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.
Yes flagrant greenwashing (eg carbon offsets etc) needs to be exposed for what they really are. But that doesn't mean we should not do stuff because we think it will have a negligible effect. As I've said before, only goverment action at a macro-economic and industrial scale will solve this problem, not individuals flying less or having an electric car. But what individual action can do is change mindsets in the population so that government and policy makers have both the motivation and freedom to do the things that are required. It's the same argument as pretending the UK can't do anything because China's emissions are much higher.
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
You've quoted half of my sentence, thus taking it out of context, and are now asking me to evidence something I didn't say?
I'll repeat...
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
So, my evidence is, that the activists I used to hang out with 5-10 years ago, who were involved in things like Extinction Rebellion and Reclaim the Power (precursers to Just Stop Oil), avoided buying new clothing (and new stuff in general) whenever possible. It's a fairly safe bet that Just Stop Oil activists are similar
Honestly though, I don't really give a crap what clothes they are wearing. If there's a reasonable critisicm of Just Stop Oil, its that their tactics are alienating. I don't know enough about the history of social movements to judge how reasonable a critisicm that is. I do know that the women's rights and early racial justice movements also pissed off a lot of regular people. What I don't know is how much that advanced their aims
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.
I said different forms of electricity generation, not every form possible. It also doesn't look at bioenergy.
I've nothing against nuclear, and those authors don't seem to either.
dazh
But that doesn’t mean we should not do stuff because we think it will have a negligible effect.
Again, what we SHOULD do isn't possible.
As I’ve said before, only goverment action at a macro-economic and industrial scale will solve this problem, not individuals flying less or having an electric car. But what individual action can do is change mindsets in the population so that government and policy makers have both the motivation and freedom to do the things that are required.
I totally agree on the former .. the latter I think is where we lost it because "the electorate" only have so much patience.
Yes flagrant greenwashing (eg carbon offsets etc) needs to be exposed for what they really are.
We don't have that luxury... (concentrating on flagrant)... if we want the general public (not just STW) to subscribe to climate change it has to be decoupled from "green" and "environmental" in every way.
You can't have for example a government/council "green initiative" based on a climate emergency because the two will be conflated (deliberately)
So here's the thing... under "normal circumstances" I'd be all for most of the "environmental" or "green" stuff but most people (electorate) aren't and conflating it just gives them a guilt token when a very significant percentage of the electorate are already sick of listening.
If you asked the average voter about ULEZ for example they are likely to conflate this with global warming.
We already passed the "normal circumstances" by a long way so now we have to decide what's important... doing the most we can do for mitigating climate change or not and taking care of "nice to have's" later.
How do we even get to countries like Germany and their green party reopening coal mines and coal generated power?
@legometerology. By that same token please accept the evidence my wife has who spends her whole life helping engineering academics at a Russel group university get research funding into EVs and how to make them viable.
In short the amount of research into how to make EVs less polluting than diesel over the vehicle life span, what to do with 3 year old batteries that are no longer fit for purpose to avoid them going into landfill is vast. Literally millions a year. None of them will touch an ev.
EV’s are already viable. Hence why they exist and are in pretty much common daily use. The real solution is fewer cars regardless of what fuel type they run on or to keep whatever vehicle you currently have running for as long as possible. I agree that EV’s aren’t the answer and come with their own set of issues. At best they should be seen as a stepping stone away from vehicles that run off petrol and diesel.
ULEZ for example they are likely to conflate this with global warming.
My suspicion is that ULEZs will contribute more to global warming than help. As people by new cars that meet the regs for particulates, there's an increase in embedded carbon in the manufacture of a new car that will have a negative impact on the climate. Even if only a few people buy brand new, the carbon cost of a new car is enormous. Even if it's an EV the effect will be much worse than letting people keep their own cars. ULEZs are purely for particulates and human health.
The real answer is to ban cars from cities. If you need to drive from one point to another within a city with good public transport links (which is most UK cities) you're doing something wrong.
Report in the guardian today that states global emissions of greenhouse gases need to be halved to give us a chance of only a 1.5C rise in temps. Given developing nations are going to want to develop to a similar level to us by how much must the western greenhouse gas emissions bevreduced? Seen any proposals on this thread that gives those massive reductions?
@chrismac, this is why driving less, expanding public transport networks, making cycling safer, etc. is as important as new technologies
The UK has almost halved its GHG emissions since 1990, whereas the USAs has largely remained unchanged.
It really needs the US, China and India to take things seriously to have any chance of making an impact.
EV’s are already viable. Hence why they exist and are in pretty much common daily use.
Not environmentally they aren’t. Just wait to see how viable they are once they are on the secondhand market and buyers are trying to work out how long the battery will last before they face an astronomical bill to replace it. 3 year old teslas are fetching £20k at the end of the lease because of the replacement battery costs.
this is why driving less, expanding public transport networks, making cycling safer, etc. is as important as new technologies
agreed but it’s not going to happen. Even if we did it in the U.K. It won’t move the dial at all from a climate perspective. The only real solution is fewer people consuming less but that’s never going to be a vote winner in any democratic country and the rest aren’t interested in change. I’m convinced that when the next intelligent dominant species looks back the human race will be seen and an evolutionary error that destroyed itself
But there is a second hand market already. It’s been around as long as EV’s have. All cars depreciate in value to a huge degree. I’m not disagreeing with you in principle but to state they aren’t viable is plain nonsense. If you’re talking from a purely environmental perspective then no motorised vehicles are viable so why single out the latest iteration?
