The Swamp logo

Saving the plant, marketing ploy or reality

Can we save the planet while ignoring population numbers ?

By Peter RosePublished 3 years ago 7 min read
1

Saving the planet-- marketing ploy or reality?

Can we really save the plant while ignoring population numbers?

Is the slogan “we must save the planet,” the greatest marketing and sales aid ever found? Or is it really possible to reverse global climate change without halving the total population of the world? Would halving the population actually cause a reversal of climate change?

Many protest groups maintain that by stopping travel by combustion engined vehicles and stopping the using of all fossil fuels or nuclear derived energy means of generating energy, stopping meat eating, stopping all pollution- see definition; will reverse or at least stop the ever changing global climate. The enforced changes to the behaviour of the majority is considered, by a minority, to be a low price to pay.

Are these claims valid? Firstly we have to consider the fact that the global climate of this planet is and always has been, in a state of change. Archaeology shows that over the course of history, starting way before the evolution of humans; the climate has changed with drastic effects on landscape and even life. What are now deserts were once under water, what are now mountains were once valleys. There is not any indication that this constant state of change can be stopped. Humans have no power to prevent shifts of volcanic activity, tectonic plates or even trade winds, no power to regulate the ultra deep oceanic flows. Stopping pollution may slow the rate of change, that is theoretically possible, but it will not stop climate change. How can it? all the great global influences on climate and even geography, are outside of human control.

Consider the marketing claims that if we all change to electric cars we will be saving the planet. Also making a few people very rich but that is not mentioned in the sales literature. If you drive a 20 year old diesel car and use this in the real world, it is probable that you will get between 30 and 40 mpg while shopping and between 50 and 55 on those longer trips. Despite the marketing claims, most hybrid cars driven in real world situations, will struggle to add more than 50% to these distances. The laboratory controlled conditions they use to establish quoted consumption figures are not real world actual experienced situations. All electric vehicles with 2 or more occupants and driven in real traffic conditions will not cover the distance, between recharging, that it says in the adverts. Leave aside, for the moment, the environmental issues and consider the costs to the motorist. The old diesel has no depreciation so its total costs are fuel, tax, insurance and (in Britain) MOT add a bit for screen wash etc. amortise this over the 20,000 miles. Now do the same for the Electric vehicle with its 30% depreciation and 20% of the cost of replacing the batteries, add in main dealer servicing etc. and the costs of recharging on longer trip where you not only pay a premium for your electricity, but also spend money filling up the time you wait while charging takes place. Do the maths.

There is a pressure, probably manufactured by those intending to profit from it, to rush into Lithium dependency and all electric vehicles. There are many other acceptable alternatives being developed but the “rent a crowd” protestors are being used to try and force governments and the media, round the world, into legislation that precludes or ignores these developments. This can only be to push everyone in a direction that is profitable to a few. The advances in fuels that are not pollutant, that are carbon neutral, that are safe and which provide transport without the limitations and control inherent in all electric vehicles; is being deliberately obscured by protests, and an intense media campaign, all intended to force though a reliance on very limited (and so very valuable to those who own them,) supply of certain materials. The developments under way in alternatives, will provide much better solutions to problems.

Now look at the real total carbon foot print. The carbon cost of every bit of the vehicle manufacture and eventual recycling. Have to add in replacement batteries for electric cars, Will the Electric car still be running in 25 or 30 years time? Very doubtful so spreading the total carbon cost has to be done over say 30 years for the diesel and 15 years for the electric. Lithium Ion batteries are notoriously environmentally bad to produce. Do the maths again. Stop believing the sales pitch and start to examine the real world.

Now look at the other claims that if we all stop eating meat we can stop climate change. Some studies have shown that unless we drastically reduce the population, we would have to use genetically modified plants to feed all the people. Yet the same protestors who want to force veganism on everybody, are also opposed to GM foods. The claims are always around the concept of the amount of land needed to farm livestock as opposed to growing soya beans. What is never allowed into the discussion is that the geographic location of the land, the type of fertility of the land and the local climate needed, are very different for these two basic farming objectives. There are justifiable complaints at the amount of destruction to natural rain forests, in order to farm palm oil but this is nothing compare to the changes that will be needed to feed 100 BILLION people all on plant based foods in year 2060. Again it is necessary to look beyond the sales pitches and seek real life facts.

If we rely on solar and wind generated electricity we will have to cover the planet with solar cells and wind farms. Many years ago an interview was given by one of the inventors of modern generating equipment that is driven by wind. He said that in order to meet the ever increasing demand for electricity, by wind generation only, it will be necessary to cover the entire planet with windmills. There is a constantly increasing need for energy, as we gradually bring developing nations out of abject poverty, hopefully ending the cycles of starvation and deprivation; they will need energy, electrical energy. Energy is needed to ensure water supplies are clean and constant. Energy is needed to produce and distribute food. Energy is need for education. Energy is needed to keep all the billions of electric cars on the move. Small scale nuclear generation plants; based on military navy war ships propulsion systems, will have to be a big part of this. The ecology perfectionists will not like this but these types of energy production can produce controllable amounts of electricity on a reliable and constant basis. There are many ways to sustainably produce electricity, from photoelectric cells, through wind and hydro systems, but these are not universally available. Energy supply will always be struggling to keep up with demand; unless everyone accepts we reduce populations and give up materialism, replacing this with a return to localised agricultural and effectively subsistence living.

We can reduce pollution, if we are not to poison the planet by 2100 we probably have to reduce pollution back to medieval levels. We can solve the world problems of food and energy supply but this needs research investment, inventiveness and a dedication to find a whole range of alternative solutions, not accepting the sales pressure to all buy into the few available now.

Definitions:-

Saving; -- redeeming or compensating – preservation or redemption

Carbon footprint; -- the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the activities of a particular individual, organization, or community.

Carbon emissions; -- when carbon dioxide enters the air after a human activity or process.

Environment; -- external conditions or surroundings.

Ecology; -- the external surroundings in which plants or animals live.

Pollution;-- The definition used by permaculture is anything which leaves the site, without specific purpose. Dictionary version is contamination with harmful substances

Global warming; -- Global warming is the long-term warming of the planet's overall temperature. (there seems to be various ways to measure and record this- which is one area that can be used to ferment confusion)

Global climate change; --- This only refers to climate change variations that persist for decades and are measurable over the whole planet. (Given the “life span” of planet earth and the fact that humans have only recently evolved- in planetary life span terms- it may be that decades is far too short a time, should we use centuries?)

opinion
1

About the Creator

Peter Rose

Collections of "my" vocal essays with additions, are available as printed books ASIN 197680615 and 1980878536 also some fictional works and some e books available at Amazon;-

amazon.com/author/healthandfunpeterrose

.

Reader insights

Nice work

Very well written. Keep up the good work!

Top insight

  1. Expert insights and opinions

    Arguments were carefully researched and presented

Add your insights

Comments (1)

Sign in to comment
  • Amanda Rueabout a month ago

    In my opinion there are too many people who aren't putting in the work to see what is going on behind the scenes. They want to take people at face value. We are omnivores so we truly need meat in our diet. Electricity for the "electric" car is produced through many sources. A lot of countries such as Japan, China, and Korea have such low birth rates that their populations are starting to plummet rapidly. The list goes on and on. Use logic, look at history, and do some research, then everyone should be on the right track. Great article! 👍

Find us on social media

Miscellaneous links

  • Explore
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Support

© 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.