Global Ice Loss Accelerates - Denial remains plentiful

[Ted.]

There isn't a resource shortage.

Each new human born creates access to more resources, hence the prices for most things are declining.

Since 1980 the abundance of commodities has risen 500% in terms of work hours required to purchase them.

https://www.humanprogress.org/the-simon ... ndex-2020/

Since 1980, how much has the worlds forested areas reduced by?

The UK has tripled its forest cover in the past 100 years. It is currently at its highest level of forest cover in 1000 years.

Once countries cross $4500 GDP they start to increase their forest cover. Increase wealth in order to increase forest coverage.

https://www.humanprogress.org/economic- ... e-forests/

The Amazon, Congo and South East Asian forests on the the other hand?

H0w about little old NZ, a group of islands that's a little larger than the UK. How's its forests doing compared to the last 200 years, let alone 1000?

[Sonny Blount]

There isn't a resource shortage.

Each new human born creates access to more resources, hence the prices for most things are declining.

Since 1980 the abundance of commodities has risen 500% in terms of work hours required to purchase them.

https://www.humanprogress.org/the-simon ... ndex-2020/

Since 1980, how much has the worlds forested areas reduced by?

The UK has tripled its forest cover in the past 100 years. It is currently at its highest level of forest cover in 1000 years.

Once countries cross $4500 GDP they start to increase their forest cover. Increase wealth in order to increase forest coverage.

https://www.humanprogress.org/economic- ... e-forests/

The Amazon, Congo and South East Asian forests on the the other hand?

H0w about little old NZ, a group of islands that's a little larger than the UK. How's its forests doing compared to the last 200 years, let alone 1000?

There is nothing wrong with New Zealand having less old growth forest than it did 1000 years ago.

[Ted.]

There isn't a resource shortage.

Each new human born creates access to more resources, hence the prices for most things are declining.

Since 1980 the abundance of commodities has risen 500% in terms of work hours required to purchase them.

https://www.humanprogress.org/the-simon ... ndex-2020/

Since 1980, how much has the worlds forested areas reduced by?

The UK has tripled its forest cover in the past 100 years. It is currently at its highest level of forest cover in 1000 years.

Once countries cross $4500 GDP they start to increase their forest cover. Increase wealth in order to increase forest coverage.

https://www.humanprogress.org/economic- ... e-forests/

The Amazon, Congo and South East Asian forests on the the other hand?

H0w about little old NZ, a group of islands that's a little larger than the UK. How's its forests doing compared to the last 200 years, let alone 1000?

There is nothing wrong with New Zealand having less old growth forest than it did 1000 years ago.

From a farm production POV, sure. From a climate change and biodiversity POV, it's a bloody great disaster. But let's face it, NZ and the UK are amoeba on the pimples of the arse of the Amazon, central African rain forests and South East Asian forests. Some would say they. NZ and UK, are veritable straw-men in comparison.

[Farva]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

[Farva]

One thing to note here is that the developed world has stopped population growth by birth rates, it is the developing world that will experience the slowing growth rate.
What that means is that the developing world will hurt as their population slows - while there is still inequality between the developing and developed world, we will see net immigration from the developing to the developed world, to prop up the developed worlds labour shortages.
We wont experience the full effect of slowed population growth for some time to come.

I'm not so sure that that will be an issue in the medium term. Won't automation, especially in the developed world, see to that?

We have been talking automation for the better part of several decades. We are all supposed to be working 3 days a week and letting robots do everything. I think we will always have a role for humans.

What we will see is the low end jobs go to automation, so the skills flow from the low income to high income countries will be even more damaging and create a greater income disparity. Low income counties will lose the people who will cover the jobs that do exist to high income countries. And in high income countries there will be a growing wealth divide between those that have skills and those that dont.

Anyway, I think globalisation will push the other way and promote employment in lower income countries.

