MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Anybody, got a realistic solution? What's the plan? Both technically and scientifically, and I guess more importantly, how to get around the political and business problems?
Mars.
It will be too little.. too late. We voted for a clown that brushes his hair with a balloon. What makes anyone think we'll vote for a political party willing to do anything meaningful.
We are basically screwed.
Some parts of the world will die, some will just experience prolonged economic hardship. Some fortunes will be made.
It will be too little.. too late. We voted for a clown that brushes his hair with a balloon. What makes anyone think we’ll vote for a political party willing to do anything meaningful.
We are basically screwed.
Regardless of what BoJo may be guilty of, the U.K. is doing a lot more environmentally than a great many other countries, like America, for example.
Or even Australia, coal is a big export for them to China. Our wind and solar farms continue to expand, and the one planned for the Dogger Bank will be one of the biggest in the world, with the largest turbines ever constructed, IIRC.
There are significant numbers of solar farms all around my part of the world as well.
Then there’s the development work being done with tidal hydroelectric generation...
Yep, UK is doing pretty well, phasing out coal way faster than planned.
Erm.... We're still buying useless shit we don't need from China by the container load and then burying it in landfill.
the U.K. is doing a lot more environmentally than a great many other countries, like America, for example.
not as rosey as it looks, just offshoring our carbon footprint.
IMO what will happen is the equatorial regions will become slowly less habitable, coastal areas as well but polar regions become more habitable. that will cause massive population movements and mass death on a scale not seen before from food shortages. Catestrophic storms and the like will also become more prevalent. It will end in another mass extinction event which will include humans. The planet will go on and so will life on the planet. We are just a tiny blip in the life history of earth
As for what we can do? On an individual level a fair bit but the problem is political will. the only answer is to consume less especially less energy. There is no political will to do so. By the time the effects become so obvious that people will be clamouring for change it will be too late
i do not believe any technological solutions are possible -
Regardless of what BoJo may be guilty of, the U.K. is doing a lot more environmentally than a great many other countries
Yep, even after my hysterics last night, I'll concede this. Whether our efforts make enough of a difference in a wider global context I don't know. I fear thebrick may have a more accurate prediction.
There's a good reason I moved from the Fens to Derbyshire. I'm now 200 feet above sea level rather than 6.
Unless we adopt a more holistic approach nothing will work. Just looking at CO2 emissions from some countries isn't enough.
The change is US administration is important as the people who work in Washington, i.e. civil servants, tend to be young and the environment is a more normal conversation now within the Govt departments.
not as rosey as it looks, just offshoring our carbon footprint.
It is still rosy.
Buying stuff made overseas always means there are emissions occuring elsewhere.
But, phasing out coal for our own electric consumption, as an example, is still better than not doing so.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress!
There is no magic bullet and no simple fix, it will take 1000s of small changes.....
Buying stuff made overseas always means there are emissions occuring elsewhere.
cos it now not called global warming. :/
just reduce consumption.
What we are doing in the UK is merely fiddling around the edges. To have any significant impact we need a complete change of lifestyles.
Sorry but my gut feeling is that the process that started with the industrial revolution has snowballed way out of control It's already too late to save humanity from it's own greed. To paraphrase Mr Attenburough our planet has finite resourses and the developing countries now want their fair share. It's already plain to see the effects of global heating but the invested interests can't change their ways and won't until it's far too late. We're all going to burn, I'll get mine too.
But doomsday thinking only makes things worse so I will try to do my bit and hope that I am wrong.
The only way we can beat it is if companies can work out how to monetise solutions to combat climate change. It's sad but probably true.
I don't think it will be a problem long term.
In not very long climate change will lead to food and water shortages on a massive scale and who knows what other problems, covid wont even come close.
Humans will become extinct in pretty short order and then the planet will be able to recover. I don't believe it is irreversible, once humans have died out the earth will be able to restore an equilibrium, although it may take some time, it has survived mass extinction events before and will do so again.
.
In the short term the elephant in the room is overpopulation, this needs addressing as a matter of urgency
In my opinion....
