However, the belief that “nothing can be done” , is no reason not to try and do something.
Except when you are barking up the wrong tree of course that man made CO2 (rather than natural processes which we do not fully understand) is the driver of climate change, and that the solutions (e.g. electric cars as one example) often cause far more environmental damage than just improving current technologies and a slower paced introduction of alternatives based on merit rather than being driven by fear.
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
Have you got your tinfoil hat? Weird anti science rant
The fact that They joined yesterday is neither here nor there. I doubt they are a Troll trawling the internet for stuff to invade; more likely a regular contributor who knows their opinion will be derided by the brainwashed...
Temperature monitoring shows that the Twentieth Century was not a cold century. Generally 1c below the 1971-2000 average, but on average above temperatures observed in the Nineteenth Century.
Oh and can you believe that the Just Stop Oil campaigner who threw orange confetti over George Osbourne at this wedding has been caught jetting off to Thailand for her holidays. Like most climate campaigners, full of hot air, double standards and hypocrisy. Do as I say but not as I do.
I can believe it. They're young and human. Older folks like most of us should look at how many times we've taken a plane somewhere and perhaps stop because 1) it fks the planet 2) if we were to regulate or minimise flying perhaps young people should take the majority of what's left as they have a right to see the world if they can. Better from a climate pov that we grounded flights entirely perhaps, but that won't happen will it.
Anyway - attacking them for hypocrisy doesn't change the fact the message is right. I mean, standards and ethics should count for more than that but the message remains valid.
Perhaps the trip was balanced up with a lack of impact elsewhere and her overall CO2 footprint is still low, perhaps not - I don't know or particularly care tbh. The message is clear. Attacking the messenger personally is just a way for the deniers to deflect or let themselves off the hook that we're all on.
My personal 2p, we're in for a fked up decade partly due to climate change and partly by how the scumbags in power and business will use every trick they know to shield themselves at the expense of the rest of us, and nothing will be done to minimise the impact of what's likely to happen while we have the ****s we currently have in power. Just wait till water shortages become a problem.
It is interesting to note the formation of “group think” on this forum
Scientific consensus is not group think. If you want to argue that black is white that's up to you, but don't expect people to treat you seriously. Probably better if you f***** off as well TBH.
Perhaps its a forum regular who doesn't want to be vilified by the group for having an opinion, as you/we so often do?
I've been called a racist repeatedly by ernielynch due to my take on the "terrorists". A fantasist by TJ for proposing solutions which are actually modelled out using, y'know, real maths and everything. A greenwasher by Edukator, for actually knowing my field, what it actually contributes and how best to tackle it in the short, medium and long term without cementing the world in one place with a shrinking economy.
The big hitters are the most polarised.
I'm more than happy to debate with anyone.
Oooh, Daz is getting shirty!
"munrobikerFree Member
Temperature monitoring shows that the Twentieth Century was not a cold century. Generally 1c below the 1971-2000 average, but on average above temperatures observed in the Nineteenth Century."
So global warming started over 100 years ago?
Scientific consensus is not group think. If you want to argue that black is white that’s up to you, but don’t expect people to treat you seriously. Probably better if you f***** off as well TBH.
Thanks once again for your kind words.
You remember when the scientific consensus told us that Covid-19 very definitely came from a bat/pangolin or other animal from the wet market in Wuhan. And not from the Wuhan Institute of Virology undertaking gain of function research into Coronaviruses just up the road. And when scientists saying that it was a lab leak were labeled as outsiders, conspiracy loons etc? You remember this - right?
That graph is interesting - it does show the usual cycles of cooling and warming on earth that are entirely natural.
Perhaps a more useful (or, if I were being unkind, less misleading) one is this one, which is from a paper in Nature but has been produced independently in lots of papers dating back at least to when I was at uni in the late 2000s. It shows the sharpest rise in global temperature in history in the last 100 years. There are graphs that overlay atmospheric CO2 onto this and they correlate nicely.