[Sonny Blount]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

[Sonny Blount]

One thing to note here is that the developed world has stopped population growth by birth rates, it is the developing world that will experience the slowing growth rate.
What that means is that the developing world will hurt as their population slows - while there is still inequality between the developing and developed world, we will see net immigration from the developing to the developed world, to prop up the developed worlds labour shortages.
We wont experience the full effect of slowed population growth for some time to come.

I'm not so sure that that will be an issue in the medium term. Won't automation, especially in the developed world, see to that?

We have been talking automation for the better part of several decades. We are all supposed to be working 3 days a week and letting robots do everything. I think we will always have a role for humans.

What we will see is the low end jobs go to automation, so the skills flow from the low income to high income countries will be even more damaging and create a greater income disparity. Low income counties will lose the people who will cover the jobs that do exist to high income countries. And in high income countries there will be a growing wealth divide between those that have skills and those that dont.

Anyway, I think globalisation will push the other way and promote employment in lower income countries.

Automation will create jobs and put pressure on the labour supply in developed countries.

[Farva]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

However, I also think that human ingenuity will resolve these issues before they become issues. So perhaps we are arguing from different sides of the same coin?

I am concerned that we dont have the political will to address these issues before they become issues. And these issues are rapidly becoming much more significant than they were previously. I think we have the capability to beat these challenges (for example, the technology exists right now to beat climate change, but I dont know if we will implement it in time) but I dont know if we will.

[Farva]

One thing to note here is that the developed world has stopped population growth by birth rates, it is the developing world that will experience the slowing growth rate.
What that means is that the developing world will hurt as their population slows - while there is still inequality between the developing and developed world, we will see net immigration from the developing to the developed world, to prop up the developed worlds labour shortages.
We wont experience the full effect of slowed population growth for some time to come.

I'm not so sure that that will be an issue in the medium term. Won't automation, especially in the developed world, see to that?

We have been talking automation for the better part of several decades. We are all supposed to be working 3 days a week and letting robots do everything. I think we will always have a role for humans.

What we will see is the low end jobs go to automation, so the skills flow from the low income to high income countries will be even more damaging and create a greater income disparity. Low income counties will lose the people who will cover the jobs that do exist to high income countries. And in high income countries there will be a growing wealth divide between those that have skills and those that dont.

Anyway, I think globalisation will push the other way and promote employment in lower income countries.

Automation will create jobs and put pressure on the labour supply in developed countries.

It will, but it will change the profile of jobs. There will be less menial jobs, and more demand for high skill jobs. Not everyone has high skills so that is the wealth divide.

[Sonny Blount]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

However, I also think that human ingenuity will resolve these issues before they become issues. So perhaps we are arguing from different sides of the same coin?

I am concerned that we dont have the political will to address these issues before they become issues. And these issues are rapidly becoming much more significant than they were previously. I think we have the capability to beat these challenges (for example, the technology exists right now to beat climate change, but I dont know if we will implement it in time) but I dont know if we will.

The usual story is that by the time we start talking about a problem, the trend that shows it is being solved has arisen decades before.

We've had environmental doomsayers for hundreds of years, they are repetitively shown to be wrong.

[Sonny Blount]

One thing to note here is that the developed world has stopped population growth by birth rates, it is the developing world that will experience the slowing growth rate.
What that means is that the developing world will hurt as their population slows - while there is still inequality between the developing and developed world, we will see net immigration from the developing to the developed world, to prop up the developed worlds labour shortages.
We wont experience the full effect of slowed population growth for some time to come.

I'm not so sure that that will be an issue in the medium term. Won't automation, especially in the developed world, see to that?

We have been talking automation for the better part of several decades. We are all supposed to be working 3 days a week and letting robots do everything. I think we will always have a role for humans.

What we will see is the low end jobs go to automation, so the skills flow from the low income to high income countries will be even more damaging and create a greater income disparity. Low income counties will lose the people who will cover the jobs that do exist to high income countries. And in high income countries there will be a growing wealth divide between those that have skills and those that dont.

Anyway, I think globalisation will push the other way and promote employment in lower income countries.