The only way to really bring carbon use under control is through a carbon tax. For it to be truly effective it has to be global as otherwise (and perhaps rightly) developing countries will accuse developed countries of holding back.
I suspect lots of politicians of all stripes know this. They also know that if they actually put the carbon tax at a level where it would be effective (in reducing peoples ability to say fly to Tenerife or drive an SUV) they would be rapidly voted out of office.
So they fiddle around the edges and propose legislation (e.g banning new gasoline based cars) whilst hoping that technology saves us. That's all push as it were with no pull. In a market based economy it'd happen far faster if carbon was properly taxed.
Ultimately The Earth is fine and will be for a few more billion years until the sun implodes. We will be a mere speck in that time line. Following Emperor of Mars Musk will only prolong the inevitable.
I work for an IT company that has sustainability and the environment right at the heart of its values which is good to hear, still that’s one company.... we do do alot in the UK but is it enough in the whole world? There needs to be a massive change globally, I genuinely can’t imagine what it’ll be like to live on this planet in 500 years from now... it’ll be very different. It’s actually hard to comprehend
Humans will become extinct in pretty short order
I've a feeling that humans will hold out far longer than a short order. Tenacious beings and able to adapt.
The more immediate worry with climate change is thousands of displaced people. In part due to rising sea levels, but also the failed harvests due to erratic weather cycles (was -17°C weekend before last, +16°C this weekend... the trees and plants are already confused).
The collapsing glacier in India a few weeks back is likely to happen more often thanks to rising temps.
What can be done...? That boat was missed as soon as we started building societies based upon wealth, so around 7000-9000 years ago. En masse humans are greedy creatures and like to have things at the detriment to other beings.
Unless we all give up our consumerist ways and stop doing the things that choke the planet then we're doomed.
Everything else is just delaying the inevitable.
Re. the UK. The UK is doing more than the majority of countries in Europe. Unfortunately doing it alone won't have enough impact.
It's easier to convince someone who has everything to give something up than it is someone who has nothing to give up wanting something.
That's essentially what developed, "ecoprogressive" countries/governments are asking of the developing/third world countries. It's a big ask.
Anybody, got a realistic solution?
What do you mean by "solution"? What do you mean by "realistic"? Anything you do will have benefits and costs. You're not going to magically go back to a pre-industrial environment unless humans disappear.
Or even Australia, coal is a big export for them to China.
Not for long. China is pretty bloody keen to be green i believe.
My pov is that we need to stop pointing the finger at everyone and every thing other than ourselves.
The only real influence we have as individuals is to change our own habits. If we keep saying 'its the big companies' or 'look at india' we are hypocrites.
Yes large companies need to change, yes there are larger contributers that the UK. But we as individuals have very very little control or influence over these. We do, however, have total control on how we live our lives and what we do with them.
For anyone who thinks that the UK is doing ok with changing our polluting ways, we still bury our rubbish and in lots - if not most - of our product packaging is plastic.
Can't compare ourselves to America and feel good about ourselves.
Regardless of what BoJo may be guilty of, the U.K. is doing a lot more environmentally than a great many other countries, like America, for example.
I just foolishly replied to someone on a backpacking Facebook page who was asking how they can come up with estimates for how long it takes a plastic bag to degrade.
Ive since discovered that it’s blatant misinformation and a leftist plot.
I think WFH could potentially have one of biggest positive impacts on changing our polluting ways.
No need for a second car (might not even need a car)
No need to burn fuel commuting
Less food packaging going into landfill as people are more likely to home cook their lunches.
Not needing to heat and light big offices
I'm sure there's more that I can't think of right now.
To have any significant impact we need a complete change of lifestyles.
And nobody is prepared to do that (governments or the people).
The changes required are on the same scale (but not the same) as lockdown. People are simply not going to stop going on holiday, stop eating meat, stop reproducing etc,. They may think about it a bit more in 50 years time when the impact is a bit more obvious but too late to do anything by then.
Based on that I have just conceded that nothing will be done to stop it.
My pov is that we need to stop pointing the finger at everyone and every thing other than ourselves.
Thats my take on it.
A solution would need to involve us (not anyone else) proving that an environmentally sustainable and economically viable model works.