0" alt="" />
I'm not posting this to argue with the troll by the way, just to clarify to everyone else what his graph shows.
A fantasist by TJ for proposing solutions which are actually modelled out using, y’know, real maths and everything.
Because that is what it is - greenwashing fantasy. You have proposed some fiddling around the edges using unproven tech. Its not a solution. Nothing you have suggested is within orders of magnitude of solving the issue.
So global warming started over 100 years ago?
Yep, pretty soon after the industrial revolution kicked off and we started pumping out CO2.
Okay - even assuming that man made climate change isn't actually a thing. Do you at least agree with the science that rising temperatures, sea levels, etc are going to cause massive human casualties, migration, etc? The science also shows that radiative forcing through atmospheric composition is also a significant contributor to warming effects. Whether those emissions are made made is another thing, but the science clearly shows that effects of composition.
Is it not then in our interests to be able to enact some form of engineered climate change to prevent/mitigate the effects of us entering a period of massive disruption?
In essence - natural or not, the change is coming. Do you want to sit idly by and do nothing or try to effect its outcome? Equate it to an asteroid impact. Previously as a species, we wouldn't have been able to do a damned thing, but now, with the right effort, we might just be able to alter a natural event to the benefit of mankind.
Except when you are barking up the wrong tree of course that man made CO2 (rather than natural processes which we do not fully understand) is the driver of climate change,
The point is about man-made Co2 emissions and the current rate of climate change. And how the warming accelerates via permafrost thaw and methane release, sea life reduction and/or other accelerators. Perhaps / likely we're in a warming cycle anyway but there is too much evidence RE CO2 output and warming to say it's just a natural thing and we're innocent bystanders. Take all those changes, the rate they'll happen and apply them to an over-populated, under-resourced and wealth-divided world ..? One solution is to stick one's head in the sand, I guess.
I think climate change denial (like COVID19) comes entirely from Establishment Fear. Replace an unknown (climate change, or a new disease) with a known (denial) then you can just ignore it, go on with your life without having to give it a second thought, must be nice.
What is weird is the fact that folks like our new troll will willingly operate as the propaganda voice for the folks who don't want oil sales to stop or slow down or don't want [for instance] lock-down because folks aren't going to the office block they own or the shops that they have shares in. I find it really wild that folks would willing side with the aims of massive corporate and financial interests that otherwise only care about their shareholders. They must laugh their tits off
Odd
You remember when the scientific consensus told us that Covid-19 very definitely came from a bat/pangolin or other animal from the wet market in Wuhan.
Climate change idiocy and covid conspiracies. You'll be banging on about 15 minute cities and digital currencies next. Just f*** off.
Replace an unknown (climate change, or a new disease) with a known (denial) then you can just ignore it, go on with your life without having to give it a second thought, must be nice.
I think so. It's ok to say "I just don't understand all this so I'll trust the consensus of those who have recognised expertise" but it seems that some prefer to have a strong opinion no matter what the topic or what it's based on, cynicism replaces knowledge of a subject. I accept the consensus can be wrong, may be in this case even, but it's less likely to be wrong than I am by 'doing my own research'.. And in this case if it's wrong then we're cleaning up the world a little by changing some habits and choices in life. Hardly a bad thing.
Well, at least the thread made it to page 6 before descending into this bulls**t
It's so fascinating that fossil fuel industry propaganda has been so successful as to paint climate scientists as the established, vested interests that are not to be trusted
The inversion of reality is so spectacular I can't help but be impressed
Because that is what it is – greenwashing fantasy. You have proposed some fiddling around the edges using unproven tech. Its not a solution. Nothing you have suggested is within orders of magnitude of solving the issue.
Aircraft operations and fuel reduction? Fantasy? No.
Aircraft space maximisation and weight minimisation to reduce fuel use? Fantasy? No.
Carbon capture and expansion of green energy provision to reduce emissions whilst investing in RnD to support innovation. Fantasy? No.
