Saving the planet

[gurnemanz]

One of the drawbacks of conifer plantations of any kind is not just reduced light levels at ground level

Hence Black Forest

[Serial_Apologist]

The real root cause of environmental issues is surely the continuing massive rise in the world’s population. Too many babies are being born worldwide - a situation that has been largely sidestepped for generations. Land use is now a competition between trees, agriculture, housing, leisurely and recreation, transport infrastructure and energy. Meanwhile people make celebrities of families with 9 or 22 children.

Large families in poor countries are explained by a need for care when social care of the elderly is lacking, and also, where disease is so great a factor in life chances beyond a lower age than that of advanced countries, a greater hoped-for expectation of succession. Raise living standards and life expectancy, and the problem reduces. If this does not happen it is because of the way the West has exported (sub-contracted) the poverty it had previously imposed on its own working classes.

[vinteuil]

Large families in poor countries are explained by a need for care when social care of the elderly is lacking, and also, where disease is so great a factor in life chances beyond a lower age than that of advanced countries, a greater hoped-for expectation of succession. Raise living standards and life expectancy, and the problem reduces.

... the clearest predictor of a diminution in family size is an increase in female literacy / education

.

[oddoneout]

Large families in poor countries are explained by a need for care when social care of the elderly is lacking, and also, where disease is so great a factor in life chances beyond a lower age than that of advanced countries, a greater hoped-for expectation of succession. Raise living standards and life expectancy, and the problem reduces. If this does not happen it is because of the way the West has exported (sub-contracted) the poverty it had previously imposed on its own working classes.

Something that was covered close to 50 years ago when I was a student, together with all the other environmental and eco concerns that are now so familiar.
Two things that slightly muddy the population waters, so to speak. Not all children are born equal in terms of their load on the earth's resources; an American child will have(on current showing) significantly more impact during its life than many(most?) others. The other, which is cause for despair frankly, is that when a country's birth rate falls it causes panic and attempts to get the women producing again - Japan, South Korea, Italy and China, off the top of my head. There are economic arguments put forward as to why that is the case, but it does rather fly in the face of the notion of how many people can the planet actually support to a reasonable(which will not be the ultra western standard) standard. Trouble is country takes priority over planet, and so collaborative solutions don't work internationally or at scale.

[oddoneout]

Dartmoor has plenty of Sitka spruce plantations used in paper and musical instrument manufacture. They are ugly (in my view) but if the energy consultants are to be believed sequester more carbon per acre than broadleaf (twice as much ) . Hardly surprising as they are so densely planted. They are grown in areas which were historically grazed for sheep and cattle. Indeed if you go back far enough crops were grown there as they were on the Lakeland fells. Unfortunately our ancestors didn’t understand crop rotation and destroyed the soil ( and the carbon therein) . They also cut down the oaks that gave us the name Dart (it is derived from the Celtic word for oak). So we now have an historically massively over grazed moor dotted with spruce plantations.

You’re right about carbon capture but I think we still have to give it a go. Small scale nukes are also full of problems - what do you do with the waste and is it acceptable / safe to put even small reactors in population centres?
Carbon offsetting is a bit of a con as well - it isn’t reducing carbon anything like fast enough . Before lockdown I calculated our 2 person tally at 18 tonnes per year and that’s with no flying. I reckon I’ve cut it by third with less gas consumption, fewer night away in hotels , more train travel etc . But to hit net zero the average 2 person household need to hit 1.2 tonnes per annum . With current tech we can only reach that by substantially cutting our standard of living - buying fewer clothes and manufactured goods, minimal air travel , reducing meat consumption.

Conifer plantations sequester more carbon as they grow quicker. Whether the broader picture gives the same result I don't know - monocultures, soil degradation, long term v short term, etc are unlikely to be positive.
Broadleaf woodland would originally have been the plant cover over much of the area, the modern perception of uplands = open moors is the result of human activity over millenia.