Based on that I have just conceded that nothing will be done to stop it.
Thats also my take on that part. We’re just one big Easter Island now.
COVID has been really helping, but people appear very keen to want to start flying everywhere to ride their bikes, and drive daft distances ast the weekend too just to ride their bike.
Others can’t wait to go all the way to Wales, and get someone to drive them to the top of a hill
I think WFH could potentially have one of biggest positive impacts on changing our polluting ways.
Well this made me Google. Not sure how accurate this is.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/VvM94nGC/4-E4-DB587-DC68-4-C57-9870-E92-B21-C41284.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/VvM94nGC/4-E4-DB587-DC68-4-C57-9870-E92-B21-C41284.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
if not most – of our product packaging is plastic
I get what your saying but the plastic problem has nothing to do with climate change
The OP is asking for solutions.
The global economy is totally reliant on economic growth, wealth is borrowed from the future, this is what keeps our civilisation afloat so it must be the number one priority for the powers that be. We basically have to consume more and more to survive in the current model. To change this will need a global catastrophy which is beyond human control like, say, a very deadly pandemic wiping out at least half of the human population. That would at least press the reset button and buy humans some time to build a more sustainable model.
I get what your saying but the plastic problem has nothing to do with climate change
yes it does. the energy required to make the plastic and to dispose of it
Well if we're talking climate change then it's mainly CO2 emissions so lets not over complicate things by bringing stuff like plastic usage into it. the first thing to realise is the UK only contributes to around 1% of global CO2 emissions so the long and short of it is we can do sweet FA about it. If we could eliminate our CO2 emissions tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference to global warming.
However that doesn't mean we shouldn't and our CO2 emissions are falling so we are doing something...you might argue it's not enough but at least we're heading in the right direction.
It is the case that less developed countries emit more CO2 per person so the biggest impact we can have is to not get in the way of developing nations continuing to develop. As nations develop people get richer, healthier, live longer, get educated, have fewer kids and get a global conscience and so drive improvements in their impact on the environment. While a country is developing environmental damage is way down on the list of peoples priorities behind tings like getting food for your next meal, not being killed by some militia patrolling your area and just basic survival.
The thing that will fix these issues are the global institutions and politics and before we can start preaching to other nations we have to be as squeaky clean ourselves even if our contribution is insignificant.
So keep doing what you're doing. This is a journey, it wont be fixed overnight. keep improving the insulation of your home, reducing energy requirements, questioning how you move around, eat better and more local food etc. and when our politicians go to these global conventions we can talk with credibility.
We basically have to consume more and more to survive in the current model.
So explain how, despite continual growth, we're reducing our CO2 emissions then. Growth makes us richer, means we can afford to introduce new and cleaner technologies. Take away peoples ability to get wealthier then any reductions in CO2 emissions will halt and reverse. take away growth and you eliminate investment overnight therefore eliminate any incentive for anyone to do anything different, develop new technologies, develop new products and supply chains that improve our environmental situation etc. Making people poorer is never a solution to any problem.
A few years back these threads were duels between the believers and deniers. Being a denier now makes you a cospiracy nut. That's progress.
We just need to turn belief into action now.
The people on this forum prepared to do anything is tiny as the petrolhead, snow and skiboard, Summer holiday, how to heat my condervatory/shed/garage, my gas boiler is on the blink, wood burners bad, electric cars bad, windmills bad, it's up to the government to do something not me... posts/threads show.
Do something !
1. Choose the most sustainable pension option open to you. Influencing financial investment will have a huge effect on green technology adoption. The "ethical" fund on my pension scheme has outperformed the standard fund every year it has existed.
2. Choose the greenest energy provider you can afford, not the cheapest. Max exodus from the big6 sends a message that we want green energy supply, ignoring the technicalities around carbon certificates.
3. Stop flying places. Consider taking an extra day or two to get to the Alps by car or train even if it costs more. I ran the numbers a few years ago when I drove to Spain and my car was roughly equivalent to one seat in a plane to Barcelona, so taking 2 people immediately halved the emissions. (Admittedly still way more than not going at all, so...)