The first two would have a dramatic effect on aircraft emissions. The latter would start with a small effect, but would grow, globally and would invigorate green energy investment. As TINAS and I stated. Investment and knowledge around CC is still limited, but it has been shown to work, inefficiently, but work. Hydrogen? It's like CC but with the added excitement of explosion risk, it also leaks...everywhere.
The most important part is that both can be enacted NOW. Neither will change the game on their own, but they are/can be government driven, top down and do not require population approval.
Home insulation and renewables - could work well, but it's not a level global playing field. The government of the UK would have to sponsor it heavily, to make it work and it would cost far more here than elsewhere, placing the UK economy at risk.
I've said from the start that CC is a poor choice, but it's one of few things that're available right now, globally on an almost level playing field
What have YOU proposed?
Anyway, I need to get back to my "greenwashing fantasy" modelling of future energy scenarios and aviation ecosystems. 🙂
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system
But the money is ALL on the side of the fossil fuel industry. Their profits were 4 trillion in 2022.
Almost all publishing scientists think man made climate change is happening. If it was all about money why don't they all go and work in the fossil fuel industry rather than perpetuate a "global conspiracy". (Sorry I forget, it's all Bill Gates, WEF etc. "dark forces", globalists etc? )
For those saying it is wrong not to want to debate with certain people, do you still think that after this paragraph?
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
Good grief.
I'll be honest. I have kids, climate change scares me, but I still eat meat, still drive places, and still plan to fly on holiday occasionally when the kids get older.
My feeling is that either we come together on a global scale and everyone makes really tough sacrifices, or we are screwed. Individuals making really tough sacrifices, even loads of individuals, does not change the outcome, perhaps it just pushes the apocalypse back by a month.
So in many people's eyes, I am enormously hypocritical. I vote green, and would fully support "extreme" measures like global bans on flights, and rapid reduction on fossil fuel usage even at great expense to today's quality of living. But I am not willing to do this unless everyone else does it too. Only then does it make a difference. I only have one life and do not want to reduce the quality of it for no reason.
I would make an analogy to food supplies being handed out to unruly crowds of desperate people. There is loads of pushing and shoving and a queue would be both fairer and more efficient. I could try to start a queue, but nobody would join and I would starve. So instead I will join in the pushing and shoving, because I want to get food for my family. But I will also be shouting at the people handing out the food to say that there should be a queueing system.
Likewise, I am carrying on living the only life I have and trying to make it as enjoyable as possible (within reason). I wish there were better ways of showing that I would support much harsher climate change measures. I hate it when people villify just stop oil protestors for ever taking a flight to go on holiday.
I feel like many people have a similar mindset but have no means to share it.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is pretty overwhelming. The earth has natural structures in place for absorbing CO2, such as trees and the oceans. We’re producing more GHG’s than these natural sinks can handle. Therefore they are hanging around in the atmosphere like a particularly bad fart, making things unpleasant for everyone.
You aren’t spouting an alternative opinion, you aren’t special because you know something the rest of us, with our group think, are not aware of. You are ignorant and ill informed. Neither are a good thing but both are easily remedied.
I have a very basic level of education but I’m capable of reading and absorbing information. Please do yourself a favour. Stop listening to the 1% and broaden your approach. Linking to data from known outliers looking for an audience doesn’t help your cause.
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
Huge amounts, as opposed to the multi trillion* dollar turnover of oil and fossil energy companies.
*I got to 1.5trillion just adding up the first 5 big ones that came to mind,
@Fueled - perfectly put. I reckon most folk are willing to make some changes but not to be the only/few doing so. Personally, I've cut my travelling significantly - two short flights in the past 10 years and I don't drive anywhere near as much as I once did - but I'm aware of most folk I know (even those who claim to be environmentally aware) jumping on aircraft without a second thought. This thread has been great at helping me see where the most significant changes need to me made though. For instance, perhaps thinking less about air travel and more about diet.
