Great timing by the guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-crisis-un-pathway-1-5-c
Failure to cut carbon emissions means ‘rapid transformation of societies’ is only option to limit impacts, report says
"We had our chance to make incremental changes, but that time is over. Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster."
Do you know something everyone else doesn’t?
still got all the humans and bacteria plus other microscopic life forms and the rest is an unknown so just playing it safe 😉
Wowzers.
Maybe because there are way more important issues like climate change?
If you don't understand how climate change and ecological devestation are both intimately and irrevocably linked, that the same problems are causal for both and the solutions to both are largely the same solutions, and further if you're not alarmed by the astonishing rate of biosphere decline at least equally to the (related) warming of the planet problem - and understand that this is an existential issue for life on the planet as we know it - then you lack the capacity for any meaningful contribution in the debate.
Of course, you can give your opinion, but it's like an anti-vaxxers opinion on cellular biology. Pointless to listen to.
@tjagain has shown a real grasp of the issue, and a grasp of why we're not making it. The George Monibot video @dazh posted is the shortest, simplest version of the argument.
Are we willing to completely change the fundamentals of everything we do, in short order, despite the fact that we know it'll hurt millions of people?
If the answer to that is no (which it is) then we're wasting our breath.
Late to this but really the thread title is pretty silly. There are no simple to implement solutions. We need root and branch economic and political reform to move to a sustainable economic model which is based on renewables and living within the planet’s means. That means an end to global capitalism as it currently exists. All this ‘what can we do that is easy’ stuff simply distracts us from the core problem.
This.
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Aye so the guy working at the hydro/water plant up a glen?
I get made redundant and need to find work elsewhere, what about my wife and family?
How about learning how to wash the dishes without constantly running the hot water before criticising people for trying to make a living. It's not as easy as you think and tbh it's now beyond tedious. You are not the blueprint for humanity, hate to break it to you.
You’re just an angry man on the internet who doesn’t like the unavoidable actual solutions – so are raging against them in any non-evidence-based way you can.
LMAO, says the sociopath advocating mass death. Like I said before, be the change you want and lead by example.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-crisis-un-pathway-1-5-c
There is “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place”, the UN’s environment agency has said, and the failure to reduce carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies”.
...
LMAO, says the sociopath advocating mass death. Like I said before, be the change you want and lead by example.
I'm not advocating mass death. You clearly can't read. I clearly argued for a 1 child limit - and massive tax on anyone who has more than one - so you're still free to pump out annoying whiners if you like. That would make a massive difference to human population in just 50 years.
As for being the change I want and leading by example - as posted multiple times: been there, done that.
What have you done?
No more uplifts. 😮
. If you live in a village of 1,000 people chances are you won’t find work in the village. So you need to drive.
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Again – the solutions all need massive changes in society
From a carbon perspective how long will it take for the reduced travel to and from work to offset the carbon consumed creating the low carbon form of travel? How many miles have to be driven until you get to the volume of carbon emitted before this is more than the carbon required to manufacture the low carbon transport and operate it until you get to that point?
It’s like all the nonsense around electric cars at the moment. If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution? A 5 year old car already exists so the pollution and carbon used making it has already been emitted so it starts from zero as of today
chrismac – in your childrens lifetimes? Depending how old you are it could be in yours. 50 years until the collapse happens is my guess. Its already starting now. Next couple of years we will know more.
No. I dont have any and its unlikely to be in my lifetime
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/27/shell-doubles-its-profits-to-95bn
Shell has paid zero windfall tax in the UK despite making record global profits of nearly $30bn (£26bn) so far this year after exploiting a tax break brought in by Rishi Sunak
[Shell] said it had not paid the levy and did not expect to throughout 2022, ... in part because of heaving spending on drilling more oil in the North Sea
Well done Rishi.
We're not, as a society, doing even the very simple basics - i.e. not drilling for MORE oil. Still subsidising the oil, coal and gas industry to the tune of billions - whilst in the UK we've removed all effective subsidy for renewables.
Renewables are so cheap, they don't technically need subsidy. But we're still subsidising the fuel sources that are killing us.
If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution?
A long long time because EVs do not reduce pollution significantly.