4. Stop driving places. Take a big rucksack and cycle to the supermarket even if it is cold and rainy.
I wish I could say vote better, but the UK is a two horse race and I can't see reform happening any time soon
It is the case that less developed countries emit more CO2 per person
Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that places like the US emit the most per person given the huge overconsumption compared to developing countries, plus their reliance on these countries to provide their cheap goods - imagine how much lower China's emissions would be if we hadn't come to rely on their cheap less-regulated supply of everything we use?
It’ll take global cooperation on a massive scale to save the planet for human habitation. I’m not hopeful of that whatsoever. In the meantime as some say above we need to look at ourselves as individuals but it’s just not enough.
Long term the planet will survive, we won’t. There’s going to be massive upheaval over the next 50 years with rising sea levels, displaced people and food and water shortages.
As someone with kids I’m pretty scared right now as to what the future holds for them.
I’m staggered that so many of us think like this but it’s not on the radar for so many, and certainly being ignored by governments and institutions.
This
Sorry but my gut feeling is that the process that started with the industrial revolution has snowballed way out of control It’s already too late to save humanity from it’s own greed. To paraphrase Mr Attenburough our planet has finite resourses and the developing countries now want their fair share. It’s already plain to see the effects of global heating but the invested interests can’t change their ways and won’t until it’s far too late. We’re all going to burn, I’ll get mine too.
But doomsday thinking only makes things worse so I will try to do my bit and hope that I am wrong.
and this
Long term the planet will survive, we won’t. There’s going to be massive upheaval over the next 50 years with rising sea levels, displaced people and food and water shortages.
As someone with kids I’m pretty scared right now as to what the future holds for them.
I’m staggered that so many of us think like this but it’s not on the radar for so many, and certainly being ignored by governments and institutions.
The impact will be catastrophic, and it's too late to stop it. I'll do my 'bit', but it's mainly to salve my conscience, I'm aware it's basically pi$$ing into the wind
ignored by governments and institutions
That would require long term planning.
Our government cant see past the end of their nose / wallets.
Unless there is a pile of money to made.. nothing will change.
There still arent any perceivable consequences. Our lifestyle seems to have no consequences.
Its almost like we are happy to just ignore what is about to happen with global sea rises in our lifetime.
Its probably inevitable, but maybe its a good thing for the planets future that it has a big 'correction' of the human population.. even if its through its own doing. Biggest Darwin award of all time.
I can see why people "want" to feel there is a solution, but I think its unrealistic to expect one.
Politicians cant see further ahead than the next election.
People are selfish and addicted to consumerism.
Economics is a long way from finding a solution.
Decision makers are swayed by lobbyists.
The third world cant afford to do anything.
A meaningful change would require such a sudden U-turn with no precedent its not going to happen.
We may tinker at the edges, we may stick our rubbish in the recycling bin - but it wont stop us going over the tipping point.
Some of us can make a tiny personal change, or perhaps influence someone to do something to make themselves and us feel better. But it wont make a meaningful difference.
We will increasingly see the issues it raises - migration, lack of food, severe weather problems etc. The wealthy will be able to insulate themselves for sometime, the middle classes will ignore and put up with the changes, the poor will suffer. Gradually the suffering of the poor will reach the middle classes.
Sadly we are buggered.
Wobblyscott, thanks for this
So explain how, despite continual growth, we’re reducing our CO2 emissions then. Growth makes us richer, means we can afford to introduce new and cleaner technologies. Take away peoples ability to get wealthier then any reductions in CO2 emissions will halt and reverse. take away growth and you eliminate investment overnight therefore eliminate any incentive for anyone to do anything different, develop new technologies, develop new products and supply chains that improve our environmental situation etc. Making people poorer is never a solution to any problem.
You make some very good and positive points there about environmental investment and I can take that on board. But from my perspective, when I see that global population has trebled in my 64 years of life and CO2 emissions per capita have not significantly reduced, the numbers speak for themselves. Most £s invested are purely to make more £s not to benefit society or the planet. The exponential progress in technology, fueled by market forces more often than not results in built in obsolescence and incredible waste of resources rather than durability and sustainability. We in our part of the world were the root cause of this and I don't blame the peoples and governments of developing countries for wanting their slice of the consumer cake, they have had the rough end of the deal all along.