In a similar vein I could argue about inheritance tax being insufficient but that won't stop me trying to maximising what I can pass on to my daughter 😁
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
If there's so much money to be made from changing our entire infrastructure, why don't the fossil fuel industry do it, instead of spending decades funding propaganda campaigns? They are primarilly profit driven, after all, and they certainly have the capital.
If you've ever argued with a flat earther, you know how people on this thread feel since you arrived.
Also
@MaxCorkhill that graph does not say what i think you think it says
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Some interpretation from those arch communists in NASA
I’ve always wondered how much evidence people like Max would need to change their minds, so Max can you tell us?
That post up there by fueled is the most honest, insightful and pertinent comment on this whole thread. The "Queuing " analogy is perfect. Totally describes the root of the problem and underlines why it'll be so difficult to solve. Chapeau Sir.
I’ve always wondered how much evidence people like Max would need to change their minds, so Max can you tell us?
People like that require there to be no cherries left to pick
That post up there by fueled is the most honest, insightful and pertinent comment on this whole thread. The “Queuing ” analogy is perfect. Totally describes the root of the problem and underlines why it’ll be so difficult to solve. Chapeau Sir.
I gave up any hope of anything being done to avoid it years ago, it is too late and worldwide there is simply not the will. It will be dealing with it after the event rather than avoiding it now, it already is to a smaller degree.
My feeling is that either we come together on a global scale and everyone makes really tough sacrifices, or we are screwed. Individuals making really tough sacrifices, even loads of individuals, does not change the outcome, perhaps it just pushes the apocalypse back by a month.
So in many people’s eyes, I am enormously hypocritical.
Which is why I've said many times that individual action will not solve this and radical government action is required. We can do all the things necessary but it's only a drop in the ocean. What's more important is that we demand our politicians do the necessary things, and then accept them without (much) protest when they do.
It really doesn't matter if you're a hypocrite or not. Being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate any actions you take, and it's understandable to question why you should do stuff when others aren't. One of the problems is that working people are being asked to change their lives whilst the very rich and powerful can continue their ridiculously unsustainable lifestyles unaffected. If there are restrictions on lifestyles to swallow then we need to start at the top and work down. Flying is a very good example, no one is going to accept flying less to go on holiday when they see billionaires flying around in private jets wherever and whenever they want.
I gave up any hope of anything being done to avoid it years ago
You suprise me. You're usually brimming with energy and optimism. 😂
Flying is a very good example, no one is going to accept flying less to go on holiday when they see billionaires flying around in private jets wherever and whenever they want.
Yes this def makes sense. I think the problem is that the same people that say 'why should I do anything look at those billionaires' often also say 'what is the point in us doing anything, look at China'.
But of course many Chinese people could look as us just the way 'we' look at the super rich*.
It's sometimes hard to detangle legitimate concerns around fairness from bad-faith delaying tactics.
*(admittedly, the gap in carbon footprint between the average Brit and a private jet owner is larger than between an average Chinese and British citizenm but the point still stands)
The "look at China" thing is a bit of a fallacy. It's easy to point the finger because they do produce the most CO2 per country, but the amount they produce per head is quite low, and a lot of it is produced because of the West outsourcing manufacturing there. They're a net carbon exporter. China producing lots of CO2 is essentially our fault too.
https://amp.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-china-the-main-climate-change-culprit/a-57777113
The “look at China” thing is a bit of a fallacy. It’s easy to point the finger because they do produce the most CO2 per country, but the amount they produce per head is quite low, and a lot of it is produced because of the West outsourcing manufacturing there. They’re a net carbon exporter. China producing lots of CO2 is essentially our fault too.
That's my point really. People look at China's total emissions, and say 'what's the point'?
Then they look at the emissions per person of the world's richest 0.001% and say, 'why should I do anything'? (The total emissions of the world's top 0.001% are probably 1% of emissions or thereabouts).
