start=2135 https://www.c-span.org/video/?444172-1/california-governor-j... As to London and the UK, the problems lately appear to be related to the cold and secondary issues caused by that. (See example article below.) So maybe air pollution shouldn't necessarily be their biggest concern at the moment. https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/923627/UK-health-death-cold-flu-pneumonia-stroke-heart-attack-avoidable-deaths-met-office-weather https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/923627/UK-health...
- Certhas 9y ago
  No, he said that 3 billion people will be subject to heat events that can be lethal. He's not saying 3 billion people will die. That's not controversial, he worded it more dramatically than the scientists would, but the core is absolutely correct. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-of-the-world-now-faces-deadly-heatwaves-as-result-of-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-... https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 Your second point, that cold deaths are also an issue, isn't in any way relevant to the discussion of pollution. You can go on denying the science, and/or being upset that people care too much about these issues. But you wont be right, or savy, or pragmatic for it. You'll just be part of the problem instead of the solution. (n.b. benefits of climate change due to milder winters are looked at in the IPCC as well 11.4.1.2: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap11_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Cha...)
  - southern_cross 9y ago
    I was careful not to claim that he said billions WOULD die - rather "that billions of people MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO DIE." He's the one throwing out the words "billions" and "lethal" here as a scare tactic; I'm not exactly putting any words into his mouth. I even nicely provided a link so you could see exactly what he said for yourself. And I didn't make a connection between pollution and cold, either; rather I said that their priorities here might need to shift - less concern about pollution, more concern about people staying out of the cold. And "staying out of the cold" implies maybe burning more fossil fuels, which would generate more CO2, which everyone knows isn't itself pollution anyway. As far as "problem" vs. "solution", my main goal is trying to get people to NOT buy into all of the doomsday environmental scenarios that are constantly being thrown about now. History has shown that such prognostications are almost always nonsense. (Plain old common sense should tell you that, too, but it seems a lot of people lack common sense these days.) I mean, we don't want people going off on a tangent and doing what this guy did (see below)! Amirite? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/15/he-fought-for-same-sex-marriage-for-years-and-set-himself-on-fire-to-protest-global-pollution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/1...

southern_cross 9y ago

Item number 6 above states that 4 billion people were expected to die, which obviously didn't happen. Governor Jerry Brown just stated (presumably relying on data from "experts") that billions of people might be expected to die soon enough from climate-related issues (heat plus disease). So apparently not much has changed after all! https://www.c-span.org/video/?444172-1/california-governor-jerry-brown-speaks-national-press-club&start=2135 https://www.c-span.org/video/?444172-1/california-governor-j... As to London and the UK, the problems lately appear to be related to the cold and secondary issues caused by that. (See example article below.) So maybe air pollution shouldn't necessarily be their biggest concern at the moment. https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/923627/UK-health-death-cold-flu-pneumonia-stroke-heart-attack-avoidable-deaths-met-office-weather https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/923627/UK-health...

Certhas 9y ago
No, he said that 3 billion people will be subject to heat events that can be lethal. He's not saying 3 billion people will die. That's not controversial, he worded it more dramatically than the scientists would, but the core is absolutely correct. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-of-the-world-now-faces-deadly-heatwaves-as-result-of-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-... https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 Your second point, that cold deaths are also an issue, isn't in any way relevant to the discussion of pollution. You can go on denying the science, and/or being upset that people care too much about these issues. But you wont be right, or savy, or pragmatic for it. You'll just be part of the problem instead of the solution. (n.b. benefits of climate change due to milder winters are looked at in the IPCC as well 11.4.1.2: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap11_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Cha...)
- southern_cross 9y ago
  I was careful not to claim that he said billions WOULD die - rather "that billions of people MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO DIE." He's the one throwing out the words "billions" and "lethal" here as a scare tactic; I'm not exactly putting any words into his mouth. I even nicely provided a link so you could see exactly what he said for yourself. And I didn't make a connection between pollution and cold, either; rather I said that their priorities here might need to shift - less concern about pollution, more concern about people staying out of the cold. And "staying out of the cold" implies maybe burning more fossil fuels, which would generate more CO2, which everyone knows isn't itself pollution anyway. As far as "problem" vs. "solution", my main goal is trying to get people to NOT buy into all of the doomsday environmental scenarios that are constantly being thrown about now. History has shown that such prognostications are almost always nonsense. (Plain old common sense should tell you that, too, but it seems a lot of people lack common sense these days.) I mean, we don't want people going off on a tangent and doing what this guy did (see below)! Amirite? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/15/he-fought-for-same-sex-marriage-for-years-and-set-himself-on-fire-to-protest-global-pollution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/1...