What we are doing in the UK is merely fiddling around the edges. To have any significant impact we need a complete change of lifestyles.
This is true. Even if the UK was sunk below the sea tomorrow, the planet's trajectory is already set.
The people on this forum prepared to do anything is tiny as the petrolhead, snow and skiboard, Summer holiday, how to heat my condervatory/shed/garage, my gas boiler is on the blink, wood burners bad, electric cars bad, windmills bad, it’s up to the government to do something not me… posts/threads show.
@edukator as Footflaps said don't let perfect get in the way of progress. Also don't get blinkered by your own choices, sustainable =/= emission free (wood burners being a perfect example), we need to have grown up conversations rather than just gathering a bunch of fundamentalists of either side together for a heel digging contest. The main issue is people don't like being told they are wrong after pinning everything on one idea. Data changes, knowledge grows and these solutions are never going to be perfect.
Was just talking about this last night. I'm not sure there is much of an impact we can make. However, it is worth doing. It will help improve the quality of life in many places. There is a lot of energy still to harness. We need to do it better and I believe in technology and science. I don't believe in the politics.
I'm 38 and I'm pretty sure before I'm in the dirt I will see a major climate event that will kill many many people. Being 'green' is definitely something I'm more aware of as I get older. I've made tiny changes which may not seem like much. I always walk to the local shops. I didn't always used to do it, and it was such an energy waste taking the car. One meal a week were we don't eat meat.
But, as many have pointed out, an ever growing population makes things very tricky.
One of the reasons why the UK's emissions have reduced is that we've offshored a lot of our industrial production to those other problematic countries.
I see that our role, apart from preparing for more extreme weather events, is to lead the design and process to change.
The mass extinction is the big problem, caused by destruction of every ecosystem on the planet. Climate change is a symptom of and catalyst to this.
There isn't a lifeform on the earth that hasn't been affected and earth will never "return" to equilibrium, we've changed it forever. Even if we died out tomorrow the earth will never be the same.
Population is less of an issue than concentration of resources, the billions of poor use **** all, it's is with our air-frighted biodynamic Chilean qumquats in our veg boxes of self delusion that are the problem.
That said there's **** all can be done about it, so PARTY ON DUDES!!
(Don't normally think that but in a dark mood today, we're adopting science based targets at our work - a big industrial emitter, so things are happening but even we limit temp rise to 1.5-2 C there's still two centuries of over exploitation, pollution, deforestation, landform damage, landfill.....etc to mitigate to avert some major ecosystems collapsing which WILL affect our ability to feed ourselves and drink clean water 🤷🏻♂️)
The biggest challenge is going to be changing people's attitudes to environmental issues, and trying to reduce peoples selfishness and greed (good luck with that!).
So many people feel the 'need' to upgrade their phone, car, bike etc because the latest model is 'so much better' because the camera, seat, hub spacing etc is 'better'. They throw thousands of pounds buying stuff that just isnt really needed.
Yet, those same people, when I talk to them about renewable energy, or heat pumps their first comment is - "how much money will it make me?" . No interest in doing the right thing, or reducing your dependency on the grid - just plain old greed, yet they will probably go home and spend more money on rubbish that they don't need.
It really is frightening how so many peoples minds work. (I'm talking here about people who could easily afford renewables, not those who struggle to make ends meet).
Then so many people worship the likes of Elon Musk and his space x program. Yes it is technologically amazing, but how much of our planets resources is he using up to blast internet satellites into space so that we can all sit at home and watch the ice caps melting live on our brand new Iphone300 in superHD++?
I'm not suggesting we stop innovation, however I really think we are screwed.
Just look at this forum as a snapshot. How often do you see posts like 'what is the best coffee machine', or 'what carbon handlebar for my 4 year old kid' etc etc. Buying 'things' that at the end of the day, don't really make you happier as a person. It is just a way to fill an empty void in your life to make you feel better about yourself for about 5 minutes. A year or so later and that 'best' item is in the landfill as a new 'better' item is now on the market.