Automation will create jobs and put pressure on the labour supply in developed countries.

It will, but it will change the profile of jobs. There will be less menial jobs, and more demand for high skill jobs. Not everyone has high skills so that is the wealth divide.

it will create low skill jobs.

Computers have created demand for baristas and crossfit trainers.

[Farva]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

However, I also think that human ingenuity will resolve these issues before they become issues. So perhaps we are arguing from different sides of the same coin?

I am concerned that we dont have the political will to address these issues before they become issues. And these issues are rapidly becoming much more significant than they were previously. I think we have the capability to beat these challenges (for example, the technology exists right now to beat climate change, but I dont know if we will implement it in time) but I dont know if we will.

The usual story is that by the time we start talking about a problem, the trend that shows it is being solved has arisen decades before.

We've had environmental doomsayers for hundreds of years, they are repetitively shown to be wrong.

But we have never encountered global problems like this before

[eldanielfire]

They were speculating in the 70's that a new ice age was beginning.

Whatever happened to those lads?

Science trumps speculation. Also climate change is a complex issue, the warming of the earth will lead to it eventually cooling down.

[Sonny Blount]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

However, I also think that human ingenuity will resolve these issues before they become issues. So perhaps we are arguing from different sides of the same coin?

I am concerned that we dont have the political will to address these issues before they become issues. And these issues are rapidly becoming much more significant than they were previously. I think we have the capability to beat these challenges (for example, the technology exists right now to beat climate change, but I dont know if we will implement it in time) but I dont know if we will.

The usual story is that by the time we start talking about a problem, the trend that shows it is being solved has arisen decades before.

We've had environmental doomsayers for hundreds of years, they are repetitively shown to be wrong.

But we have never encountered global problems like this before

The older I get and the more I learn, the more optimistic I get.

[Farva]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

However, I also think that human ingenuity will resolve these issues before they become issues. So perhaps we are arguing from different sides of the same coin?

I am concerned that we dont have the political will to address these issues before they become issues. And these issues are rapidly becoming much more significant than they were previously. I think we have the capability to beat these challenges (for example, the technology exists right now to beat climate change, but I dont know if we will implement it in time) but I dont know if we will.

The usual story is that by the time we start talking about a problem, the trend that shows it is being solved has arisen decades before.

We've had environmental doomsayers for hundreds of years, they are repetitively shown to be wrong.

My argument is that this is correct if we have true capitalism. We don’t.
Capitalism requires costs to be assigned to the producer. That will create the true cost of something. If that cost is too high someone will innovate to fill the gap.
At the moment, the cost of climate change, even the costs we are experiencing now associated with larger storms, heatwaves, droughts, etc, are not making it to the producers.
A coal power plant does not pay anything for the environmental cost of emitting carbon. The opposite is true and it’s subsidised. While we have seen innovation in the form of wind and solar, if the true cost of carbon was applied to coal all of the coal plants would be closed and replaced with RE, and we might be a lot further along with the storage issue.
ICE vehicles don’t pay anything for the cost of the carbon emitter by burning oil. If they did everyone would be driving electric cars powered by green electricity. Instead the opposite is true and in Australia some electric vehicles are being taxed in addition to what ICE cars are.
You get the picture.
I am concerned we are stifling ourselves and it could easily be fixed with political will. I do t know if we have it and without that I don’t know if we will respond in time to climate change.

[Sonny Blount]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

However, I also think that human ingenuity will resolve these issues before they become issues. So perhaps we are arguing from different sides of the same coin?

I am concerned that we dont have the political will to address these issues before they become issues. And these issues are rapidly becoming much more significant than they were previously. I think we have the capability to beat these challenges (for example, the technology exists right now to beat climate change, but I dont know if we will implement it in time) but I dont know if we will.

The usual story is that by the time we start talking about a problem, the trend that shows it is being solved has arisen decades before.

We've had environmental doomsayers for hundreds of years, they are repetitively shown to be wrong.