You clearly seem uninterested in wanting to make a difference. No wonder we’re ****ed with the happy bunch of doomsayers posting on this thread. Half of you have given up and that’s just sad. It’s going to be difficult and 1.5 degrees has gone imo. It’s now about limiting to above 2 degrees. Half of you lot are “I’ve done my bit and anything else is pointless” so do we just let the world burn for the next generation?
The only way, and it really is the only way, that climate change is going to be addressed is with global cooperation. As the developed 'west' seems to currently be obsessed with clutching its hand ever tighter around the sand of its current wealth and telling the rest of the world to 'go back to where you came from', then it ain't gonna happen. The attitude of your average Brit is that putting a few ready meal dishes in the recycling entitles them to drive a 3 litre SUV to drop Fontelroy off at school 400 yards away. And they will kick off if that 'right' is even criticised.
With any luck a passing star destroyer from a civilised solar system will take a look and decide that the humane thing to do is push the big red button.
It really needs the US, China and India to take things seriously to have any chance of making an impact.
@nerd , that puts a responsibility on Europeans to stop buying stuff from China. It was discussed earlier in the thread but so much of the CO2 China produces is to make stuff for other countries. Their CO2 per person is the same as the UK's, but much of what they will produce will end up coming to the UK. In terms of carbon expended, they're a net CO2 exporter because the export so much of what they manufacture.
So, Europe needs to take it's consumerism seriously if we want to see a reduction in China.
The US is probably jeffed. They really don't care.
Half of you have given up and that’s just sad. It’s going to be difficult and 1.5 degrees has gone imo. It’s now about limiting to above 2 degrees. Half of you lot are “I’ve done my bit and anything else is pointless” so do we just let the world burn for the next generation?
Once again - the point is that no one is even suggesting sufficient change in human behavior let alone doing it. Global emmissions need to be halved to even attempt to stabilise the situation. That means massive lifestyle change in the west and massive drops in energy usuage
Instead we get people pretending marginal gains can make a significant difference Its totally disheartening to see people not even accepting the scale of the problem even those who work in the area
Changing to EVs, banning business class on flights - this sort of thing is a tiny drop in the ocean.
But it’s a start. Yes, it’s not quick enough but humans aren’t generally great at reacting to anything other than immediate threats. Momentum is being gained and that can only be a good thing. Repeatedly moaning about it not being good enough isn’t helping. Fair enough you’re an old man so it’s normal behaviour 😉
I work in the field of sustainability. New to it, not qualified and learning as I go. I spend half my time utterly disheartened and wondering why I bother. Then I interact with people who genuinely care and are trying to to make a positive difference. That number is growing and that gives me hope.
A start. One or two percent of whats needed
No the start is the acceptance that without massive lifestyle change the human race is doomed
I have done everything i personally can do and will have had a far smaller carbon footprint than most in the west. People are not even prepared to do this.
Well never agree on this or dress sense! I’m with you on helmet wearing though. Massive drastic change isn’t going to happen. It’ll take time and patience. Your starting point is the end goal.
I’m glad you’re retired and don’t work in Sustainability. You’d be terrible at it 😀
Pretending you can do anything significant without lifestyle change does the cause a huge disservice as it allows folk a get out. " i e "I got my electric suv and solar panels so I'm doing my bit" no you are not. Thats nothing like enough
If you are new to sustainability read up on the difference between light and dark green philosophy
Im the only one with the dark green view on here i think
We could go back and forth all day. I’m new to the role but not the concept. Telling people that they are shit and not doing enough never tends to be a good approach. You have to let people get used to incremental changes. It’s working too, not at a pace that I’m happy with but a win is a win in this game. Expecting everyone to turn into an eco warrior overnight isn’t going to happen. Accept that or leave the playing field because your approach isn’t working.
That philosophy bakes in massive climate change and gigadeath. Its no solution and to pretend that it is makes the crisis worse.
What its saying is we are accepting human death by the billion.
