100m to die by 2030 if climate action fails: report

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

100m to die by 2030 if climate action fails: report


www.smh.com.au

More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.


So, is anyone scared yet?


Seriously though, it is evident that there is a form of climate change occurring, but i'm not sure if i really trust this unified report which comes from 20 Governments and DARPA.....

To me, it sounds more like a scare program in order to introduce Carbon/Climate fighting schemes, much like Australia's Carbon Tax.

Time will tell.

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You know, just because a report says it, doesn't make it true. I very much doubt that 100 million people are going to die because of climate change. More likely, they'll have to relocate from islands and coastal areas, which isn't as big a problem as it sounds like. Human population centers tend to grow along coasts, so inland areas are left relatively bare.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
nop, lol why be scared the evolution of the earth is consistently changing, I don't pretend to have a god complex and think we can actually change the daily temperatures consistently every day for the next 20 years to create a climate period we can then look back at and study

There is no way with out weather modification we will effect something as huge as a planet, let alone cleaning this one up replanting ALL the tree's we have cut down cleaned the oceans.

Even with Co2 sequestration rolled out in every corner of the earth i doubt it will effect global temperatures with in the next 20 to 100 years. Plus we really have no idea on the long term outcome even if we try to modify daily temperatures

We are here for the ride so hang on.
edit on 25-9-2012 by Legion2024 because: 11:11



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Lol, bwahahahha
! Um the prase BS comes to mind..........let le guess we must all give all of our rights and personnal freedom to the "smart" people or the sky will fall?

It is simple, fear mongering, other wise known as "fear porn", this is the same old line, even though it is widely known that natural methane has a far geater impact, and one volcanic eruption spews more "greenhouse" gases in one day, than man has in his entire history.

The climate may be changing, but man is not to blame, nor can he stop it.
Man wil "adapt" or he will join 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all the species to have already lived and died out in the earths history.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Of course there is climate change occurring, I am not sure there is really much doubt about that. The Earth has always had climate changes. Sadly for humans when the Earth has had those climate changes there has also been mass extinction along with it.

See this thread.....
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The real question is how much if any at all is mankind affecting the climate. There is no question that there is a climate change taking place, and it is possible man is affecting it. I doubt we are affecting it as much as some would have us believe. The fact that this has taken place many times long before man ever walked the Earth proves that to me.

For mass extinction to have walked with the climate changes of the past it seems likely that many of them took place in a rapid time frame as well and not giving life time to adapt. Sure you will get some species that will go extinct regardless, but if the climate changes took place at a much slower rate much more life would have adapted than did.

I agree with the sentiment of this being a scare tactic to carbon tax.

Raist



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Such 'Crank' reports as this forever fail to tyake into account one simple, Natural Fact. ALGAE alone converts 20 Billion Tonnes of CO2 into Oxygen each year in our said Atmosphere. ALGAE supplies more Oxygen to this planet than all other living plants put together, and guess what ? The more CO2 supplied , the faster ALGAE multiples.

According to a recent BBC report, there is nigh on no ice left at / in or around the North pole region. IF that's true, then how come no mention of sea level rising fast ?????



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
While not wishing to detract from the larger point about the inevitable consequences of our reckless pursuit to exploit everyone and everything in sight for profit.... I would like to remind everyone what is being offered as an invaluable solution.... "carbon credits."

I'm certain no one would purposefully endanger the entire planet to encourage a movement towards another currency monopoly.... or perhaps create a furor over the idea for whatever nefarious purposes.

2030... that's not along time, is it?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Very well stated, star for you! And that's why your a mod, so much content so few words, you even managed to work in a fun splash of well timed and phrased sarcasm, just to bring the point across in a none biased, and friendly manner.

God I wish I was a word smith instead of an A-hole, things would have been so much more fun.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I would like to remind everyone what is being offered as an invaluable solution.... "carbon credits."


Of course, a fair assessment of the climatic value of such would reveal that they do not serve to lower the overall levels of emissions, but enrich the few who are able to actively trade in the medium.

Witness the failure of the UK and EU carbon trading schemes, which do not result in a net reduction of CO2 emissions, but have made rich those savvy enough to trade.

Please name a Kyoto signatory that has effectively lowered global emissions.
This is easy, because there are none!

jw



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
These reports are all just a scam so that people can make more money. Nobody care about the climate. The solution to it all is very easy - invest and expand heavily in nuclear power (first cleaner safer fission, then fusion), electrify our entire vehicle ecosystem (it aint gonna happen if goverments dont force it).

We already have the technology for this entire two-part solution - we have had it for years. But is it going to happen? No. Because oil and car companies dominate the buisness and they dont want to. Not to mention the goverment is acting all retarded with the "enviromental" craze that's going on. Oooooh clean energy. F**k that. Its only making it worse. "Clean energy" in terms of for example windmills and solar power is like beating a dead horse to make it move faster. You may push it forwards if you beat it hard enough, but its quite inefficient.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I have said this before, and will no doubt have to say it again. It does not matter any more what the cause of global warming is. It matters not one whit if it is man made or natural. The real deal going forward, is what we can do to insulate ourselves against its effects.