My argument is that this is correct if we have true capitalism. We don’t.
Capitalism requires costs to be assigned to the producer. That will create the true cost of something. If that cost is too high someone will innovate to fill the gap.
At the moment, the cost of climate change, even the costs we are experiencing now associated with larger storms, heatwaves, droughts, etc, are not making it to the producers.
A coal power plant does not pay anything for the environmental cost of emitting carbon. The opposite is true and it’s subsidised. While we have seen innovation in the form of wind and solar, if the true cost of carbon was applied to coal all of the coal plants would be closed and replaced with RE, and we might be a lot further along with the storage issue.
ICE vehicles don’t pay anything for the cost of the carbon emitter by burning oil. If they did everyone would be driving electric cars powered by green electricity. Instead the opposite is true and in Australia some electric vehicles are being taxed in addition to what ICE cars are.
You get the picture.
I am concerned we are stifling ourselves and it could easily be fixed with political will. I do t know if we have it and without that I don’t know if we will respond in time to climate change.

Coal power plants have produced massive positive externalities.

They create wealth, which is the primary driver of positive environmental outcomes. They directly protect forests, because wood burning was a preceding method of energy production.

[Farva]

And yet the negative externalities are not included.
For the record, wind, solar and even gas have less negative externalities but also create wealth and stop trees being cut down for burning.

It’s not efficient.

[Gwenno]

Is there a tabloid style figure to show the net benefit for reforestation, allowing for such things as what the land was being used for before, and what land do you use instead for the same process, and also how much does dead rotting forestry contribute to greenhouse gases?

[Heymans]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

magical thinking in its purest form. How can you be so dim ffs.

[feckwanker]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

That is genuinely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on the internet. Congrats.

[Heymans]

great minds and all that...

[Sefton]

Sonny boy thinks you can just wish things into existence.

[bimboman]

Sonny boy thinks you can just wish things into existence.

Like taxes making the temperature cooler.

[Sefton]

Sonny boy thinks you can just wish things into existence.

Like taxes making the temperature cooler.

Has anybody ever said that?

[Fat Albert]

Low Antarctic continental climate sensitivity due to high ice sheet orography - Nature

The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
...
Our results suggest that the high elevation of the present AIS plays a significant role in decreasing the susceptibility of the Antarctic continent to CO2-forced warming.
...
The polar regions, however, present a conundrum for understanding present-day climate change, as recent polar warming differs markedly between the Arctic and Antarctic. Over the past several decades, the Arctic has warmed rapidly, a phenomenon linked to sea ice decline and associated radiative feedbacks. Indeed, the central Arctic has warmed by nearly 6 K over the last three decades. Over the same period, Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded, and warming has been nearly non-existent over much of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS).

[Sefton]

Anomaly hunting there, FA.

[Sonny Blount]

There is a huge issue with the Amazon not being as big as it was though.
And that is ignoring the environmental costs - purely the economic ones.

And you didnt just say that each person increases the worlds resources did you? You know they arent tied to people, resources typically are finite. Once we have dug up all the coal, thats it. Once we have cleared all the land, thats it.

Resources are infinite on a practical human civilisation scale.

We won't dig up all the coal and we won't clear all the land so long as we have market economies. The trends aren't heading in that direction. Price signals will kick in way before we get close. And we can create new land and oil.

That is genuinely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on the internet. Congrats.

You must be very, very rich based on the positions you took against dwindling resources 20 or 40 years ago?

[Sonny Blount]

Sonny boy thinks you can just wish things into existence.

Nuclear energy was wished into existence.

Solar and wind is being wished into existence.

[Gwenno]

Sonny boy thinks you can just wish things into existence.

Nuclear energy was wished into existence.

Solar and wind is being wished into existence.

Sailing close to the wind there.

[4071]

They were speculating in the 70's that a new ice age was beginning.

Whatever happened to those lads?

Science trumps speculation. Also climate change is a complex issue, the warming of the earth will lead to it eventually cooling down.