On China, yes, they are a large emissions exporter, but their consumption-based emissions (correcting for trade) have actually just caught up with the UK (holy ****, I only just found this out midsentence, that's astonishing)
The UK and China are now at 7 t.CO2/capita. The USA is still way up at 16 t.CO2/capita
https://globalcarbonatlas.org/emissions/carbon-emissions/
You suprise me. You’re usually brimming with energy and optimism.
Why are you optimistic, what do think the world will actually do about it in say the next 10 or so years?
Why are you optimistic
I never said I was optimistic. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is not much hope of the 1.5c target being hit. But I'm not fatalistic either and I don't subscribe to the view that we need to accept the inevitable and give up trying. My main source of hope is that countries like the US and China finally seem to be getting their act together (slowly admittedly but it's better than a few years ago), and the fact that there are some very clever and dedicated people and organisations working on it. As with most areas of technological development, progress tends to be exponential, and I think this will be the case with reducing carbon emissions.
Agree, I didn't say we should give up trying - I just can't actually see enough being done to actually have any great impact on it based on piss poor governmental/worldwide apathy. The way most governments work is that they only do things when it has to be done and dealing with climate change is seen as optional at the moment.
I am clearly more pessimistic/cynical than you are but that's fine, we are all different....
However, the belief that “nothing can be done” , is no reason not to try and do something.
Yup, always straws to be clutched at.
I could be wrong but one of the easiest and simplest ways your average joe can make an impact is to look at what is done with your money. Take a gander at who you bank with, where your pensions and savings (if you’re lucky enough to have them) are being invested. Then change to more ethical versions of all where possible. If the money to invest in fossil fuel companies and dodgy mining practices is used for good instead it can only be a good thing.
We, as consumers, have a lot of power. Use it!
We, as consumers, have a lot of power. Use it!
This is true. While individual power may sometimes seem futile, our purchasing power is what's most likely to put us on the road to dealing with the problem.
I bank with Triodos. If enough people did that instead of using a high street bank (and especially Barclays) it'd really help.
People buying less meat, flying less, driving less, using the train more, using green energy applies pressure to companies, and once companies start shifting how they do things hopefully government will to (when the Tories are out).
In a similar vein I could argue about inheritance tax being insufficient but that won’t stop me trying to maximising what I can pass on to my daughter
Yes exactly. I would be in favour of much higher tax rates for people like me. But I'm not going to voluntarily pay more tax myself, because that won't save the NHS. I'll only do it if every other bugger who earns the same as me or more also pays it. Then it might make a difference.
Some gloomy people in this thread, if policy makers think how some of the doom mungers think then no wonder we can't have nice things
1.5C might be moving out of sight but sub 2 might still be possible and every fraction of a degree matters or we could just say it's too hard and shoot past 3 which is terrible
I find it depressing that when Just Stop Oil protesters are run over or assaulted there’s a collective cheer from society.
im definitely with the cheering camp. They seem determined to create as much pollution as they can in the name of the environment. The level of hypocrisy as they travel round the country wholly dependent on oil based products to deliver their message.
As to the topic in hand I think it will be a mixture of the 2. There will be slow gradual changes interspersed with catastrophic events. Many of these events will go in noticed such as species extinction others will be international news because of rising sea level or natural disasters. There short answer though out that the planet with be fine once we have destroyed our own species. Alas no one wants to collectively make the global level changes required
"Three Robots: Exit Strategies"
im definitely with the cheering camp. They seem determined to create as much pollution as they can in the name of the environment. The level of hypocrisy as they travel round the country wholly dependent on oil based products to deliver their message.
We live in a fossil fuel dependent economy, there's only so much you can do to extract yourself from it before your own individual actions become futile -- politics has to change.
I mean, that's kind of exactly their point.
Sure, they could go live in a tent and eat berries. But what good's that gonna do?