Yes i have given up. No one is interested in actually acheiving anything sigificant to slow climate change. I have lived a low carbon lifestyle but even that isnot enough or sustainable
A win is NOT a win if it provides a fig leaf for folk to hide behind and pretend to have done their bit
this is why driving less, expanding public transport networks, making cycling safer, etc. is as important as new technologies
agreed but it’s not going to happen. Even if we did it in the U.K. It won’t move the dial at all from a climate perspective. The only real solution is fewer people consuming less but that’s never going to be a vote winner in any democratic country and the rest aren’t interested in change. I’m convinced that when the next intelligent dominant species looks back the human race will be seen and an evolutionary error that destroyed itself
@chrismac, I fear this is true, unfortunately. But honestly, if this is what you think, why pick holes in Just Stop Oil? They are some of the few people taking this seriously. They may still drive cars occasionally and wear polyester etc., but they are out there risking prison time to try to get the message out that this is damn serious
They will probably fail to make a dent. It really seems like most climate movements do. But one thing guranteed to help them fail is to join the side that are shouting them down
A win is NOT a win if it provides a fig leaf for folk to hide behind and pretend to have done their bit
that’s your pessimistic opinion. I choose to have a different one because I have skin in the game in the form of two young kids. You’ve already assumed we’re ****ed. I still have hope and small wins add up. You keep repeating the same old shite about people thinking they’ve done their bit. That’s not the case from what I see day to day. They make one change, see the benefit, make more and tell others.
We’re never going to agree and neither of us are correct. Just differing opinions. I choose hope and faith in others, you don’t. Insert shrug emoji here.
Aye can see why you would want to do that but it flies in the face of reality
Its not about faith and hope. Its about understanding the reality.
If you dont accept whats actually happening then you cannot change it
Oh I accept it wholeheartedly. I just think we can stop the worst case scenarios. Two degrees is a given at this point. I may be naive but I think we can stop it there.
Like I said, different attitude and opinions on the matter.
. Two degrees is a given at this point. I may be naive but I think we can stop it there.
Its possible with political will and a worldwide effort. To do so means massive cuts in energy usage in the west and supplying the means to make low carbon energy for developing nations. I just don't see anyone actually doing anything significant
<p style="text-align: right;">I think this thread is more depressing and scary than the covid thread when it kicked off. Stupidly it has been getting me down quite a bit and playing on my mind alot. Probably just my brain going after the next doom scenario, but this one will most certainly play out. Need to try and avoid this thread for now. I kinda wish I was older, less life to live and witness it all.</p>
Oops - sorry
I kinda wish I was older, less life to live and witness it all.
yeah thats me - no kids either
I’m convinced that when the next intelligent dominant species looks back the human race will be seen and an evolutionary error that destroyed itself
Yes, that is exactly what is is doing. It has become too successful and over consumed, just as many over species have done through the ages which are now much smaller in numbers or not around at all.
I just don’t see anyone actually doing anything significant
Nor me, but then I am a doom monger. I feel a bit like I did during Brexit where I was a Project Fear person.
It is just a case of having a view of reality rather than baseless hope. How much has the human race dealt with it so far (very little), what is important to the human race today (not climate change), what sort of governments do we have around the world that may help (awful ones), what genuine worldwide collaboration is there on things that cost each country loads of money and require massive change from their populations (none)
Yes, that could all change and those creating the biggest impact will change how they live completely but take off your dreamers head and do you really think that will happen to any significant degree?
It is simply all about priorities and climate change is not one. It will become one as the impacts of it are felt more and more and at some point will be the top priority but that will be at the point of dealing with the daily consequences of it rather than doing anything to avoid it.
Nor me, but then I am a doom monger. I feel a bit like I did during Brexit where I was a Project Fear person.
but you, like many did naff all to change the outcome of Brexit and as a result we lost by a few million. If more people had done more than personal action (vote) then we’d have had a different result.
But that requires education, optimism, planning and co-ordination - not fatalism/resignation. GET INVOLVED. Those with no jobs, no kids, etc have the luxury of time. I don’t, but get involved anyway. I’ve spoken in several local villages about solar, renewables, EVs. Where to start, what it’ll cost, what it’ll save, home much it’ll reduce climate impact.
in the past year 10-15 people have been inspired to make a significant positive change. I take my kids to these events so they learn not just about tech/climate, but how to speak to people, how to inspire change.
This also forms a part of my modelling approach for climate transition and technology diffusion.
GET INVOLVED.
in the past year 10-15 people have been inspired to make a significant positive change.
Significant? Really? In the context of the climate crisis? Stopped having kids, sold their cars, got rid of their pets etc -
I have done my best for 30+ years. I have been involved and I watch our politicians and others lie about the extent of the crisis and watch people do some token gesture and think they have made significant change. remember we we in the west need to reduce our energy usage / greenhouse gas output massivly - I see no sign of this
Our neighbours think that they are being green and supporting the right initiatives and announce each step to anyone who will listen.
Solar panels on two roof aspects, Tesla battery for the house and a new electric SUV. All in the last twelve months; then as a reward for being so green and thoughtful, a brand new Moho to replace their three years old one, now with a tiny PV on the roof.
As others above have said, we need a major shift in overall consumption, not little bits of tinkering and greenwashing.
10 households have significantly reduced their CO2 emissions and have possibly done so for the rest of their lives. That’s a 10 fold difference in a year. Diffusion models show how this propagates. Look it up.
What have you done recently?
ALL of your posts are simply “I did this, look at me” but you’re doing nothing else. You’re done, useless to the future, useless to the discussion. You’re adding nothing, doing nothing, you’re just burning power on a forum.
As others above have said, we need a major shift in overall consumption, not little bits of tinkering and greenwashing.
