• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Twitching and your carbon footprint. (1 Viewer)

J. Moore said:
I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree with that statement. If you look at this list of the world's top carbon dioxide emitters by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions), you will see that there are vast differences in the amount of carbon dioxide produced per capita between various countries. For example, in 2004, the United States, with about 30% of India's population, produced four times as much carbon dioxide. This is a pretty clear demonstration that the amount of carbon dioxide emission has much less to do with the number of people than it does how they live, and what sorts of technology they use. When it comes to global warming, I really think these are the issues we need to be focusing on. Those in developed nations need to change the way they live and adopt more environmentally friendly technologies, and those in developing nations need to take steps to ensure they do not make the same mistakes as the developed nations and instead develop in a more environmentally friendly way.

Here is another chart showing carbon dioxide emissions per capita by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Cordially,
Jim
Click to expand...

I agree, to a certain extent. Clearly, a relatively small number of people use a relatively large amount of the resources. But that doesn't mean overpopulation is not the underlying problem. If we all lived on far fewer resources, then the maximum human population that the earth could sustain would be much greater than it is currently. However, with continued population growth, we would still reach that maximum, and we would still be in trouble.

But of course, that's why it's important for those countries that consume the greatest per capita resources to push for changes... while it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of overpopulation, it will ease the burden on the earth considerably and buy us more time for some serious social reform.
 
Coigach said:
Over population is by far the biggest danger to the planet.
Click to expand...

Population in the developed world (USA, Japan, and Europe) has been largely stable or declining, when you take out the effects of immigration, for several decades. It is a well-known phenomenon that as countries develop their birthrates decline. And China is of course famous for controlling its population by authoritarian means. I do not really see any evidence for your claim that it is by far the biggest danger (though I agree it is a concern). Nor do I understand the logic of suggesting that the presence of one problem means we should ignore others. I expect global warming, if it continues, will eliminate most of your concerns about overpopulation by unpleasant means.

And as for comparing the U.S. with India, obviously India is a much poorer country, that was part of my point. The enormous difference in carbon impact is explained by the difference in lifestyle. So it demonstrates by simple logic that changing your lifestyle can greatly reduce carbon emissions even with a much larger population. I am not saying we in the developed world need to live in poverty like most Indians, but we need to change our lifestyle so it leaves a similarly shallow carbon footprint.

In any event, this will probably be my last post in this thread, since I have more pressing matters to attend to.

Cordially,
Jim
 
Last edited:
By the way folks do any of you know what is the biggest contributor of CO2 into the atmosphere by miles?
It's the Oceans. They give it off in quantities we could never match.
Some good responses here.
 
Overpopulation is the biggest threat to biodiversity in the world. So far the world population has disposed of 75% of the wilderness area and it is still rising. The greatest rises continue to be in the areas of least wealth, and where the distribution of wealth is least even.

Population growth has shown a tendency to reduce with improving lifestyle BUT it has also been shown there is a large time lag between the two. In that time gap the environment is trashed.

The current predictions of future world population growth show the population reaching levels that cannot avoid removing all of the wilderness that can possibly be exploited, within a hundred years. There is nothing in human history that suggests whole nations' outlooks can be altered fundamentally in that time.

It is absolutely plain, in the way that it doesn't need research to prove that the British obesity epidemic is due to overeating, that in the face of generally rising lifestyles the only room for reducing carbon use is drastic population loss.

The main hope for the environment at present is probably pandemic flu, but the real solution to the planet's problems is the condom.

John
 
Farnboro John said:
The main hope for the environment at present is probably pandemic flu, but the real solution to the planet's problems is the condom.
Click to expand...

There I was just about to type 'Go flu bug' myself and you beat me to it!

As for the second part, decided 25 years ago not to inflict dunnokev nestlings on an unsuspecting world and don't regret it (yet!).

(Oh, and just about to give up my car for a pushbike - sickening goodie goodie ain't I??)

Seriously though, as long as there's a selfish gene in our genetic makeup, we'll muck it all up - just a shame we'll take so much with us.

DunnoKev
----------
"For details on twitching the last breeding Yellowhammers in the county, see the latest Suppressex Ornithological Society Newsletter"
 
Some of you seem to have got a bit hot under the collar at times during this debate and have 'disagreed' with each others view points. The irony, IMHO, is that all of your points are vaild (and well made). You could list them all as problems that all need addressing.

Personally I blame Kev for global warming due to his constant ringing trips to Brazil. ;)
 
J. Moore said:
......Nor do I understand the logic of suggesting that the presence of one problem means we should ignore others.
Click to expand...

But I'm not ignoring the problem of Global Warming. Surely you can see the connection between a large expanding population and Global Warming. Don't forget also that up until now, a large proportion of the World's population has lived in poverty. However as "Third World" countries try to catch up to the West, fewer and fewer people will be "happy" to live in poverty, and therefore a much larger proportion of the population will want the so called luxuries that we enjoy, such as cars for example, and all the other devices which cause Global Warming. Even if the population stayed as it is, we would be in trouble, but if it nearly doubles as predicted over the next 20 odd years, we're facing catastrophy.