Not that you'll find me at a Just Stop Oil protest (I have major conflict anxiety). I'm very uncomfortable with this disrupt-everyday-people approach to change -- even at their level, which is actually quite pathetic next to a typical French protest.
In any case, to be human is to be a hypocrite. We do it all the time -- it's hard to fully align your actions with your beliefs. But it's certainly better to be inconsistently ethical than consistently unethical.
Weather is fine. Turn off the BBC and stop flapping for god's sake.
We live in a fossil fuel dependent economy, there’s only so much you can do to extract yourself from it before your own individual actions become futile — politics has to change.
I mean, that’s kind of exactly their point.
Sure, they could go live in a tent and eat berries. But what good’s that gonna do
Exactly this. It isn't hypocrisy, and labeling it as that is lazy thinking.
Even if they went and lived in a tent some clever sod would be smirking at them for using half a kilo of polyester
im definitely with the cheering camp. They seem determined to create as much pollution as they can in the name of the environment. The level of hypocrisy as they travel round the country wholly dependent on oil based products to deliver their message.
Of course, you have zero evidence for that.
im definitely with the cheering camp. They seem determined to create as much pollution as they can in the name of the environment. The level of hypocrisy as they travel round the country wholly dependent on oil based products to deliver their message.
Of course, you have zero evidence for that.
there is plenty of evidence of that. Every time you see them in the news they are clad from head to toe in oil based clothing. All the safety equipment they use is oil based rather than from non oil based. They could wear non oil based clothes but they choose not too. Shoes fleece, waterproof clothing all oil based. I’m pretty certain they aren’t cycling or walking from protest to protest. Surely if they want to stop using more oil then they should at least demonstrate a viable alternative. Electrical power is not the answer s the amount of oil and environmental damage done to make batteries is phenomenal
Even if they went and lived in a tent some clever sod would be smirking at them for using half a kilo of polyester
All the safety equipment they use is oil based rather than from non oil based. They could wear non oil based clothes but they choose not too.
Didn't take long
the amount of oil and environmental damage done to make batteries is phenomenal
As opposed to fossil fuel extraction, processing and combustion?
"They're hypocrites for protesting about oil use whilst travelling around the country".
"There's no evidence for that."
"Of course there is - they wear clothes, and I'm guessing about the travelling around the country bit."
Can you even hear yourself?
The fact they wear clothes made from oil and travel about in oil powered vehicles simply illustrates how far down the oil well we are. What would you suggest they do instead? Start blowing up pipelines and refineries?
Are you suggesting it’s not possible to clothe yourself with no oil based clothing? Of course it is. Denim, Cotton, rubber soled shoes, leather etc etc. So why not use them if your cause in don’t use oil? Why choose to clothe yourself in oil based products when you have many many alternatives.
As opposed to fossil fuel extraction, processing and combustion?
have you seen the lithium extraction process. The lots on the mines burn 150 litres of diesel an hour each. Then you have to burn the rich at 1100 Celsius before leaching it with sulphuric acid.
The amount of money been spent on research into what to do with the waste batteries that become unsuitable for their intended purpose within a very short period is vast. As is the hunt for viable alternatives to using lithium.
I agree that fossil fuel extraction is no solution but we haven’t yet come up with a viable alternative yet
Of course it is. Denim, Cotton, rubber soled shoes, leather etc etc.
Please stop and have a think.
Interesting read this from Worldometer on CO2 Emisions per Capita.
If going by the data makes sense then you need to make everyone poor. Simples!
Consumption will go down because people will have to think twice before spending their money. This will eventually slow down consumption and everything people buy will need to last or recycle/reuse or hand down.
Not a surprise to see the "rich" has the most emissions per capita.
Question is how many of you want to be poor?
I agree that fossil fuel extraction is no solution but we haven’t yet come up with a viable alternative yet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
If going by the data makes sense then you need to make everyone poor. Simples!
... maybe in a world where oil and gas are still the predominant form of energy.
