jamesybob
Full MemberDon’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.
It is frustrating working hard to try and trim the impact of every aspect of your life down to the minimum when when the USA and Australia are chucking out 3 times the amount of CO2 per person with seemingly no penalty.
Well that's one of the issues, play now, pay later.
We wont stop play till the climate actually stop it for us. At the moment the problem is always in the future, or is a 1 in a 100 event. Its always after the next election, or after your next holiday.
By the time the Thames floods the Houses of Parliament we will so far beyond fixing the situation it will be pointless to react.
"By the time the Thames floods the Houses of Parliament ..." I believe it is *only* once anthropogenic-climate-change-driven events happen to developed countries that we start to take action, and I think that will accelerate because the general population will push more and more towards Governments taking action. The risk of e.g. crop failures in developing nations and the possibility of civil unrest and population migration has been in Government and military risk assessments for years, and some people in Government and the military have been pushing for action because of those risks for a long time. But the wildfires in Australia and California, heat waves and floods in Europe have had an effect on the population's thinking, it's just that within those political structures they don't quite have the majority to make changes, but I think it is coming. It is also never "too late", there isn't an upper threshold. I think we already are too late to keep to a 2°C rise above pre-industrial but it is definitely still worth making changes as rapidly as possible towards zero-net-carbon emissions.
Good points, but once you are at 2°C are you not very close to a runaway event ?
Runaway events... that's a difficult one to answer. I don't have the knowledge to say with absolute certainty. In my field of sea level science there is a lot of uncertainty in when / whether we already are in 'runaway' ice sheet instability in parts of Antarctica which will eventually give many meters of sea level rise. Sea level rise in particular is an effect of global (average) warming that is tied-in or 'committed' to many years before you see the effect. But we have the opportunity to decrease the rate of rise and the rate of acceleration by our actions now. Even if we are committed to 3 m of sea level rise, if that happens over the next 300+ years we should be able to adapt to that in those timescales. I don't believe the Earth-system has such extreme feedbacks that a "runaway" feedback loop can't be reversed - it's about the timescales that the change happens over. Having said that, I can't comment on things like deforestation and desertification which I presume could become 'irreversible' in human lifetime scales of 100 years. My point would be we should absolutely still be trying to reduce emissions now and into the future as far as possible, even when things look dire, and many small technologies can help with that (while completely appreciating the political and other human-nature barriers).
It is frustrating working hard to try and trim the impact of every aspect of your life down to the minimum when when the USA and Australia are chucking out 3 times the amount of CO2 per person with seemingly no penalty.
Why? You can reduce your own emissions, and that still has an effect. It all counts.
Eventually the USA will figure it out. Things are slowly shifting there. Not fast enough, really, but still.
And fuel duty increase frozen once again, to hoots of glee from the Express, Howard Cox and his ilk. For a government supposedly committed to tackling climate change they have a very odd way of going about it...
After Konagirl's very reasonable and posts, I now feel a little bit more optimistic for the future.
Thank you.
cheese@4p - stop reading this thread now then 🙂
For some more positivity, I like Katharine Hayhoe's talks and writing. She's a Texan who does a huge amount of outreach and communication. "As individuals our daily attention goes to our health, our safety, our jobs, and our families. ... It’s not a question of moving climate change “up” our priority list. I don’t think climate change needs to be an issue on our lists at all. We care about a changing climate because it affects nearly every one of those things that are already on our priority lists." She has some nice stories on conversations with typical Republican Texans who are buying to the solar and wind energy etc because it makes financial sense.
We don't need more positivity, that just makes us all feel warm and comfy which results in inactivity.
The boat is sinking, get bailing.
Jus keepin my eyes and mind open. Sorry to dilute the doom Trimix
There's only one quick and easy solution to climate change... Nuclear war.
(tried to post an image but it's not working)
At this point we have to hope for (and actively work towards) novel solutions.
Lab grown meat, once it hits a practical cost, will make a huge impact; as will renewable energies*. Hopefully the solutions keep coming at a rate faster than the problems.
Man made flood management, artificial weather, all manner of things we can/will be able to do to make the changed world habitable for humans, and hopefully with some consideration for other species too, but I'm sadly less certain of that from certain governments.