I expect global warming, if it continues, will eliminate most of your concerns about overpopulation by unpleasant means......
Click to expand...

But conversely, population reduction would also address many of your concerns regarding Global Warming.
 
Coigach said:
But I'm not ignoring the problem of Global Warming. Surely you can see the connection between a large expanding population and Global Warming. Don't forget also that up until now, a large proportion of the World's population has lived in poverty. However as "Third World" countries try to catch up to the West, fewer and fewer people will be "happy" to live in poverty, and therefore a much larger proportion of the population will want the so called luxuries that we enjoy, such as cars for example, and all the other devices which cause Global Warming. Even if the population stayed as it is, we would be in trouble, but if it nearly doubles as predicted over the next 20 odd years, we're facing catastrophy.



But conversely, population reduction would also address many of your concerns regarding Global Warming.
Click to expand...


30 love

POP
 
Maybe, just maybe, we're all missing the point completely and the cause of global warming is that the Earth's just getting slightly closer to the sun on its rotations!!! Hopefully it will go back over time...
 
Last edited:
mr.sim said:
Maybe, just maybe, we're all missing the point completely and the cause of global warming is that the Earth's just getting slightly closer to the sun on its rotations!!! Hopefully it will go back over time...
Click to expand...

Did you realise that in the British summer, the sun is actually about 3 million miles further away from the sun than it is in our winter? So I guess that rules that one out.
 
mr.sim said:
Maybe, just maybe, we're all missing the point completely and the cause of global warming is that the Earth's just getting slightly closer to the sun on its rotations!!! Hopefully it will go back over time...
Click to expand...

Hi All. Interesting thread.

mr.sim,
The earth HAS been going through a warming trend since the end of the last ice age (as part of the warming/cooling cycles that have been going on for 'ages'). However, this warming trend has accelerated to an alarming rate, and this acceleration just HAPPENS to coincide with the onset of the 'Industrial Revolution.' I don't really consider that an OPINION, as there is ample data to prove that as FACT. Are you saying that the human race has had NO impact on the current accelerating warming trend (global warming)? If so, then I respectfully reject your 'reality' and substitute my own.

Now, as to the original post...one only has to look at the IBWO thread to see how much of a carbon footprint (helicopters, power-boats & other such nonsense) has been left over a bird that has not been verifiably seen in decades, and has presumably been extinct for decades. If ('Katie, bar the door!') IBWO WERE ever proved to still exist, then the carbon footprint resulting from worlwide twitchers, scientists, and the 'media' would be HUGE. Do I think that this would accelerate global warming significantly? No, definitely not. But I do believe that every one of us humans has an incremental impact (carbon footprint) on our planet...and there are WAY too many of us...and over time it all adds up to a significant amount. I also believe that if many weren't 'twitching,' then they probably would be participating in other activities that would also leave a carbon footprint (some smaller...some greater). Best Wishes.

Respectfully,

Ron Davidson
 
I was actually just joking do you realise? I believe fully that the human race has had a massive impact on the planet and has overtipped the balance. Civil war will break out in the not so near future competing for food as the areas of desertification creep north, reducing the amount of arable land available. Apparently the number of humans the planet can sustain is just over 1 billion meaning that it is at the moment dealing with six times that amount.
Its devastating to see the effects that are already seeting in - just the other day a polar bear was found on iceland showing that their habitat is being lost at an alarming rate pushing them south.
As a human race we are ruining the planet and as a teenager (15) I am going to see more of the effects than most of you (no offense). I just wonder what the governments are going to do as I beleive that the worst cause is the world population. Once that is reduced can we seriously think about reducing our carbon emmisions effectively and maybe reduce the amount of damage that will be caused.
As many famous people have already predicted - then damage is already done for the next 20 years and we cannot counteract that, but we have to think about the future and therefore the belief that there is no point in reducing carbon emmisions is stupid in my opinion. Your children are the ones that are going to feel the effects more than you. Maybe those effects will be war - so think about the future and don't be self centred - is what I have to say to those who have given up already.
 
mr.sim said:
As a human race we are ruining the planet and as a teenager (15) I am going to see more of the effects than most of you (no offense). ...we have to think about the future and therefore the belief that there is no point in reducing carbon emmisions is stupid in my opinion. Your children are the ones that are going to feel the effects more than you...so think about the future and don't be self centred - is what I have to say to those who have given up already.
Click to expand...

Excellent contribution Sim and good to hear a perspective from the 'younger' generation ... You've highlighted a very salient point, that action now is so much harder when addressing an issue that has potentially severe longterm effects in contrast to what one might perceive as the immediate picture. The severity of causative links between human activity and climate change are grounded in two very important factors:

1. Population continues to accelerate

2. It's predicted that Climate change has an inbuilt exponential acceleration rate with a predicted point of no return even though it is not know how to ascertain when that might be or even recognise it when it reaches that point.