Despite what you may believe, they are doing the right thing. Almost all of those items will pay for their embedded energy in 3-5y and then it’s positive. In addition to energy, they will also reduce particulate emission quite considerably. It’s not fiddling the edges if millions of people do it.
look at grid live data for evidence of solar.
look at OECD data for solar uptake and then compare to grid peak demand.
All depends on your point of view Daffy - I believe a few folk making token change is both a waste of time and a distraction from the real issue thus counterproductive
I'll bet you my house I have a much lower carbon cost than you or these 10 households. I have lived as green a life as I could. I take no lectures from folk who will not even make basic changes
Do not be so offensive just because you do not understand a different point of view. do you own a car? have kids? Pets?
Biggest thing I have done recently? - fully insulated my rental flat at a cost of many thousands of pounds that I will never see back
but you, like many did naff all to change the outcome of Brexit and as a result we lost by a few million. If more people had done more than personal action (vote) then we’d have had a different result.
You realise you have just totally made that up and have no basis whatsoever behind that statement?
if this is what you think, why pick holes in Just Stop Oil?
Two main reasons.
The first is that they don’t appear to be offering a viable alternative to using oil. Saying don’t use oil is meaningless without a solution
The second is that they are doing more harm than good. They are just pi**ing off so many people with their criminal activities and protests that even if they had the best solution ever no one is interested because of their reputation as vandals. I have no idea how they expect anyone to listen to them when their modus operandi is to commit criminal acts
You clearly seem uninterested in wanting to make a difference. No wonder we’re **** with the happy bunch of doomsayers posting on this thread.
i have given up. We have no kids to worry about what they will inherit as an environment and I see no chance of governments and society making the changes required. As a result I’m off the view that I will enjoy my life whilst I’m here.
Sure I will do my bit. We don’t have kids which is a huge benefit to the environment, not that it played any part in our choice. We both work from home so have no commute. But no I’m not going to stop travelling as much as we can and enjoying new bikes etc whenever we want to
I take no lectures from folk who will not even make basic changes
TJ I can't help but take a little umbrage at your stance here. How many 'basic changes' did you consciously enact, and how many were circumstantial?
You have a city centre job and own a city centre flat am I right? Is that feasible for everyone? Is it hell. We got slowly pushed out of the city by high rents and the dismal range of properties available to buy when we were finally in a position to do so.
Granted, one factor was wanting a property big enough for a family, but to pretend we can all take a conscious decision to simply not have kids is laughably unrealistic, although I respect/sympathise where appropriate with those who have chosen not to.
I've also given up. Making any sort of positive difference would require societal change on a scale that will just never happen, like, abandoning capitalism and embracing a level of state control that would make the communists blush. And that's assuming enlightened, progressive, pure-of-motive leadership of a type that could simply never exist. See yesterday's by-elections as an example, an unlikely hold for the Tories in Uxbridge as the candidate turned it into a referendum on perhaps making the most heavily polluting vehicles pay slightly more to drive through the city centre. If people will vote against measures such as this, given the opportunity, are they going to vote for mandatory 1 child households, no cars, no luxury goods or foreign fruit and veg, a lifestyle based wholey around their local community (which may not be a city centre but instead a rural village or similar) rather than travelling further afield, etc. etc.
but to pretend we can all take a conscious decision to simply not have kids is laughably unrealistic,
why can’t we make that conscious decision? I agree it won’t happen but why not. Why is the desire or expectation for adults to have children from society so strong?
@Daffy, maybe you overlooked the clincher in my last post; what’s the lifetime carbon footprint of buying and using a brand new large Moho? Probably more than TJ’s last 30 years, I’d guess.
Apologies - I did. What's a MOHO?
All depends on your point of view Daffy – I believe a few folk making token change is both a waste of time and a distraction from the real issue thus counterproductive
And yet you CONTINUALLY spout this:
Biggest thing I have done recently? – fully insulated my rental flat at a cost of many thousands of pounds that I will never see back
I’ll bet you my house I have a much lower carbon cost than you or these 10 households. I have lived as green a life as I could. I take no lectures from folk who will not even make basic changes.
And THIS. AGAIN. "Look at me, I'm so much better than you and everyone else - I've done my bit and anything you do won't be enough for me". It's also rubbish. You continue to claim that ALL of your choices are climate driven, but I remember your post from the early days of the forum and that's not the whole truth. Your choices have been as economically influenced as many others. Retconning everything to suit your current view doesn't square.
Do not be so offensive just because you do not understand a different point of view. do you own a car? have kids? Pets?
No one gets your point of view as you don't seem to have one other than everyone who has kids, has cars, has pets is bad.
Yes - I have a car. Two in fact. A 20y old estate car which does around 1500 miles a year and a small EV which does around 6000 miles a year. The latter is ran almost entirely (97%+) on solar power. Yes, I have two small children. 11 and 6. No, I don't have pets. @kerley does.
But before you judge using averages. Almost all of our clothes are bought second hand - my kids are happy with this. We cycle to school, we grow lots of our own veg and our house has almost no electricity use from the grid and soon, very little oil use.