Truly frightening..
I am an optimist. I like the thinking of the Copenhagen consensus - I.e. the best thing we can do to mitigate future climate change is to keep doing what we're doing in the west - continue to reduce/ mitigate, and to eradicate poverty in the third world as quickly as possible - so the third world leap-frogs the heavily polluting phase of its development straight to reducing population levels/ less intensive pollution & emissions.
(I acknowledge that the Copenhagen Consensus is portrayed as a 'Big Oil' instigated false flag by Michael Mann et al).
One person's "fundamentalist" is another person's moderate.
I still eat 200gms of red meat a week, eat produce from neighbouring countries own a car (9000 electric kms last year), buy too much packaged food and too many bikes and guitars.
The wood burner will go when the local energy generation mix is devoid of fossil fuels, hopefully within five years because yes it's a source of local air pollution.
Most of the changes in my life style are win win. Living in an insulated house is a lot more comfortable. Having no energy bills and no heating system to go wrong is great. I much prefer travelling by train and bus than plane. Walking is relaxing and keeps me fit, unfortunately the mobile phone has made utility cycling more stressful over the years. A healthier local diet is more expensive but may pay dividends long term.
Hopefully people will see that the "sacrifices" they make are simply good choices that they benefit from.
Just gotta do what makes you feel good, everyone has their own version but as mentioned before, humans will come and go but the planet will be fine.
We are not going to meet the 1.5 degree limit are we. I cant see us meeting 3 degrees either.
To put that small degree difference into perspective you need to remember that the ice age was on average only 6 degrees cooler than it is today.
I am with Edukator on this. to me that sort of position is the minimum we should be doing. ( apart from the car 😉 )
If the problem is as bad as they say, if carbon reduction to zero is to be achieved then we can only hope to achieve this with a massive thinning out of the worlds population and the implementation of a global totalitarian tyranny for ever. This will only be achievable by war and civil wars. Anything else is just silly posturing and dreaming. We may as well carry on, hope for the best and enjoy it while we can.
humans will come and go but the planet will be fine.
Tell that to all the animals and plants that are becoming extinct each year due to man. Another 100 years of it and not sure the planet will be 'fine'. Yes, it is not going to blow up but it will be a much worse place than now.
One person’s “fundamentalist” is another person’s moderate.
I disagree, a moderate would be flexible in their "beliefs" and willing to take new information on board. A fundamentalist is by definition neither of those. Unfortunately moderates get absolutely pelted by the fundamentalists and then it just turns into a mass pile-on as more folk jump on the wagon, you see it all the time on here.
As for the defeatism, that's not worth listening to either. Yes things can and probably will get harder but it's by no means over.
Don't know how to work quote function but in answer to per person per year emissions by country, USA / Australia 16tonnes, Kuwait 24 tonnes, China 8 tonnes, UK 6 tonnes, India 2 tonnes, Malawi 0.1 tonnes, i.e. developed world far greater than developing. From Carbon Choices by Neil Kitching, worth a read for facts and what we can all do. The figures are in line with other references which you can find with a little searching.
I did Environmental Science degree in the early 90's - the knowledge was all there back then, the only difference 30years has made is that more commonly talked about.
So that's 30years to get the ball rolling...at that pace of change we're in trouble.
Back then the theory was that it was less about individual change but the focus had to be on governmental and industrial change to have any real impact. We've had the opposite happen - the focus has been on individuals being good citizens but we've still yet to scratch the surface of industry.
Could make parallels to the current pandemic and all the "look them in the eyes" and government pointing the finger at the public rather than taking responsibility for their own appalling performance.
There's a theme to all this.
11% of emissions due to residential energy use. All new build could have been built to passivhaus standards 20years ago if it had been pushed, yet now new builds don't even have to have solar panels.
Progressive action prevents short term profit and loses elections.
End of the day, as a species, we're just driven by the short-term.
tabletop2
Maybe do a bit of reading.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/02/20/plastic-production-climate-change/
Industry: Can we dig a coalmine and open an oil plant and make plastic crap that lasts a year or less ?