If the last year has taught us anything it is that the lengths and costs humans will go to to save lives; I think the idea that we will just sit and starve/drown ourselves en masse is not going to happen.
*or we just hang on long enough for fusion, still 30 years away...
A lady who along with her son owns some of the worst performing housing stock in the UK is moaning about world leaders not acting on climate change.
A bit rich from an energy seive property owner who is a head of state herself.
I think this hypocritical lady should clean her own act up, use the not insignificant clout she has to jolly along her own government and above all use her not inconsiderable wealth to insulate her properties and equip them with renewable energy technology:
I find it hard to get wound up by this story to be honest. The hypocrisy doesn't make her criticism any less legitimate.
use the not insignificant clout she has to jolly along her own government
Isn't that what she is doing?
I struggle to call Buckingham Palace, Windsor castle etc "housing stock" though.
Of course she is a hypocrite. It’s what she and her family specialise in. Whether is Andy and his behaviour or changes and his kids pretending to care whilst doing the opposite they are all as bad as each other
I suggest you look at the total crown property portfolio, Molgrips. There's the personal stuff, for example just prince Charles and then the crown estates.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/2020080494730/prince-charles-camilla-royal-residences-portfolio/
As a vegetarian, who doesn't generally fly for holliday's (think it's been 4 years since a trip to Spain), doesn't buy new clothes anywhere near often enough, and avoids personal car use like the plague.......
I've learnt not to suggest any of that. Apparently it's all too difficult, vegetables taste horrible, half term skiing is a human right, too busy to cycle to work, and the need for a big engine to achieve the speed limit a second quicker is an acceptable trade off to doing 60+mpg the other 99.999% of the journey.
I'll just say I told you so in years to come. And you can tell me you told me it would be too difficult to achieve.
edit: an old thread which didn't really warrant a new reply.
I've one to realise that there's no point berating people for their choices, even though I have done so.
All you can do is point out what's wrong and lobby government, because changing other people's personal behaviour is a) really difficult and b) it's not anywhere near enough.
We need governments at this point.
Catastrophic climate change is entirely avoidable
Maybe, just maybe........ but until private companies work out how to monetize mitigation we're screwed.
We need governments at this point.
Indeed. Much as I dislike governments, they are the only ones who can implement the systemic changes needed. Individual action is the biggest form of greenwash.
I kind of think there is a flawed premise in the OP:
and I guess more importantly, how to get around the political and business problems?
Politics and (especially) business essentially are the problems both have their entrenched stakeholders, they prop one another up and the types and levels of change really required are really beyond both groups...
While the "Business" is presenting us with Billionaire's Dick shaped rockets full of celebrities having empty epiphanies about how fragile the Earth is, Politicians dare not hold businesses to account, make them pay there taxes, enforce environmental standards (on a global level) or simply challenge their behaviour for fear of being removed from power... We have another global talking shop this month, where lots will be said but little if substance achieved.
Honestly I wouldn't look to business or political parties to affect useful change, it's simply not in their interests.
Dare I say it solving climate change begins with widespread disruption of political and business structures...
Not an answer I know, but more of a point of note, do those two Powerful groups who claim to be seriously looking at addressing climate change really mean it? It's driven by wealth inequality and global consumerism, and who has the most vested interest in those activities?
Much as I dislike governments, they are the only ones who can implement the systemic changes needed.
Simply not so. I divided the energy consumption of my house by six, turned it into a mini-power station, haven't flown for nine years, switched to an elctric car, reduced/eliminated consumption of some food stuffs.
My choices, not the government's.
In answer to the OP, rich countries will adapt but poor countries will be less able to do so. Rich countries can expect a lot of refugees unless they help poor countries adapt.
We've just got to hope that the rate of adaption necessary is something we can cope with.
I have no confidence that the world's major polluters will change their ways any time soon.
In my view, the hypocrisy and sensationalism around climate change is going to become counter-productive and turn people off as the costs of adaption and avoiding pollution bite.
What you have done Edukator is obviously positive but it's not 'systemic' change, it's individual, that's the point. We can't be nudged into changing the way we live or it will never happen. We need policies.