What would our PP carbon use be? Pretty low? My calculator puts our family use at 7t per year, which is 3t less than the average individual use in the UK. We also pay for offsetting through tree planting and then actually go and do it with the firm we pay.
Is that fiddling at the edges? Maybe, but if a few million families did...
Also - climate change doesn't start and end at your doorstep. I don't want to get into a willy waving competion, but I'd wager my positive climate contribution through my choice of job, research and investments vastly outstrips yours. Individuals can and will make a difference. Showing people how that can be done with small steps at first gets them on the road and they'll continue down it.
You realise you have just totally made that up and have no basis whatsoever behind that statement
I didn't mean you specifically, but seriously - how many people ACTUALLY campaigned? I did. Did you? Did TJ? Did others. I think we made a difference in the SW by thinking about the argument and coming up with proper material that was MUCH better than the remain website.
TJ I can’t help but take a little umbrage at your stance here. How many ‘basic changes’ did you consciously enact, and how many were circumstantial?
Pretty much all of them. Living in a city is a deliberate choice as is working in the city so that I was always within a no car commute of work. This was an absolute red line for me. That "dismal range of properties" is where I made my choice ( of course house prices way back then compared to now would mean a different set of choices but living within muscle power of work and a train station is an absolute red line) No kids a deliberate decision taken 40 years ago and a part of the reason is even then I understood overpopulation was a major issue in the longevity of the human race.
Want some more crazy stuff? Until I bought a new wardrobe and bookcase last week I have NEVER bought any new furniture. Never any new crockery and cutlery. Again my first EVER new carpet last week. Apart from an old banger for a few weeks when a kid I have never owned a car ( had motorbikes for fun - bite me - even eco warriers need some sins)
I know its an alien concept for many of you but reducing my environmental footprint has been a defining part of my life. This is not to sound "holier than thou" Political activism is not my bag. I understand this is only one person and thus the effects are minimal. I also understand that if everyone on the planet had my carbon footprint its still unsustainable.
Edit:
but I’d wager my positive climate contribution through my choice of job, research and investments vastly outstrips yours.
Quite possibly - see my comment above - thats not my bag. I know my limitions
No one gets your point of view as you don’t seem.......................
Actually I think some do but you don't want to understand.
“Look at me, I’m so much better than you and everyone else – I’ve done my bit and anything you do won’t be enough for me”.
Again - its not that. When you challenge me on what I have done I try to say. I fully accept as above there are those of different abilities who can influence things in a different way. I applaud your efforts. I'd just like some realism
Excellent, turn the thread into a willy waving "who is more green" that'll work to make the planet habitable for future generations.
Thats really not what I am doing 🙂
Sorry for the long post but here we go, in no particular order, some home truths for the fake virtue, doom and gloom brigade:
CO2 is the gas of life for plants. CO2 increases greening, supports plant growth and improves crop yields. Pumping CO2 into commercial greenhouses is an often applied method to increase the health and yield of greenhouse crops. Cutting C02 levels in the atmosphere to just half what they currently are would put an awful lot of plant species in serious jeopardy for survival.
Warmer periods in history have generally been associated with periods of human prosperity resulting from high crop yields, improved living conditions etc. It has long been known and proven through studies, that colder temperatures kill many times more people than warmer temperatures.
If we ignore the huge impact of the fluctuating energy levels we receive from the sun, the biggest regulator by far of the earth’s temperature is water vapour, otherwise known as clouds. Clouds are over 50 times more powerful than the effect of all other greenhouse gasses combined.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%. Of this 0.04%, the carbon cycle and other natural processes account for 750 gigatons. Human output is estimated at just 29 gigatons. To put this in perspective, human generated CO2 is just 3.8% of the tiny 0.04% of C02 in the atmosphere.
The Great Barrier Reef is currently the healthiest it has been in living memory with 2022 recording the record coral coverage in the 36 years since this has been monitored.
Our leaders so not seem at all worried by their own huge carbon emissions, travelling the globe to endless champagne fuelled summits. Nor do the growing cabal of celebrities who lecture us about climate change. People like Leonardo DeCaprio who preaches at every opportunity about the climate crisis yet recently bought a new superyacht. Prince Harry, a climate advocate with a rather heavy addiction to private jet travel. Bill Gates, who tells us all not to eat meat because he is heavily invested in the same fake meat companies he's promoting. Celebrities and business people who set up foundations or ‘not-for profit’ organisations to save the planet, that also (rather conveniently), happen to also be huge tax dodges. Smoke and mirrors stuff and playing us all like total mugs.
The record temperature of 40.3 deg Celsius set last year in the UK, and that the media made so much about was recorded for just a few brief moments by a thermometer located right next to the runway of RAF Conningsby. At the time the record was set, according to the flight logs, there were at least 3, probably 6, Typhoon jets operating from the runway. The increasing reliance of thermometers located in built up urban areas, runways etc. (i.e. man-made heat sinks) is a red flag when it comes to accurately measuring rising temperatures.
