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.