I divided the energy consumption of my house by six, turned it into a mini-power station, haven’t flown for nine years, switched to an elctric car, reduced/eliminated consumption of some food stuffs.
Good for you. But you are just one person/family. What about the millions/billions of people who don't have the resources or the opportunities to do the same? It's all very well rich middle class people virtue signalling their way to carbon saving superiority, but it won't come close to solving the problem.
My choices, not the government’s.
Which, whilst greatly laudable, in the grand scheme of things will achieve sod all.
What about the millions/billions of people who
don’t have the resources or the opportunities to do the same?couldn't really give a toss
Is, I think, the greater problem.
Is, I think, the greater problem.
Yes that is also a major problem, which again requires leadership from government. I do think however that not giving a toss, and not having the means to do anything are closely linked. Governments have enormous power to incentivise mass behaviour change. They're also the only organisations which have the finances to do so.
All of those except the car have worked out cheaper in the long run. The car might too but it's a bit early to say.
I agree it will achieve sod all, IHN. It needs many more to act. The thing is that slowly slowly people are realising that doing their bit helps and that they can afford it. Look at the electric car thread on here and the number of STWers who now own them. Check out the various solar panel threads, the house renovation threads, the "my boilers ****ed, what are the alternatives?"
If there's a problem avoid being a part of it. Give a toss... .
In real life I've become an influencer without trying. A friend of Madame's sent a message asking how much it cost to charge the car at home so I sent the numbers back including charging losses a different charge rates. They're obvioulsy costing up running an EV, we'll see what they buy
sweaman2
Free MemberThe 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.
Yep- basically everything we're doing now, is totally undermined because of the fake economics that capitalism loves and the fact that so many of the costs of carbon burning aren't on the balance sheet and so just don't exist. In the end, it's going to be the biggest subsidy in human history.
Of course there's no prospect of going backwards and passing the true costs to polluters but as long as we don't do it, we're encouraging warming. Our entire system is rigged towards it and against clean power.
Buying EVs is easy because it's a nice new car, EVs are cool, and there's no real hardship. Stopping flying for holidays, that's a much harder thing to ask people to do.
All of those except the car have worked out cheaper in the long run.
Yes but it requires a lot of upfront capital. Electric cars, heat pumps, solar panels, and all the remedial work to insulate properties are not cheap. I'm pretty well off compared to most and I can't afford to buy a (practical) electric car, let alone spend tens of thousands on the other stuff.
molgrips
Why? You can reduce your own emissions, and that still has an effect. It all counts.
Eventually the USA will figure it out. Things are slowly shifting there. Not fast enough, really, but still.
Didn't see this reply first time around.
The answer is because I've done all the easy things, LED bulbs, loft insulation etc. The changes I'm now making to cut carbon, reduce waste etc are either expensive or having a fairly significant effect on my life for marginal gains.
It is very frustrating therefore to see wealthy nations where they haven't bothered with even the easiest low hanging fruit.
I saw you posting about somebody only getting 50MPG on another thread. Do you think it makes any difference when every year the USA are buying half a million F150s, half a million Dodge RAMs, 400,000 Silverados, 200,000 Tacomas, 200,000 GMC Sierras every year which do ~25MPG? Some of them can't even crack 15MPG! It's complete madness.
This piece from a few days ago is good on what a representative sample of the UK agree on should be the actions to hit the 2030 reduction targets
The most popular policy mix selected by the public was:
A carbon tax of £75 per tonne on polluting manufacturing and construction businesses, with some funding to invest in new technologies, supported by 94% of people.
Better-integrated public transport coordinated by local government (93%).
Food campaigns and support from government, supermarkets and food companies promoting plant-based diets and cutting meat and dairy consumption by 10% (93%).
A comprehensive UK-wide electric vehicle charging network by 2028 (91%).
Raising flying costs, particularly on frequent fliers (89%).
Some restrictions on cars entering city centres and a 60mph speed limit on motorways (82%).
Support for less intensive farming and paying farmers to improve nature, including woodlands (79%).
Grants for heat pumps and home insulation for low-income households and low-interest loans for others, reaching 1.4m heat pump installations a year by 2030 (77%).
We need governments at this point.