Some populations have declined and some have risen, but overall polar bear numbers have increased from around 12,000 in 1965 to an estimated 26,000 last year.
Methane belched from cattle is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere. It is part of the natural cycling of carbon through the biogenic carbon cycle. Eating meat from well managed grass-fed sources is therefore neither carbon positive nor carbon negative.
Soy, often a heavily used alternative protein source to meat (tofu etc.), is an intensively grown crop, with high demands for resources; particularly energy, water, agrochemicals and soil. The soybean industry is causing widespread deforestation, loss of biodiversity and displacement of small farmers and indigenous populations around the world. The intensive growing of Palm oil, often used in heavily processed foodstuffs and frequently in ‘meat free’ alternatives, is having a similar detrimental environmental impact at source.
The lifespan of solar panels is around 25-30 years. Windmills between 20-25 years. Car batteries between 8-20 years. All are very polluting and energy intensive to manufacture and use materials that are in short supply globally. All are very difficult to recycle and all must then be replaced at great expense.
A basic principle of physics is that the solubility of gases in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Our oceans and seas hold 42 times the amount of CO2 found in our atmosphere. Physics dictates that if our oceans warm then they will release CO2. If they cool they are able to absorb and hold more CO2. Analyzing past ocean temperatures and CO2 levels tell us that it is the temperature of the oceans that influence atmospheric CO2 levels, and not the other way round, since the ocean temperature increase has always preceded by many years, periods of higher atmospheric CO2.
The current obsession with electric cars, solar panels and renewables shifts economic and political power to China, since China control over 80% of the rare earth metals required to make batteries, solar panels etc. Slave labour, forced labour and child labour at both mining and manufacture stage is currently endemic. Pollution, environmental destruction and waste from these new mining and manufacturing industries is currently enormous. China are still building coal fired power stations to keep their energy costs low, undercutting our economies here in the West, as our ever higher energy costs make us even less competitive.
Net Zero is an impossible and unaffordable dream, that if attempted will make us all poorer and less healthy. True pie in the sky stuff.
Any attempt to get to Net Zero without mass adoption of Nuclear power would mean effectively running two energy infrastructures here in the UK. A renewables based system, plus an almost 100% backup fossil fuel based system for when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. Having two systems in operation equals double the cost for consumers. No wonder our energy bills have recently become so high.
Climate change doom and gloom scenarios are based on computer modelling – the lowest, least accurate form of scientific evidence.
Storms, floods, heatwaves and wildfires are no more frequent or severe now than they were 100 years ago, however our ability to report, film and report on these natural events has increased a thousand fold. Hence why we hear about them so frequently in the news, and they are always the fault of climate change apparently!
ESG assets under management (estimated to be around $53 trillion by 2025) dwarfs the global revenues of even the largest oil companies combined. So ESG is able to exert way more influence on policy than the oil industry. Yet strangely, the analysis of ESG policy reveals that ESG explicitly excludes investment in the world’s only large-scale and proven decarbonizer, Nuclear power. No wonder our own Rolls Royce modular nuclear reactors are still on the back burner after all these years. So what is the real motive here?
Large oil companies will prosper massively from any move to renewables. Not only have they heavily invested already within the industry and its infrastructure and supply chain, but the manufacturing, transport and construction drive to Net Zero will require an awful lot more fossil fuel use for the foreseeable decades ahead. And fossil fuels will still be required in huge quantities longer term regardless of Net Zero. If exploration for fossil fuels is scaled back, fuel prices from already developed sources will increase by many multiples. Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.
I could go on.
So sorry doomsters, but climate change caused by human produced CO2 is utter, utter bollocks. And the huge red herring that is human produced CO2 is simply being used as a financially motivated distraction, to further the cause of the few at the expense of the many, and which often detracts from real conservation and real environmental stewardship.
If the only people that choose not to have children have got some environmental conscience then the next generation is going to be the offspring of deniers and not give a sh!ters.
0 years ago and a part of the reason is
See - that's the real issue. You make it out that your whole life has been driven by decisions about the environment, but psychological research shows that the reality is far, far different despite what people might convince themselves of later. It's a part, but it's not THE part.
Transport Choice - [url] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/exploring-alternatives-to-rational-choice-in-models-of-behaviour [/url]
Autobiographical memory editing [url] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00469/full [/url]
Again – its not that. When you challenge me on what I have done I try to say. I fully accept as above there are those of different abilities who can influence things in a different way. I applaud your efforts. I’d just like some realism
No, you don't applaud peoples efforts - your deride them continually.
In the last page I spoke about how I'm trying to convince people locally to make positive changes - you said this:
I believe a few folk making token change is both a waste of time and a distraction from the real issue thus counterproductive
I’ll bet you my house I have a much lower carbon cost than you or these 10 households. I have lived as green a life as I could. I take no lectures from folk who will not even make basic changes
This is just the most recent in a long list.
Mass killing either accidently, forced or voluntary is the only thing which will save the human race in the long term.
If you want to be green, kill people 😉
I say this in jest and do not want any of you to start killing but this planet was not designed to support the ecosystem it now has. Whilst I like to think I do my bit I like many of you are not prepared to sacrifice everything in my life, my comfort, my car, my foreign holiday.