Gov: No
Industry: But it will create some jobs and we can market it with Green logos and use words like tree planting.
Gov: Oh, OK then.
jimfrandisco
Free Member
Back then the theory was that it was less about individual change but the focus had to be on governmental and industrial change to have any real impact. We’ve had the opposite happen – the focus has been on individuals being good citizens but we’ve still yet to scratch the surface of industry.
I think this is the fundamental point, and one that I think is seriously detrimental to the cause of climate change. A lot of people sitting there thinking, if I do my bit we are absolving ourselves of blame, which is fair enough, I applaud your efforts. But it's pretty much pointless to the task at hand.
For me, over the next 50 years, we need to see a plan put in place that will see a technological shift in industry and energy production over to as little emissions as humanly possible. On a world wide basis.
For me talk of individual action(whether personally or on a country level) really just obfuscates what is actually required. Might make a few people feel better about themselves, but that's about it in the grand scheme in terms of effectiveness.
The discussion should be focused in the technological and industrial change that is required. Cause it's the only thing that will solve the issue. Expecting individual action to even put a dent in the issue is lunacy, when fundamental and wide ranging structural change is required.
Simple fact is the world centres around money, so a financial solution is going to have to be found. We basically need to make emissions unprofitable and zero emissions profitable.
How that happens, who knows, but it's where the discussion needs to be focused. Because profit isn't going anywhere, so we need to change the fundamental connection between profit and emissions.
The level of decarbonisation needed to stay under 1.5 degrees has gone from monumental to staggeringly unlikely. If countries stick to their current climate policies, by 2100 we’ll likely exceed three degrees of warming. [Article in Wired]
Despite vast investment in renewable energy, China is still constructing a 121 gigawatts of coal power power plants – more than half of that being built in the rest of the world combined. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan has dramatically cut back its nuclear power generation and now plans to build 22 coal-burning power plants over the next five years. [Article in Wired]
Current policies presently in place around the world are projected to reduce baseline emissions and result in about 2.9°C warming above pre-industrial levels. {From Climate Action Tracker]
For 2 to 3 degrees read this: http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
Basically once you are over 2 degrees, preventing mass starvation will be as easy as halting the cycles of the moon.
Anybody, got a realistic solution?
A dramatic reduction in world population. We need a pandemic.
Failing that an improvement in worldwide living standards and infant mortality which it appears leads to lower birthrates and a steady decline in population. Might not be fast enough though. Whatever happens it's far to late now to prevent the loss of more habitat and more species.
slowoldman
Full Member
Anybody, got a realistic solution?A dramatic reduction in world population. We need a pandemic.
So climate change is going to kill people, lets hope something else kills them first, whit? 😆
Climate change is going to kill almost all people if not all people. Maybe a few subsistence farmers left in Greenland and lapland and the like.
I felt the need to inject a little levity.
To cheer yourself up I suggest going for a bike ride - the climate is set to make the summers warmer 🙂
slowoldman
Full Member
I felt the need to inject a little levity.
fair enough. 😆
The govt could initiate a plan to grow hemp/ flax/ bamboo all over the parts of the uk currently covered by bracken or moorland.
Not only would this be an effective carbon sink, but the harvestable plants could be used in manufacturing and housebuilding.
I like what I think @alpin said. Humans will survive. But humanity as we know it...? Not so sure
So, that plan linked to above - if we achieve it, and that's a big IF, we will still make about a 1-2% impact on climate change.
Id not be pinning my hopes on that 🙁
Daffy
Full Member
Low and behold – there is a plan:Clicky link to plan
interesting cheers, read the first 15 pages or so, shall continue. ta.
Just remember that Terrible Events that wipe out billions will not only slash emissions based on the number of people no longer consuming, but will also destroy the global economy which means those remaining will no longer be able to buy shit and fly around on holiday. This is likely to be a strong negative feedback loop when it happens, IMO.
I work in climate change research and I am not as doom and gloom as the rest of you seem to be, but I agree that the science and technology is getting there, it is political will-power, which is dictated not just by the general population but also powerful vested interests, that is the primary problem. There have been leap-changes like lithium-ion battery technologies and in the renewables sector that are making the move from fossil fuels far more viable.