We need effective governments. From what I can see there are not many of those in the world and the ones I would count as effective as governing small/irrelevant countries.
Yes the government is the most important factor but who votes in the government...
The main reason electric cars work so well is because unless you spend a huge sum you can’t go very far in them before they need a lengthy recharge.
The only solution to climate change is fewer people on the planet.
I've always thought that the answer to this is for a band of national leaders to form a little club, and lay down some rules which essentially say
"Make this committment to do your bit to cut emissions and we will trade with you on favourable terms. If you don't make the commitment then we will impose sanctions. We will self police and kick you out of the club and impose sanctions if you don't keep your promises. And we are willing to accept this might cost us money. People of the world: put pressure on your leaders to join. Oh and the sooner you get on board, the better we will treat you, so get a move on"
So basically create a situation where it will hurt each nation economically to not join in. The problem is that it would require multiple world leaders to commit to a big gamble, they would be heros if it worked but look like fools if it fizzled out. And the arguing over the rules would be endless
I’ve always thought that the answer to this is for a band of national leaders to form a little club, and lay down some rules which essentially say
“Make this committment to do your bit to cut emissions and we will trade with you on favourable terms. If you don’t make the commitment then we will impose sanctions. We will self police and kick you out of the club and impose sanctions if you don’t keep your promises. And we are willing to accept this might cost us money. People of the world: put pressure on your leaders to join. Oh and the sooner you get on board, the better we will treat you, so get a move on”
So basically create a situation where it will hurt each nation economically to not join in. The problem is that it would require multiple world leaders to commit to a big gamble, they would be heros if it worked but look like fools if it fizzled out. And the arguing over the rules would be endless
Sounds great, completely at odds with the interests of those in the position to implement the concept.
Us (post industrial) first-worlders just bang on about how low 'our' emissions are getting now we've got Tesla's, whilst simultaneously berating developing nations for 'their' polluting activities and inducing them to pollute by paying them to run data centres as well as manufacture and export all the tat we love to buy...
It doesn't work, it's still in China and India's financial interests to burn lots of coal. The UN won't change that because the backlash from us Western plebs when costs increase and choices decrease will dislodge many from their current positions of power.
Population control is the only answer.
A universal one child limit would be a start.
Population control is the only answer.
Yes.
A universal one child limit would be a start.
No
The only way things will change is if it hits people in their pockets.
As a child of the 60's and 70's, things (as one would expect) were very different. We walked to school and back (even through scary woods). We never used the car for short journeys, holidays were in this country, our food was mostly from local farmers/producers and fruit and veg in season, clothes were worn until we grew out of them (and got passed on to others) or they wore out, a lot of people grew their own food where possible (my grandpa had an allotment and grew salads and fruit in his garden. We hung our washing out to dry and had very few takeaways.
We eat too much, we consume too much, we are lazy and most people don't care. Too many people think saving the world is putting their empty bean can into a recycling bin.
Plant a tree everyone.
Sounds great, completely at odds with the interests of those in the position to implement the concept.
Us (post industrial) first-worlders just bang on about how low ‘our’ emissions are getting now we’ve got Tesla’s, whilst simultaneously berating developing nations for ‘their’ polluting activities and inducing them to pollute by paying them to run data centres as well as manufacture and export all the tat we love to buy…
It doesn’t work, it’s still in China and India’s financial interests to burn lots of coal. The UN won’t change that because the backlash from us Western plebs when costs increase and choices decrease will dislodge many from their current positions of power.
Completely agree, hence saying that arguing over the rules would be endless. There absolutely has to be recognition that us first-worlders have led the way in creating the problem, frankly done staggeringly well out of it economically, and we have to lead the way (and carry the greatest burden) in solving it. I'm not for a moment suggesting that anything as simplistic as emissions quotas would do the job.
But there are certainly some first world countries doing less than others, and I would love to see some collective pressure put, very publicly and bluntly, on those not pulling their weight.
I do also wonder if the "What can you do? Top tips to reduce your own carbon footprint" style communications do more harm than good. "But if everyone did it..."
No. Even if every single person in the entire world recycled their yoghurt pots, it would make sod all difference. It can only be addressed if governments come up with a global solution which will inevitably be painful given how we in the developed world have become accustomed to living.
chewkw
Free MemberPopulation control is the only answer.