So am I best to do nothing? Say f*** it and buy a v8 and private jet, the human race is doomed so why prolong the inevitable.
Anyway - I'm going to bow out here as you've clearly made some decisions and are firmly committed to them and this is derailing the thread.
but this planet was not designed to support the ecosystem it now has
This is anti-scientific bollards. The planet wasn't designed with any eco-system in mind. Millions of years ago it was a ice ball, millions of years before that it was an acid washed fire hell.
@bobcropper, I hope your denialism gives you the personal relief you need to go on, I really do, I understand that uncertainty is uncomfortable for some folks, do consider however that you're operating as the unpaid propaganda arm for multi-billion dollar petro-chemical companies that literally couldn't give a shit about you, but are grateful that you're willing to speak up on their behalf.
See – that’s the real issue. You make it out that your whole life has been driven by decisions about the environment, but psychological research shows that the reality is far, far different despite what people might convince themselves of later. It’s a part, but it’s not THE part.
No - as a child I had little influence and my philosophy grew in my 20s. I'd say the last 30+ years only has reducing my environmental footprint been a key core part of my personal philosophy. Probably the turning point was collecting data on shrinking glaciers and actually seeing for myself changes to the biosphere
Its really laughable that you try to tell me what my motivations are and try to tell me I have not done things I know I have. I know its alien to you. Its about a lived philosophy not environmentalism as an add on to your lifestyle
also numerous posts I have applauded your efforts.
I take the time to understand your position - why can you not do me the same courtesy?
why can’t we make that conscious decision? I agree it won’t happen but why not. Why is the desire or expectation for adults to have children from society so strong?
Honestly? I guess it's a biological urge for a start, having never experienced it myself I can't relate to how powerful an urge it might be for a woman, but I respect the fact that human beings are still animals and that there is a force and momentum behind basic urges that can't be completely over-ruled, even before the general drift of societal expectation (we were lucky enough to have a healthy, happy first child, but I actually got angry at my wife's side of the family asking when we were having a second, and having to justify our decision not to). Even if we somehow stopped having kids in the west, are we even the driving force behind population increase?
Pretty much all of them. Living in a city is a deliberate choice as is working in the city so that I was always within a no car commute of work. This was an absolute red line for me. That “dismal range of properties” is where I made my choice
Fair enough, and I do respect it (also my reference to dismal was not in relation to the properties themselves, just the range available vs. the cost, I love an Edinburgh tenement myself 😎). Ultimately for me I was contending with my wife's expectations and desires for a family home which are more traditional than yours or mine perhaps but still sadly probably very reflective of what many people want. Since I can basically only work in the city centre (in an industry I'm trapped in that has only grudgingly allowed WFH every other day at best) we're stuck in the usual loop of commuting by car or public transport etc. etc.
Also as an example of probably how many people think/act, my wife will never walk to the shop with a rucsac, she'll drive instead. In fact I rarely ever see anyone else doing what I do e.g. loading up a rucsac at the tills with a couple of days shopping then walking home. This is the sort of trivial cultural change which would probably take down political careers if you tried to force people to walk 10 minutes to the local shop. Sad but true.
Fortunately Julie was ambivalent about kids. If she had been keen then that would have been a very difficult decision and one I would not like to second guess
I hope your denialism
Aaaaaaaand yet again, as is usual with you doomsters, instead of forming a coherent and reasoned argument against long established scientific facts, you choose to label anyone you disagree with as a 'denier'.
Hmmmmm, have a think why don't you - does having to resort to arguing on an ad-hominem basis suggest you have a strong or a weak argument? But what else is there to do I guess when your ship is full of holes?
Well Bob - given the fact that it took me only a short way in your post to see demonstrable falsehoods..............................
Thats really not what I am doing 🙂
It really is.
I'm sure I'm not the only one but once you and a couple of others wade in to any threads like this I lose interest as it just becomes the same old bullshit.
Well Bob – given the fact that it took me only a short way in your post to see demonstrable falsehoods…………………………
So false that you can't even say what they are or why you think they are false. Hahaha, what a clown!
But go on then, either shlt or get off the pot.
The planet will be fine. It will still be here in billions of years time and different life firms will emerge that can live in that environment. This whole debate is about keeping it as it is now to remain suitable for human habitation.
I know - don't feed the troll but.......
Cutting C02 levels in the atmosphere to just half what they currently are would put an awful lot of plant species in serious jeopardy for survival.
balderdash
Storms, floods, heatwaves and wildfires are no more frequent or severe now than they were 100 years ago,
Piffle
you choose to label anyone you disagree with as a ‘denier’.
Yep, You're in denial of what's going on. I understand why. It's a coping mechanism. In lots of ways I'd much prefer to be like you, I don't want to have to think about all this stuff either, I just want to get on with my life, but Climate change is real, it will make the planet inhabitable if left unchecked, and we have to change how we live.
@bobcropper you appear to have joined this forum only to post your climate change denial.