Every time you see them in the news they are clad from head to toe in oil based clothing.
Jeez do I have to tell you to f*** off as well? Seriously, by your logic anyone who is worried about climate change should kill themselves because they do things that burn carbon just by living. It's just another pathetic excuse along with 'we're all doomed' etc to continue with business as usual. Take your head out of your backside.
All i see with Just Stop oil protests is the government letting them cause upheaval to normal folks days, and then let the build up allow them to bring in new powers to stop protests, with the nations backing after continual press coverage of JSO protesters messing up sporting events, gridlock and so on.
The reality is that they are just seen as a problem, i doubt 5% of the population actually understand what they're protesting for, and i mean the actual reason, instead of the thought that it's about banning all oil production and so on.
Anyway, as for climate change, we live on a rock that's 4.5 billion years old, it'll survive past us, who knows, maybe in a few million years we'll be the oil in the ground that another civilisation will discover 😂
… maybe in a world where oil and gas are still the predominant form of energy.
Do you blame them? They want to be rich too.
Seriously, by your logic anyone who is worried about climate change should kill themselves because they do things that burn carbon just by living.
S/he/whateverr is not wrong at all. If they simply say "stop oil" it means cessation all fossil fuel related products or industries. However, if they start protesting with a slogan like "Reduce oil consumption!", perhaps that makes more sense is it not? Or they can start with a slogan like "1/3 or 30% oil consumption only" something like that. Yes?
Some gloomy people in this thread, if policy makers think how some of the doom mungers think then no wonder we can’t have nice things
Being a bit more optimistic, I think there is a lot of scope for technology to save us.
Fusion is a bit of a red herring. Maybe it will happen one day but has taken too long already.
Lab grown meat could make a breakthrough very quickly, since unlike fusion reactors, we can build an experiment, learn from it, and try to improve on it in a cycle time of days rather than decades. If we crack it, we could scale up fast, and free up an enormous amount of grazing land for tree planting.
Similarly, crop yields could improve enormously if we manage to engineer more perennial grasses. So we won't need to wast energy growing a whole plant each year, instead we harvest the seeds each year (or a few times per year) and leave the plant to grow. Apparently we have managed this with some rice strains and working on more new crop types.
If things get really bad, we still have the option of more robust intervention like shading the upper atmosphere with sulfur dioxide. Higher risk, sounds scary, but nobody seems to be able to put their finger on why it wouldn't work. Except the obvious risk of unexpected consequences.
This is a good article on the potential for mass migration and impacts of heat on living conditions
https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-crisis-niche-migration-environment-population
For every 0.1C warming from where we currently are is estimated to move 140m out of favourable climate conditions for life and in to conditions that have been linked to issues including increased mortality, decreased labour productivity, decreased cognitive performance, impaired learning, adverse pregnancy outcomes, decreased crop yield, increased conflict and infectious disease spread
@chrismac, if they are anything like the activists I used to hang out with, all those clothes will be from charity shops or clothes swaps or literally someone elses bin, so the material they're made from is irrelevent
You're clutching at plastic straws in an attempt to make them look bad
And what would be your response if they were wearing cotton or denim? What about all the oil used to transport those materials around? What about the fuel used to power the spinning and weaving equipment?
There's always an angle to frame environmentalists as hypocrites, and normally this is done in bad faith
have you seen the lithium extraction process. The lots on the mines burn 150 litres of diesel an hour each. Then you have to burn the rich at 1100 Celsius before leaching it with sulphuric acid.
The amount of money been spent on research into what to do with the waste batteries that become unsuitable for their intended purpose within a very short period is vast. As is the hunt for viable alternatives to using lithium.
I agree that fossil fuel extraction is no solution but we haven’t yet come up with a viable alternative yet
Your proposal is to just sit on our hands and do nothing. The transition to a 100% renewable/ no carbon energy system will require a significant amount of resources but that will still be far less than another thirty years worth of fossil fuels. And many of the materials are or will be recyclable where as you can only combust your fossil fuels once. Even moving the stuff around, shipping is 3% of global emissions, of that 40% is just moving fossil fuels around every year.