Yes.
A universal one child limit would be a start.
No
I agree, a zero-child policy would be much more effective.
As a child of the 60’s and 70’s, things (as one would expect) were very different....
OK Boomer.
The only way things will change is if it hits people in their pockets.
Which people?
We've already mentioned the "space billionaires".
I kind of feel like if we're going to ask those living a relatively "normal" (actually quite high) modern standard of living to take the necessary steps and cut back, we need to see proportionate efforts from the wealth hoarders currently putting phalluses into orbit.
Moreover those right at the "bottom" financially, probably need a leg up in order to be able to even consider "ethical consumption" over basic needs...
Wealth inequalities are a major contributor to people's choices already, just telling younger generations to Don a hare shirt because your generation walked to school (and then probably went on to do plenty of polluting over the following 40 odd years) isn't actually very helpful...
On the electric cars point. It's all very good and it is indeed necessary for the shift to electric cars to happen. Because it makes the issue of them in particularly easier to deal with. But unless that problem is dealt with, all you are doing is shifting the emissions up the production line.
These cars still need energy, and if every car tomorrow was to switch to electric all that does is shift the energy requirements on to the grid, which is currently only about 20-25% renewables in the uk as far as I understand.
So shift all the cars on to it tomorrow and you need alot more energy from the grid, how we going to get that energy, more coal? nuclear?, still burning oil? gas? or switch to solar? wind? or other renewables?
These are still structural issues needing solved. Buying an electric car doesn't actually solve anything, just moves the problem elsewhere.
The fundamental problem is how we create energy.
(I do appreciate that electric cars will maybe burn less fossil fuels using a different fuel source and technologies, but still a very large percent of emissions will still be linked to EVs until the grid is changed.)
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this? We have many solutions for renewable power that are getting cheaper and cheaper, will it happen overnight? No. Will it be a million times better than the current fuel mix. Yes.
The thread is depressing, not the climate problems we face, but the scepticism and pessimism used to confront them
As a child of the 60’s and 70’s, things (as one would expect) were very different
As a child of the 60s and 70s you are part of a generation that caused this to happen. Including developing the culture of lazy consumerism we have today.
The only reasonably guilt free generations are those yet to reach double digits for age. When I look back, I see a culture heading at full speed to greater consumption.
To be fair it all really started a few hundred years ago. Pre industrial revolution it was all going fine and we would not have ended up in this position.
Whether most peoples lives would have been of lower quality and worth the cost is another matter.
The problem is not going away any time soon so best to look for solution hows to deal with it rather than how to stop it.
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this?
It will make no significant difference to climate change and co2 reduction for 2 reasons - the embedded co2 cost of an EV is higher than a ICE and the energy used is used less efficiently as it goes thru more conversions wasting energy at each step and any extra electricity consumption means more fossil fuels used for generation.
EVs are greeenwash - the only answer is to stop moving people around so much thus use less energy overall
Unfortunately the steps required to mitigate climate change are impossible politically. We are already at the tipping point and this planet is already in a mass extinction event.
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this?
Its not a good thing, its a less bad thing. Not driving and not constantly building new cars is the good thing. Same with recycling. Its still bad, just not as bad as landfill. We get these sticking plaster solutions so we can say "I'm doing my bit" when in reality we are still not doing nearly enough.
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing...
I don't think many would argue that its not. But it's the tip of the iceberg. It's blindingly obvious that our current progression is completely unsustainable, and manufacturing more, and bigger cars is not the answer. We need to go a lot further, rethinking our environment and the way we live.
Unfortunately cars are a large part of our economy so its likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
If the timeline of the earth was condensed to a single day
and at the very last second......... we ****ed it right up.
People sneered at me on the fuel thread, but unless we all start to make changes where we can, then this'll be done in a few more seconds at most. We can't just assume that big industry and countries will do it, although clearly unless they also do their bit then our efforts will be to naught.
My point was that it is better than what we have now. So easy to pour scorn on every tiny bit of progress, because it is not 100% perfect. This line of thinking just let's us all off the hook.
Also some one did reply it is not a good thing!
tj is too pessimistic up there about EVs.