EVs are not a part of the solution Reducing the amount of people miles driven is part of the solution
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work
Right. So moving costs money, doesn't it? If you lose your job and need a new one, how do you move if you can't afford it? Ah but your partner still works locally, do they need to find a new job? Yes? But finding new work isn't very easy, so the chances of finding one can be quite slim. And you know, you're poor country folk so you don't have a lot of savings.
is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them
Oh.. hmm.. that sounds a bit like a technological solution to me. You can't really lay on public transport because the numbers are so low, and the destinations so diverse you'd have empty busses. So hey, let's downsize to cars. But wait, that's driving. You can't pay someone to take you to work every day, really, because the economics of paying a load of people to drive you around at 8am don't stack up because the drivers also need paying. So this is beginning to sound a lot like driving. But wait - one person per car is pretty inefficient, so let's see if we can match up people who want to go to the same places or along the same routes. That way cars could satisfy multiple journey requirements. Sounds good.
So now after 10 pages I've finally got you to understand the thing that I posted on page 2. Maybe instead of just shouting people down you should listen and discuss a bit more?
EVs are not a part of the solution Reducing the amount of people miles driven is part of the solution
Reducing miles driven (by people and goods) is absolutely part of the solution, but we still need some miles to be driven. And they need to be in EVs, because they most definitely do reduce emissions quite a bit. These are but two parts to the solution, there are many others.
If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution?
Loads of calculations on the internet covering this. There is a sunk carbon cost in manufacturing, and a running carbon cost. Depending on how many miles are driven the lower running cost outweighs the manufacturing cost in as little as three years, depending on which study you use. And of course where your car was built.
So now after 10 pages I’ve finally got you to understand the thing that I posted on page 2
Nope. I still fundamentally disagree with you and its not me that does not understand
you cannot prevent global warming without massive changes to society. thats the bit you have to ccept and you will not.
Its you that is not listening.
But wait – one person per car is pretty inefficient, so let’s see if we can match up people who want to go to the same places or along the same routes. That way cars could satisfy multiple journey requirements. Sounds good.
In theory. In the real world nobody wants to share their space and it takes away the spontaneity of jumping in the car to go and do something.
job
work
partner still works
We're getting to the crux of the issue here - that awful four letter word: WORK. Why is everyone running around like headless chickens working all the time? Oh yeah, to pay for shit they don't need and rent/mortgages. The whole system needs binning and starting again.
There is “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place”, the UN’s environment agency has said, and the failure to reduce carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies”.
The whole system needs binning and starting again.
Nope. I still fundamentally disagree with you and its not me that does not understand
you cannot prevent global warming without massive changes to society
I am in favour of massive change to society. We both agree on this.
What I am asking is HOW we make those changes. That is the bit you are not engaging on.
Why is everyone running around like headless chickens working all the time? Oh yeah, to pay for shit they don’t need
Hmm yes but also to pay for things we do need.
A lot of people criticising the capitalist system, but I have to say that finding an alternative is not going to be easy.
A lot of people criticising the capitalist system, but I have to say that finding an alternative is not going to be easy.
Absolutely. Totally agree, which is why we end up back at -
We're doomed
No amount of yoghurt pot sorting is going to fix it.
you cannot prevent global warming without massive changes to society. thats the bit you have to ccept and you will not.
The world, let alone UK population is not going accept never going on foreign holidays again, nor are they going to accept giving up private transport just like they're not going to accept eugenics nor everyone being shot in the head and fed into a biomass plant upon their retirement day.
You can argue all you want for these things to happen, get all het up and on blood pressure meds about these changes not happening but it will come to nothing and all you're arguing will be a pointless and counter-productive waste of time.
Instead why not work on what IS possible and what can be within your sphere of influence. For one example - Heating homes (ignoring insulation for now) - it's inefficient to have a block of flats with 16 individual gas combo boilers per stair and 10 stairs per tenement block. What is more efficient - district heating through a heat pump and there is work underway bringing that forward. TJ, if Im not mistaken you live in a Leith Tenement - this is something you could actually be petitioning for and helping make happen.
Again does you tenement block have its roof bedecked with PV panels? No? Then go make it happen.
Be the person driving the change, don't spend your time whining that others aren't doing enough.
Protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats is integral to combating climate change. They’re not either/or decisions, you have to do both. Monbiot has done loads of stuff about re-wilding and how it is a fundamental part of the climate change response.
George Monbiot
We don’t want natural climate solutions to be used as a substitute for the rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation of our economies.
On the whole I think telling people we have to reintroduce wolves and bears isn't going to go down well or make much difference
More importantly after decades of contradictory information and being misled unless we focus on climate change and move attention away from fringe groups who have been pushing "green"/"eco" for decades and the bandwagon companies that are selling "green"/"eco" greenwash we can forget getting the masses onside until its WAY WAY too late.