On the overpopulation thing. It is not a helpful statement. It is also not scientifically the 'problem' per se in terms of say emissions. Most of the current emissions from 7.7 billion people are made funding the developed world's requirements. It is probable that the biggest growth in emissions will be the growth of the 'middle-classes' (mostly in Asia) who want the same quality of life we enjoy. And by 2100 the UN expects rapid growth to have stalled. This is where technologies could really change the outcome. In China I believe the Government began moving away from coal for electricity production because of air quality issues because of the growing concern in the population, but now that they are moving that way the take-up of renewables is huge. Also they can impose extreme measures, on transport like cars in cities and on the efficiency of goods and industries etc, so they have the ability to cut CO2 emissions.
It is problematic for developed countries to say to developing countries : you cannot develop in the same way that we did - that is colonial. So we (the world nations) need to be acting now to ensure that emissions don't grow unsustainably when the population (naturally) grows. 1. improve our help towards maternity, pre-natal, post-natal and infant access to medical care and treatment. The science exists although some things need a bit more money like malaria prevention (we are on the brink of a possible vaccine for example). This brings fertility rates down (women choose to have less children) 2. Install all new technologies, energy production, infrastructure using 'clean' technologies. One thing in particular is how we all think about transport/travel and communications - a change away from face to face might have a big impact here. This needs funds of course but the technology exists, it is a political problem. 3. Improve economic outcomes for the population as a whole, which will also reduce fertility rates. We can incentivise sustainable growth, help fund re-forestation and changing farming practises to deal with the changing climate now. If new, clean technologies are embedded now then the population growth in itself does not necessarily lead to increase CO2 emissions. There are of course complexities in these things, e.g. hydroelectric, forced movement of people, the environmental costs and risks like dam failure. Nothing is simple but we can move in the right direction.
So increased tropical medicine and access to medical if key. Technology to reduce emissions and changing our own behaviours for what we eat (and the deforestation and land change, fertilisers and so on that go with that). An alternative to concrete for construction that is equally cheap and robust.
I think there is a conflict in some of these suggested solutions.
To reduce population growth we advocate educating/empowering women which will lead to a better economy and allow them to make their own choices - which is true.
But once the population becomes middle class and the economy takes off, then so does rampant consumerism and waste. Everyone wants the latest TV, Phone, Aircon, Car etc.
You cant deny women the opportunity to improve their choices and you cant deny populations the improvements a better economy will bring. But on the other hand I don't see either of those leading to lower carbon emissions. Especially with the governments ruling these underdeveloped nations.
I spent sometime working for a charity advocating and offering birth control in the third world, most of our problems were created by the local governments who were Catholic or just plain stupid/corrupt. It was very depressing. Scientific advances will not sort out those problems or improve those economies.
Yup - massively hypocritical to deny developing nations the fruits of the development while e carry on business as usual
"Scientific advances will not sort out [political will / social-societal]" this is kind-of true, but with education and wider availability to communication (even with the risk of misinformation) there is a chance that people will push for positive change. A don't necessarily agree that by empowering women and improving education and improving infant / mother outcomes you necessarily end up with "rampant consumerism and waste". I think these are the things to focus on, enabling a middle class to grow in developing and so-called second world (India, China) with gadgets and technologies that make their life more comfortable/convenient but with better technologies and efficiencies... In terms of the OP's original question, the focus should be how to we design houses and make transport and farm and arrange our lives (worldwide), that brings the convenience of air-con and point-to-point transport and so on but doesn't rely on fossil fuel levels of energy production.
An example is using technology in agriculture. Flying drones over fields can sense productivity, there was an example I saw in Australia where they flew over 12 months and identified with seasons and weather the parts of an estate where the productivity was saturated (due to geology and so on) and they could reduce their fertiliser use by 40-50%. Reduces the farmers costs and the energy used to make and distribute the fertiliser and has massive benefits downstream because of runoff. We in the UK have legislation now about overwintered fields to reduce the risk of soil erosion for example. Costs come down as technology improves and there are so many small shifts that could make a big difference overall.