Some believe that the effect cannot be reversed, and that only very small mitigations could be made at this point to the sum total effect, even if we never drove cars again, never burn fossil fuels at powerstations, quit smoking and used roll on deodorants from now on. So the real concern is, how do we prevent coastal regions and island nations from suffering total humanitarian nightmares in the time to come.

Thailand (at least I think it is Thailand) are commissioning architects to build floating houses on pontoons, and also floatable cities. This is one example of a pragmatic and sensible approach to the possible terrors of a future which will see sea level rise beyond the capacity of current infrastructure to withstand. But for one nation to be thinking about DEALING with that future, rather than some vain Canute like attempt to avert it, is not going to amount to a whole hell of a lot. The future we are looking at demands a united approach to saving lives all over the globe.

Remember, we are not supposed to be saving the world. The damned planet is trying to kill us, wether at a whim, or as a vengence for our idiocies and chemical excesses, and all we can do is try and survive.

In all honesty, I think people will survive no matter what happens, albeit in small pockets in the high mountains, or other high land areas. But there is a difference between survival on that scale, and the possible saving of the large majority of peoples across the world. Its no good individual nations surviving, and its no use single tribes of man hiding out in limited space in the mountains.

Mankind as the cancerous wretch that it is, must survive and become stronger and wiser, and it cannot do that if it is thrown into the dark ages by circumstances beyond its control. If mankind is to survive, and crucially if all our learning and knowledge are to survive, then there must be a unified approach to funding and building technological and logistical protections into the way we ALL live our lives.

Perhaps ultimately it is time we got off this rock and left for pastures new. Perhaps thats why the 100 year space mission is being dug over again at the moment. All I know is, trying to hold back the sea is a damned fine way of getting drowned. A submarine on the other hand....



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Sorry but this is not shocking at all,actually way more people will die by the year 2030,it's an eye opener no doubt.
edit on 26-9-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
100m isn't that much really.

I mean the world population grows right now at 56,039,074 people in one year.
So in 2030, the population grew with 1 billion compared of today.

My bet there will be many more then the 100m mentioned. Already you see the signs that this world isn't cooping with our destructive lifestyles and so on.

And the only things they have as an answer is carbon tax.. We are screwed..
Good thing I don't have kids.
edit on 26-9-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


bah... it's 100M POOR people... good luck getting anyone to care about them...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
don't you know? there is no such thing as climate change. what action? humans have no influence on the earth climate?


Come on listen to those people that think climate change and global warming due to humans is a hoax.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Threads like this are wasted on ATS. Most ATS users are AGW deniers because they prefer to listen to the propaganda put out by the US and the oil companies.. Really no one knows what is going to happen but when the stakes are so high a risk is not worth taking... We should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels if its not too late already.. s/f



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I don't put too much faith in these kind of predictions. Anybody can say anything and by the time twenty years goes by nobody will remember about it anymore than they remember what was said political or scientific twenty years ago.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Threads like this are wasted on ATS. Most ATS users are AGW deniers because they prefer to listen to the propaganda put out by the US and the oil companies.. Really no one knows what is going to happen but when the stakes are so high a risk is not worth taking... We should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels if its not too late already.. s/f


I don't understand. This thread isn't about whether climate change is real. It's about the desperate need for action (ostensibly to avoid deaths that would otherwise not occur.)

While my comment may seem to be a 'denier' post, it is not... it's about how carbon credits won't "save lives" - (although it will make many 'rich' people much richer.)

As a cynical conspiracy theorist (which is what I want to be when I grow up) I know it is all propaganda when it is produced commercially. My issue has never been about the problem.... it's about the solution being 'sold' by those who insist on the problem in a certain way... Their logic is false. They seem to think that getting the people of the earth to cherish and protect their planet will give them the freedom to continue their exploitation... their marketing serves to blame anyone but those who actually engender wanton pollution, careless use of technology, and the consideration of everything outside profit as an "externality" which they can assume no responsibility for. But the solution will make more club members richer and more powerful... Interesting "fix."

I would wager their carbon credit solution will kill more people than the climate would... except I'm not quite that cynical ... yet.

I welcome discussions about our impact on the load bearing capacity of our ecosystem. I welcome the awareness it evokes. I hate that it is almost always accompanied by mercantilism-centric solutions... as if the earths ecosystem had something to do with money....



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You know, just because a report says it, doesn't make it true. I very much doubt that 100 million people are going to die because of climate change. More likely, they'll have to relocate from islands and coastal areas, which isn't as big a problem as it sounds like. Human population centers tend to grow along coasts, so inland areas are left relatively bare.


Well, that would be true if sea levels were rising, but they are actually falling a little.

I doubt Al Gore would have bought an oceanfront estate in California if he was really concerned.





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join