The combination of these two factors make for a heady mix! We all have a tendency at times to say 'Not today, but tomorrow, I will rebuild Drogeda'.
 
mr.sim said:
I was actually just joking do you realise? I believe fully that the human race has had a massive impact on the planet and has overtipped the balance.
Click to expand...

mr.sim,
I had a feeling that you were joking :-O, but I just HAD to 'rise to the bait;' because unfortunately (and incredibly) there are many who are STILL in a state of denial about our impact on our planet. Ultimately I DO believe that we will address these issues aggressively enough to reverse the process...we have no choice. Awareness is most certainly the first step, and we definitely ARE becoming more aware of how we impact our planet. I agree with you about thinking about the future and...not giving up. We must NEVER, EVER give up. Best Wishes. :t:

I fear that I have helped steer this thread away from its original topic...so I will try to steer it back. As I mentioned earlier, if one were not 'twitching,' then one would be participating in other activities that would also leave a carbon footprint. I believe that in the near future, modes of transportation for 'twitching' (and all activities) will be greatly improved, so that we have less of an impact on the environment. Best Wishes.

Ron
Click to expand...
 
Driving a Hybrid car would certainly help to reduce the carbon emmisions whilst twitching! :-O Apparently they're very expensive, but we should be willing to pay far more to counteract the damage we have already done. I cycle when I can and often take the train or bus o:)
If we ALL do a little, then I'm sure the carbon emmisions would be slightly reduced. On the other hand, we could adopt the policy of paying to plant a tree after every large twitch we do?
 
Mannix said:
Did you realise that in the British summer, the sun is actually about 3 million miles further away from the sun than it is in our winter? So I guess that rules that one out.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with this, but why is it colder in winter if the planet is closer to the sun then? Is it something to do with the Earth's internal atmosphere or something?
 
mr.sim said:
I'm not disagreeing with this, but why is it colder in winter if the planet is closer to the sun then? Is it something to do with the Earth's internal atmosphere or something?
Click to expand...

It all has to do with the angle of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun. The earth is actually tilted on its axis, and as it revolves around the sun the angle of the sun's rays striking the earth varies. In the summer this tilt causes one of the hemispheres (northern & southern hemispheres have their seasons reversed) to face the sun more directly...the sun appears much higher above the horizon and the sun's rays are warming a greater portion of the land/sea for a longer period of time than in the winter. In the winter, the reverse is true...lower angle of the sun above the horizon, smaller portion for a shorter period. I hope that this helps answer your question. Best Wishes.

Ron
 
deborah4 said:
We all have a tendency at times to say 'Not today, but tomorrow, I will rebuild Drogeda'.
Click to expand...

Great quote, Deborah. I can't find where it comes from. Can you tell me?:t:

Mr. Sim: Your suggestion that each of us plants a tree, or pays for such after a twitch is an excellent one. Clear thinking, a practical suggestion from an up-and-coming adult instead of the hand-wringing, hair-tearing groanings I tend towards!:t:
 
I don't think twitching has very much to do with the environment compared to all the millions of people who have four-wheelers, snowmobiles, the biggest the most inefficient vehicles, giant RVs. Not to mention Factories, Industrial, all the chemicals used on fields, Nuclear Plants, etc. I think more attention should be made to making our vehicles more efficient and less bad for the environment.

I would have no guilt driving even 500 to see a rare vagrant. However there are other reasons why a probably wouldn't do this. Number 1, is that gas is costing more and more. Number 2, I don't have the time and I would probably enjoy myself just as much at a birding location within 2 hours.

I think we should do what we can, which includes carpooling, going to closer locations, etc. But I don't think we should necessarily omit all birding (even twitching that is farther away. Like the Slaty-backed Gull that was about 2 hours away this winter. I don't think there is any problem with going to see a bird like this, especially considering you can do some birding while you are there. I do almost all my birding within a 1/2 hour but I will probably be going to more places this fall. I also have to say I have never twitched, almost wholly because of lack of time. And I am never likely to go more than 3 hours to see one bird.

Agree with the person that mentioned that it is birding (even twitching) dollars that saved many of the most important bird areas. This is probably even more important than the emissions problem, at least for now.
 
tittletattler said:
Personally I blame Kev for global warming due to his constant ringing trips to Brazil. ;)
Click to expand...

Aww TT, lies all lies - never raised me pliers there (yet)! Too busy supporting the efforts to get primary rainforest protected. Mind you, it was a long way to go to lead a young rangers walk and have the Brazilian kids confuse me for Bono! :-O

And if I remember rightly ain't I under orders to take you with me next time?? I promise I will if you get that vasectomy your missus keeps threatening you with..

DunnoKev
------------
"Twitching - the way ahead? Hybrid cars for hybrid ducks": a recent Suppressex Ornithological Society chatgroup topic
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

T
Twitching and suppression
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
9K
WACCOE
WACCOE
A
Do you use your Nikon roofs in the rain?
Replies
16
Views
1K
quincy88
Q
C
Manfrotto 190GOA4 + 128RC compatibility with Kowa 883, plus backpack/transport question
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Chris C
C
H
Birdwatching more locally
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Mysticete
Mysticete
G
  • Article
Citadels And Symphonies
Replies
2
Views
203
Green Sandpiper
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top