TJ, if Im not mistaken you live in a Leith Tenement – this is something you could actually be petitioning for and helping make happen.
Again does you tenement block have its roof bedecked with PV panels? No? Then go make it happen.
Unfortunately because of the specifics of my building neither is possible under current laws / building arrangements
There's some bison 🦬 wandering around Kent now so we'll need some wolves 🐺 to eat them.
The world, let alone UK population is not going accept never going on foreign holidays again, nor are they going to accept giving up private transport
They will be forced to as the biosphere collapse occurs. its either we do this in a controlled manner now or its done as a result of the oncoming catastrophe
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Again – the solutions all need massive changes in society.
The problem with what you're saying is that you're providing the end result, but without any kind of credible plan to get there it's not in any way a "solution", it's a pipedream. How do you realistically propose to get to this point?
I have said many times. convert the economy to carbon taxation and over a generation ramp it up. Make the polluter pay.
If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution?
Loads of calculations on the internet covering this. There is a sunk carbon cost in manufacturing, and a running carbon cost. Depending on how many miles are driven the lower running cost outweighs the manufacturing cost in as little as three years, depending on which study you use. And of course where your car was built.
Only you just pretty much ignored pollution with the exception of CO2.
(and how the electricity for the EV is generated)
Not that disagree about what's important but we now have a genuine climate emergency and the general public see it as the rest of the "green" bollox they've been fed for the last decades. A tragic boy who cried wolf on a monumental scale.
its either we do this in a controlled manner now or its done as a result of the oncoming catastrophe
Good point. I don't know why people think they will be able to jump on a cheap flight to the costas in a post climate collapse society. They'll be too busy hunting small mammals, collecting water and trying to grow vegetables to feed their families.
Make the polluter pay.
I'm not convinced that this is a good strategy. The biggest individual polluters (the rich) are already willing to pay more for their lifestyle of Flights in 1st or private jets, larger houses, larger cars. They can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I think we have to concentrate of ameliorating the effects of the way we live rather than wholesale change of the way we live, it's the only way that will be acceptable in a democratic society.
its either we do this in a controlled manner now or its done as a result of the oncoming catastrophe
It'll probably cause the opposite intended action. People will want to fly more whilst they still can. We'll take 'oncoming catastrophe' please over slight compromise any day of the week. I WORK hard all week why shouldn't I have four holidays abroad per year, I DESERVE IT, and anyway I wash my yoghurt pots, you should take action against the man next door who doesn't recycle... etc etc.
I think we have to concentrate of ameliorating the effects of the way we live rather than wholesale change of the way we live, it’s the only way that will be acceptable in a democratic society.
unfortunately following that path means the biosphere collapse going to happen. thats a recipe for runaway global warming. Once the collapse occurs there is no ameliorating anything significantly - we are talking billions dying of starvation
Unfortunately because of the specifics of my building neither is possible under current laws / building arrangements
So despite it being within your sphere of influence, it's too hard for you to do something about? and it's easier to just complain on the internet about others not doing enough.
Same. old. bullshit.
If the planning laws don't permit PV panels on communal roofs or whatever is holding your building back, petition and get public buy-in, get the rules amended and make it happen.
The biggest individual polluters (the rich) are already willing to pay
This goes to the heart of the issue. If the rich have a licence to pollute they'll carry on polluting. As Mr Monbiot says above, we need to come up with a new framework for measuring economic success and progress. Part of that is going to be removing the ability of people to get so rich that they can remove themselves from the standards applied to everyone else. That means either limiting how rich they can get, or denying them the freedom to do certain things (like fly around the world in private jets as much as they want), maybe even both. So for instance on the issue of flying, then an easy solution would be to ban private jets and force the rich to use commercial airlines. Another could be rationing the number of flights or airmiles an individual can take or use.
As I said - the specifics of my building make this impossible. Its not too hard to do. its not possible without both law change and change in use of the building.
My building contains a pub, 3 shops, 10 offices and is a listed building in a conservation area and has very little south facing sloping roof that is not shaded by chimney stacks. I might get 4 panels in to be shared by 15 properties
its a good idea but unfortunately not one that can be applied to this building.