Also the ice-age proponents made up around 10% of climate scientists in the 70s, with the vast majority claiming that we would see global warming.

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/ ... %252E1.pdf

There was a strong scientific consensus in the 70s, with a minority taking a different view. And being wrong.

There is a strong scientific consensus today, too. With a tiny minority taking a different view.

The people who support the minority view today like to pretend that the minority view 40-50 years ago proves that climate scientists are inconsistent. They are either lying or have been lied to.

[4071]

They were speculating in the 70's that a new ice age was beginning.

Whatever happened to those lads?

"They"?

A minority of climate scientists, swimming against the tide of scientific consensus, were claiming that. Sure. "They" were wrong, however. The majority were right.

[Sonny Blount]

They were speculating in the 70's that a new ice age was beginning.

Whatever happened to those lads?

Science trumps speculation. Also climate change is a complex issue, the warming of the earth will lead to it eventually cooling down.

Also the ice-age proponents made up around 10% of climate scientists in the 70s, with the vast majority claiming that we would see global warming.

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/ ... %252E1.pdf

There was a strong scientific consensus in the 70s, with a minority taking a different view. And being wrong.

There is a strong scientific consensus today, too. With a tiny minority taking a different view.

The people who support the minority view today like to pretend that the minority view 40-50 years ago proves that climate scientists are inconsistent. They are either lying or have been lied to.

And what actually are the minority and majority opinions you are talking about?

"Humans are causing the earth to warm" is an utterly trivial claim btw.

[Fat Albert]

With apologies to Mr Eschenbach



Activists want all fossil fuel use ended by 2050, the above projection indicates that, with or without forced change, 193 Petawatt hours of fossil fuel generated energy will need to be replaced by then.

To get the world to zero emissions by 2050, our options are to build, commission, and bring on-line either:

• One 2.1 gigawatt (GW, 109 watts) nuclear power plant each and every day until 2050, OR

• 3000 two-megawatt (MW, 106 watts) wind turbines each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050* OR

• 96 square miles (250 square kilometres) of solar panels each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050*

It is evident that all of those alternatives are not just impossible, they are pie-in-the-sky, flying unicorns, bull-goose looney impossible.

The one common factor shared by all activists is their inability to perform simple arithmetic

* assuming no turbine or panel failures and allowing for spinable backup generation for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine

[Sefton]

That’s progress with FA, he’s gone from flat out denial that there was an issue to now it’s too hard to solve, about 5 years later than most cranks but baby steps are good.

[Fat Albert]

[Farva]

I'm not so sure that that will be an issue in the medium term. Won't automation, especially in the developed world, see to that?

We have been talking automation for the better part of several decades. We are all supposed to be working 3 days a week and letting robots do everything. I think we will always have a role for humans.

What we will see is the low end jobs go to automation, so the skills flow from the low income to high income countries will be even more damaging and create a greater income disparity. Low income counties will lose the people who will cover the jobs that do exist to high income countries. And in high income countries there will be a growing wealth divide between those that have skills and those that dont.

Anyway, I think globalisation will push the other way and promote employment in lower income countries.

Automation will create jobs and put pressure on the labour supply in developed countries.

It will, but it will change the profile of jobs. There will be less menial jobs, and more demand for high skill jobs. Not everyone has high skills so that is the wealth divide.

it will create low skill jobs.

Computers have created demand for baristas and crossfit trainers.

How many barista and PT training jobs have been created and how many low skill jobs have computers displaced?

Modelling suggests that low skills jobs will be replaced by AI. I don’t agree with your position.

The results also suggest a future transformation of work. In middle and low-skilled jobs, AI systems will complete the easily automated tasks while humans continue to perform those that cannot be automated. A high probability of automation may also be associated with the creation of new tasks and jobs though the productivity gains from adopting AI technologies, but these jobs and tasks will most likely be high-skilled.

https://www.bruegel.org/2020/06/artific ... lled-jobs/