If anyone is interested, there are lifecycle assessments of different forms of electricity generation, which calculate the full impacts of delivering a unit of electricity to a final consumer (a household, business, etc.), taking into account everything from extraction of fuels and raw materials to production of the electricity infrastructure
They confirm that renewables are far, far lower carbon than fossil fuels, and also less toxic
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1312753111
Your proposal is to just sit on our hands and do nothing. The transition to a 100% renewable/ no carbon energy system will require a significant amount of resources but that will still be far less than another thirty years worth of fossil fuels.
pretty much sums it up. There is absolutely no global appetite to switch energy systems in a meaningful way to achieve this. Even simple things like EV only by 2030 will not happen because it’s already too late to make the infrastructure changes in the U.K. to be able to change them. We use a fleet of 150 EVs in London for work and that need charging every night and there isn’t a single business park / warehouse site available that has the space and the network capacity to charge them up. We have to get staff to charge them at home.
The best option at the moment is using hydrogen as a battery assuming you can create the it using green electricity
all those clothes will be from charity shops or clothes swaps or literally someone elses bin, so the material they’re made from is irrelevent
do you have any evidence to support this
do you have any evidence to support this
There's always a cherry to pick.
do you have any evidence to support this
It's a first-hand observation from the witness. Just about the only evidence I suspect you'd normally accept.
do you have any evidence to support this
Just f*** off. Pretty please.
dazh
Pretty much yes. If we’re going down then we still need to be doing everything we can to prevent it. Anything less is simply indefensible. I’m a uber-pragmatist on this. It’s not a case of doing one or the other or giving up on a particular option because it has a negligible effect, we need to be doing everything that is now currently possible technologically and politically. In future other things will be possible, and when that happens we need to be doing them too. Simply giving up is the worst possible action from every possible viewpoint.
"everything we can" is never going to happen though (at least not until much too late - which it already is for ) and in context that involves (forced) depopulation (just one example) so being pragmatic means some sort of acceptable compromise with a single focus on climate change.
The other challenge is this is a global issue in both cause and effect.
That isn't going to happen either whilst other environmental issues are conflated with climate change in the general electorates (and that's only in democratic countries).
Greenwashing projects or products that intrinsically have very poor greenhouse effects needs to be highlighted instead of hidden away and we need to do proper accounting.
Examples of doing "proper accounting" mean doing the whole thing, no "get outs" as the carbon (or other greenhouse gas) was produced elsewhere. That's tricky if everything is made in China but if countries like Germany want to produce say cars they need to be called out by their market and taxed to make it impossible to sell industry powered by coal.
The same engine/motor for example could be made in France with clean nuclear not coal in Germany.
At a more local level we need to look at CO2 equivalent per dwelling of construction rather than simple cost with offsets over energy efficiency over a realistic time period. Building concrete and steel skyscrapers with a lifetime of say 20-30 yrs isn't ever going to repay the carbon cost.
Sticking a couple of plants on the walls and calling it carbon negative because "we didn't make the concrete" shouldn't be allowed to happen,
there are lifecycle assessments of different forms of electricity generation, which calculate the full impacts of delivering a unit of electricity to a final consumer
well, that isn't one as it completely misses out nuclear.
There’s always an angle to frame environmentalists as hypocrites, and normally this is done in bad faith
Yep, I just started subscribing to "The Climate Denier's Playbook" podcast (same bloke that does the 'Climate town' YT channel). The idea seems to be they take a look at the various (bad faith) arguments that get flung about any time climate change or environmental issues come up.
Their first two episodes are "Electric cars will save us all" and "You owe your life to Oil & Gas" both very familiar arguments...
Worth a listen IMO as they seem to keep a sensible perspective on things, and unsurprisingly these things seem to keep coming back to money...