[Serial_Apologist]

... the clearest predictor of a diminution in family size is an increase in female literacy / education

.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Serial_Apologist]

Something that was covered close to 50 years ago when I was a student, together with all the other environmental and eco concerns that are now so familiar.
Two things that slightly muddy the population waters, so to speak. Not all children are born equal in terms of their load on the earth's resources; an American child will have(on current showing) significantly more impact during its life than many(most?) others. The other, which is cause for despair frankly, is that when a country's birth rate falls it causes panic and attempts to get the women producing again - Japan, South Korea, Italy and China, off the top of my head. There are economic arguments put forward as to why that is the case, but it does rather fly in the face of the notion of how many people can the planet actually support to a reasonable(which will not be the ultra western standard) standard. Trouble is country takes priority over planet, and so collaborative solutions don't work internationally or at scale.

Exactly - although I would substitute unsustainable capitalism for "country", given that we have to begin somewhere. Getting rid of a system that is so blatantly wasteful, in terms of its divisiveness, waste of material and economic resources on speculation (gambling), multiple bureaucratic duplication (otherwise known as company boardrooms) and hyper-privileged capital accumulation, and devolving power of decision-making cross-sectorally to grass-roots planning to prioritise meeting fundamental needs, ought to be recognised as a precondition of sustainability. But "we are where we are", to reiterate that deplorable cliché. However degraded, the democracy in a nation state has become it has to be the first-step consideration in any move towards international co-operation.

[Joseph K]

The real root cause of environmental issues is surely the continuing massive rise in the world’s population. Too many babies are being born worldwide - a situation that has been largely sidestepped for generations. Land use is now a competition between trees, agriculture, housing, leisurely and recreation, transport infrastructure and energy. Meanwhile people make celebrities of families with 9 or 22 children.

No. The problem is not too many people - rather, too many rich people, who have a far bigger carbon footprint than the poorest. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...y-consumption/

Also capitalism, which is predicated on continual exponential growth. We need a global socialist revolution whose priorities are strongly green and as vinteuil points out, feminist. It is only in this context that population rise can be seen.

[Serial_Apologist]

No. The problem is not too many people - rather, too many rich people, who have a far bigger carbon footprint than the poorest. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...y-consumption/

Also capitalism, which is predicated on continual exponential growth. We need a global socialist revolution whose priorities are strongly green and as vinteuil points out, feminist. It is only in this context that population rise can be seen.

And be made sustainable.

[Sir Velo]

Conifer plantations sequester more carbon as they grow quicker.

Naturally regenerated forests tend to be more carbon-rich than plantations, allied to which the latter are a disaster for native wildlife species and for biodiversity.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Naturally regenerated forests tend to be more carbon-rich than plantations, allied to which the latter are a disaster for native wildlife species and for biodiversity.

That’s a bit oversimplified. Plantations of mixed deciduous trees develop biodiversity quite quickly. Conifer plantations are often virtually devoid of significant levels of life.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No. The problem is not too many people - rather, too many rich people, who have a far bigger carbon footprint than the poorest. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...y-consumption/

Also capitalism, which is predicated on continual exponential growth. We need a global socialist revolution whose priorities are strongly green and as vinteuil points out, feminist. It is only in this context that population rise can be seen.

It’s still a problem of too many people. Even extra human means a net increase in CO2, food and water consumption, and an increase in demand for building land. The rich may indeed take more than their fair share, and some levelling down by them would be helpful, but there would still be a huge overpopulation problem.

[Bryn]

That’s a bit oversimplified. Plantations of mixed deciduous trees develop biodiversity quite quickly. Conifer plantations are often virtually devoid of significant levels of life.

Locally to where I live, there is a Crown Estate commercial Sitka plantation. It had very low management and, for much of its expanse, there is an understory of Rhododendron ponticum and holly, which serves to further limit both plant diversity and other wildlife. That said, in general, this is a fairly heavily mixed woodland area with patches of ancient woodland.

[vinteuil]

Rhododendron ponticum

... spawn of the devil

.

[Joseph K]

It’s still a problem of too many people. Even extra human means a net increase in CO2, food and water consumption, and an increase in demand for building land. The rich may indeed take more than their fair share, and some levelling down by them would be helpful, but there would still be a huge overpopulation problem.

As already stated, the problem is one of capitalism, not overpopulation per se. Saying there are too many people seems to imply a false equality amongst said people. The truth is the earth can sustain people of average means, but not billionaires. We have a huge billionaire problem.