I have done what I can. I have spent tens of thousands on insulation. the smaller flat has heating bills of a couple of hundred a year and the one I live in is not a lot more
its not possible without both law change
Respectfully, you are both tenacious, communicate fairly well, up for a good argument and care about the environment. Do you not think you could put to good use and fight for a law change to make solar PV panels easier to fit to tenement blocks?
Could you not use those skills to work with the wider Leith / Edinburgh community to get solar panels onto communal roofs? THAT would be a worthwhile project to spend your energy on which could foster actual results.
Only you just pretty much ignored pollution with the exception of CO2.
(and how the electricity for the EV is generated)
Well, you are right that currently the rare metals (cobalt is a key one) are produced in heavily polluting mines. But the solution to that is not to stop making EVs, it's to stop polluting whilst we extract cobalt - or not use cobalt. There are so many lines of research into battery alternatives currently, with successes being reported all the time, that we have a lot of choice in that area. Our biggest problem there is that it is being left up to the markets, rather than being mandated by anyone.
Regarding how electricity is generated - of course I haven't ignored it (you'd have to be pretty dim to do that). It's actually a key benefit. We know how to generate large amounts of electricity cleanly and renewably; not so for diesel. And in most cases an EV battery is already a great energy storage device to even out demand. Conversely, whilst making diesel or petrol renewably is being worked on it's going to be harder and take more time to bring online. And come with more compromises (e.g. arable land use).
Another could be rationing the number of flights or airmiles an individual can take or use.
@Daffy suggested as much on page one. It's probably the biggest single use of Co2 that most folks do every year.
Chevychase
If you don’t understand how climate change and ecological devestation are both intimately and irrevocably linked, that the same problems are causal for both and the solutions to both are largely the same solutions, and further if you’re not alarmed by the astonishing rate of biosphere decline at least equally to the (related) warming of the planet problem – and understand that this is an existential issue for life on the planet as we know it – then you lack the capacity for any meaningful contribution in the debate.
Of course, you can give your opinion, but it’s like an anti-vaxxers opinion on cellular biology. Pointless to listen to.
I don't need to understand his complicated stuff.
Some really clever if smelly bloke who'd figured out how to make his cat vegan explained it all to me.
Apparently we need to just get rid of nuclear power, buy bamboo socks and eat dolphin friendly tuna etc. and mother earth will heal.
I know this is correct, he said so but I'm starting to doubt the wisdom of those crystals he sold me and I'm sure his cat dying had **** all todo with the vegan diet.
Molgrips
Well, you are right that currently the rare metals (cobalt is a key one) are produced in heavily polluting mines. But the solution to that is not to stop making EVs, it’s to stop polluting whilst we extract cobalt – or not use cobalt.
or we could just prioritise
Regarding how electricity is generated – of course I haven’t ignored it (you’d have to be pretty dim to do that). It’s actually a key benefit. We know how to generate large amounts of electricity cleanly and renewably
Yep it's called fission
Except tofu eating vegan cat owners don't like it...
Meanwhile ... 1/2 the developing world need to boil water to drink and cook and are burning wood.
Maybe we could address that?
@Daffy suggested as much on page one. It’s probably the biggest single use of Co2 that most folks do every year.
Yup. It's the only feasible solution. For instance I don't think it would be unreasonable for each person to be limited to the equivalent of one short haul return flight per year. If they want to go further then they'll have to use two year's worth of rations. That's probably still too much in carbon terms, but then not everyone will use their ration, and they could be incentivised to do that selling it back to the govt.
Same goes for driving and eating meat/dairy products.
nickc
It’s probably the biggest single use of Co2 that most folks do every year.
This may surprise you but most of the world have NEVER been on a plane...
1/2 the developing world need to boil water to drink and cook and are burning wood.
Maybe we could address that?
The developing world contribute almost nothing per capita to climate change. They aren't the problem, we are.
This may surprise you but most of the world have NEVER been on a plane…
To echo what Dazh has already said, most of the world ain't the issue, it's us in the US and Europe.
The rest of the world is an issue. As developing nations develop they will emit more greenhouse gases. Or are you telling them they cannot have clean water fridges and so on?
The developing world contribute almost nothing per capita to climate change. They aren’t the problem, we are.
cool, lets crack on and burn more rain forests then
god forbid we try and provide the 3rd world with cleaner energy
Regarding developing countries, google has this to say:
Sixty-three percent of annual emissions are produced by developing countries.
There are apparently 152 countries classed as 'Developing' including China, Russia and India:
List of Developing Countries
