2ndRateMind

Do you have any evidence to support this contention as a world-wide phenomenon? In my experience, universities jealously guard their academic independence. Best wishes, 2RM.

You can be sure that there are enough PhD students (of all political persuasions, and none) searching for topics for their dissertations that, were speciation easy to study, it would be studied. The reason there is so little material on the subject is that speciation, at least within a human lifespan, is rare and unpredictable. It may be useful, at this point, for me to explain what I mean by speciation, in case we are talking at cross-purposes. I follow, for the purposes of this discussion, the idea that a species is a grouping of living things genetically distinct from all other such groupings, capable of breeding within itself, but not capable of producing fertile offspring with other species. As such, a species comprises many evolutionary developments that separate it from it's parent species. Speciation is the umbrella term for the exact process by which this happens, which is unique to each species. Best wishes, 2RM

Indeed so. But gradual speciation occurs in geological time (many millenia rather than a few years) as a response to gradual change. For speciation to occur more rapidly, you need the same species to inhabit two (or more) different environments, each population separated (normally by some geographical feature) to prevent interbreeding with the original gene pool. Otherwise you just get ordinary evolution. And environments, up to now, have also changed over geological time. The problem we have is that man made alterations to habitats occur far more quickly than this, and do not allow time for populations to adapt by evolution, let alone speciation, which is why they go extinct. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, the idea was never to be awesome (though the degree of international consensus is pretty surprising), just practical. Environmental stuff is hardly ever awesome, just another step on the road to sustainability, which ordinary consumers might never even notice. Best wishes, 2RM.

As I said, it will take time. Corporates are not going to interrupt the construction of power stations, aircraft, diesel and petrol powered cars, etc, with immediate effect. Inevitably there needs to be an allowance made for a pipeline of non-compliant technologies to work their way through the system. And for the research and development and design and eventually production of new, compliant technologies to come on stream. Best wishes, 2RM.

That the policies are in place internationally, and (as per my previous post) being put in place at the national level. Best wishes, 2RM.

I disagree. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well done! Best wishes, 2RM.

So impatient! These things take time to achieve. The accord was not a magic wand, or even a silver bullet, to end all climate change today or tomorrow. But, over the course of government lifespans, and decades, and even maybe generations, we will start to see progress, I think. Best wishes, 2RM.

You said the Paris climate accord wasn't working. So I provided you some contrary evidence. Best wishes, 2RM.

You cynical old thing 😊 Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually, there is considerable evidence. Do you think the world's leaders sign these accords for fun, because they have nothing better to occupy them that day? 2 degrees is not ideal, and we still might suffer quite severe consequences from climate change even if we hit that target, but, it is a start. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ummm. I don't think so. The French are far from absolute poverty, and actually live rather well. And it's not the environmental stuff the gilet jaune movement is about, but Macron's really rather conservative economic policies and reforms. Best wishes, 2RM

OK @anatess2 Here's my political agenda; put as succinctly as I can manage. Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to eradicate absolute poverty while remaining comfortably within the Spaceship Earth's ecological carrying capacity. So, for example, we all need to start thinking about living within 80% of the world's land, sea and air resources, to leave a decent amount of room for the preservation of species. By way of comparison, if all the world's population lived like the average American, we would need 4 planet earths to sustain us all. Europeans would need 2.5 earths. Changing that to 0.8 of an earth for everyone is inevitably going to be political. Best wishes, 2RM.

For example: In July 2017 French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced a plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles in France by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Hulot also stated that France would no longer use coal to produce electricity after 2022 and that up to €4 billion will be invested in boosting energy efficiency. To reach the agreement's emission targets, Norway will ban the sale of petrol- and diesel-powered cars by 2025; the Netherlands will do the same by 2030. Electric trains running on the Dutch national rail network are already entirely powered by wind energy.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands passed a bill in June 2018 mandating that by 2050 the Netherlands will cut its 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions level by 95%—exceeding the Paris Agreement goals*. The UK plans to be carbon neutral by 2050, with the entire UK fleet of cars electric by 2040. Best wishes, 2RM *wikipedia.

Actually China, the highest polluting country in the world, is a signatory. As is India. In all, before the defection of the US, 184 states and the EU were signatories, covering 87% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Best wishes, 2RM

This is a very sad attitude. The Paris climate accord of 2016 (which Trump reneged on) was simply an agreement to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, this century. Each nation is at liberty to choose whatever policies they like to contribute to that achievement. For the richest and second most polluting country in the world to complain that the accord is unacceptable because it allows poorer countries to develop their economies and so lift millions out of absolute poverty* is a hypocrisy too far even for me. And, incidentally, it is way too early to determine the overall effect of the accord. Best wishes, 2RM. *income less than $1.75/day

So, I' wondering if a materially spartan lifestyle is necessarily a bad thing. A spartan life might well be a good life. As the writer Hillaire Belloc put it: Best wishes, 2RM

We live, in the Western, developed world, in accountable democracies. If the activities and policies of government are ineffective or counter-productive, it is up to us to vote them out. If we don't, the responsibility is ours. Nevertheless, it is not only governments that need to act, but also individuals. So, are we to make excuses not to act, or to make some changes in our lifestyle conducive to the survival of other species, and the well-being of our own? Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you for that, @Scott, It's a fine ideal, and one I have no problem subscribing to. But, I am still interested in what it means, in practical terms, world-wide. Best wishes, 2RM.

As for me; I recycle plenty of beer cans and wine bottles! Best wishes, 2RM.

Oh, OK. Another irrelevant ad hominem. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. But I want you to spell it out, ideally in words of three syllables or less, (so my poor 2ndRateMind might understand your point), so I can respond to it. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you, friend, for your balanced view on that. However, it seems to me that there is a moral difference between past mass extinction events whether caused by a meteor wiping out dinosaurs and such, or otherwise, and mass extinctions caused by a humanity that should know better. Best wishes, 2RM.

@mirkwood And your point would be....? Best wishes, 2RM.