What is your motivation?
Which organisation are you from/funded by?
No kids a deliberate decision taken 40 years ago and a part of the reason is even then I understood overpopulation was a major issue in the longevity of the human race.
How many kids have you adopted/fostered? If the answer to this is zero I don't believe you. You didn't have kids because you didn't want to have kids - nothing to do with environmental concerns.
I looked at adoption actually - long hard discussions around it. Nice of you to call me a liar BTW. I know its true. "Part of" not "all of"
I pretty much support everything climate campaigners call for but I would be classed as a 'denier'.
That's not really true, I'm more of a don't knower.
There may be lots of evidence but it's based on only around 300 years of data.
I think it's dangerous to say we've moved past the point of discussion.
And I find much of the conversation relating to it hysterical and illogical.
A particular example is the constant use of individual weather events as a sign/proof of climate change.
On a very basic level, that just seems daft. And yet, lots of intelligent people that I respect seem happy to do this.
The other thing I find frustrating is that the most basic driver of pollution is rarely ever discussed: capitalism.
No, not Capitalism - Human greed - that feeds capitalism. The desire to have new shiny stuff every year that's better than that of the neighbours.
And also the unwillingness to do anything "trivial" yet because the neighbours haven't.
Nice one TJ! I applaud you, I really do!
A particular example is the constant use of individual weather events as a sign/proof of climate change.
Most of the people going on about weather events are the deniers going on about how cold it is. Scientists are very clear that weather != climate, but they can also demonstrate a clear trend towards more extreme weather events which correlates with climate warming.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/
The other thing I find frustrating is that the most basic driver of pollution is rarely ever discussed: capitalism.
Eh? It's discussed all the time! Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't bother to do anything about climate change until we have a global anti-capitalist revolution? I would like nothing better but sadly I think that approach wouldn't do much to limit global warming to 1.5c. We have to work with what we have, and currently that is a capitalist economic system.
Most of the people going on about weather events are the deniers going on about how cold it is.
I don't tend to follow those people so maybe I don't see it it. But it's just as daft and illogical irrespective. And symptomatic of the general hysteria that surrounds the subject.
Eh? It’s discussed all the time!
Not by the most high-profile campaign group. There's talk of "evil" and "climate collapse" as the cause of injustice. Nothing about capitalism:
From the Just Stop Oil website:
"Climate collapse will mean the end of workers’ rights, women’s rights, all human rights. It is already the greatest injustice visited on the global south in human history. If you are not in resistance you are appeasing evil. If you continue to stand by you are betraying 200 years of struggle and the sacrifice of those that came before us. It is time to put everything aside, we are going into resistance with or without you. Are you bystander or are you going to rise up?"
@copa - on your point about "only three hundred years of data", it's worth looking back a few pages in the thread where there are a couple of graphs. One posted by someone who had essentially joined to troll, and another by me.
Both together are very useful. The first shows that over hundreds of thousands of years, climate has changed cyclically and it has been hotter than it is now. We've got much this data using ice cores from Antarctica. We can see individual events in the ice, like a black line marking the Krakatoa eruption. Some of it also comes from geology. On the hundreds of thousands of years scale the last few thousand years we were already at a pretty high temperature (12C global mean temperature). In the cycles, that's about as high a temperature as it's been, and it's been reached four times in the last half a million years.
The second graph shows the crucial change in the last two hundred years, and especially in the last fifty. At no point in those hundreds of thousands of years has the earth warmed so rapidly. And we're already at a high point. The uptick almost perfectly matches the uptick in atmospheric CO2.
Hopefully that clears up the length of the period we have data from for you. We have a good idea of how temperature has changed over millennia, and know that things are changing now more rapidly than they ever have before.
I've also wondered about the hypocrisy of climate change evangelists saying "weather is not climate" then talking about the recent extreme weather events but the key point there is that the record hottest temperatures have basically all been recorded this millennium. The number of extreme events has gone up, so I hope it's not that they're saying "look, it's hot today ", but "look, it's been unusually hot a lot in the last twenty years" but I don't think the media portray it like that.
Not by the most high-profile campaign group.
No doubt because they recognise that addressing the climate change problem is a much more urgent and critical problem than achieving global revolution.
No doubt because they recognise that addressing the climate change problem is a much more urgent and critical problem than achieving global revolution.
First you said that it was talked about all the time, which it isn't. And then you suggest that it's actually not important to discuss and understand the main driver of man-made pollution. Which I disagree with.
@bobcropper, this is a thread about how climate change will play out for people that accept the consensus on climate change, hence the title
You can argue if you wish (I've no interest in participating in that), but really I doubt it'll get anyone anywhere
I've seen these arguments a thousand times before -- not sure I've ever seen anyone change their mind
Hopefully that clears up the length of the period we have data from for you.
Yes, it's reasonable and useful but the fact remains that there's only around 300 years of fairly reliable data. That's not to discount the predictions/modelling but to understand them as informed guesswork.
...but I don’t think the media portray it like that.
I think this is my main problem. Like so many things, it's mostly the extreme positions that are heard.