The future is solar and it's coming sooner than you think. Solar already undercuts fossil fuel energy in many regions of the world, and the economics improve year on year. Wind is also good but the potential is a bit limited for many countries (we are relatively well-off in this regard).
Global CO2 emissions are levelling off, certainly not increasing exponentially as had been the case up to the last couple of decades. I think there are reasonable grounds for a certain amount of optimism. I expect to see global warming slow down within my lifetime, but probably not completely stop.
The doomers are almost as big a danger as the denialists. Sure, we are causing environmental damage and it's going to get worse. It's not going to kill us all and everything we do to minimise the harm will help the situation. It's never "too late" or "a lost cause".
I read yesterday that just a single revolution of one of the larger offshore wind turbines in the North sea generates enough power to drive a Tesla 200+ miles. That's amazing.
For all of you blaming me - a baby boomer for this mess, please don't tar us all with the same brush. I have been an environmentalist for many years and have been trying to change things way before, it was fashionable to put a lavender plant in your garden to save bees.
I look around our tiny cul de sac and its the young uns buying the plastic tat, running their children to school in their polluting huge/fast vehicles, they have more foreign holidays and expect the nhs to jump when they get health problems from their bad lifestyle choices. It's all about look at me, not about what can I do for others.
Yes maybe from my age group I am the rare one, but luckily most of my friends and family are like minded and do care about the future of this planet.
As for the comment I made about it needing to hit one in the pocket/purse/wallet, I stand by that, because it's people like my young neighbours who need to realise that buying their offspring plastic treats every five minutes is affecting everyone and they don't give a toss about their children's future, whereas I do.
Global CO2 emissions are levelling off, certainly not increasing exponentially as had been the case up to the last couple of decades. I think there are reasonable grounds for a certain amount of optimism. I expect to see global warming slow down within my lifetime, but probably not completely stop.
Thats my point made. Its too little too late. We are already at the tipping point and continuing to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will tip us over the edge. The damage is done
As for EVs and solar power - you do realise that in northern europe a solar panel will hardly pay back its embedded carbon in its lifetime?
The only solution is to reduce energy consumption hugely worldwide and of course that is politically impossible
In your childrens lifetime much of the planet will become basically uninhabitable. We can already see this happening
No, there is no "tipping point" and it's never too late. We've done some harm, plenty more is baked in to the next few decades, but just how much future harm we do is still down to our behaviour right now and in the future.
This media hype about "basically uninhabitable" is a load of bollocks. It's one or two irresponsible scientists hyping up their highly speculative research for ... I don't really know what reason, I can only guess.
BTW I'm a climate scientist with several decades of experience and research. I've been a contributing author on a previous IPCC report (not involved in the latest one). The previous one *explicitly* said there was no evidence for global-scale tipping points over the next century. Which is quite a strong statement for a broad consensus.
As for EVs and solar power – you do realise that in northern europe a solar panel will hardly pay back its embedded carbon in its lifetime?
https://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/solar-panels/energy-payback-time-for-solar-systems/
currently only about 20-25% renewables in the uk
40% last December. If the idiocy of banning more land based wind in this country was over turned it could be a lot more. The hills around me are ripe for them, we have some, could have 4 times as many. It's hardly pristine wilderness, much of it was mined for coal.
Solar would help even if was southern based. There's a new petrol station being built near me (I appreciate the irony) which has solar panels as part of the roof structure, not an additional cost post built. We need more of that, changes in building techniques.
It needs direct government leadership and financial support. Solar used to be an attractive option even as a retro fit until this government killed the subsidies. EVs are the same, kill the subsidies when the technology is main stream not as it develops.
The public won't make the changes, government has to. Even now they are encouraging people back to work rather than trying to make something positive out of Covid, the sudden shift to working from home would not have happened without the pandemic.
Harnessing the force of rivers is such a good way to create power.
There are two hydro turbines (reverse Archimedes screws) on the river Goyt near Stockport and New Mills, providing much needed electricity to homes and business premises nearby.
The power generated comes from two small weirs.
I think hydro is still quite poor at investment vs return (which also translates into CO2 created during manufacture vs CO2 saved during use), however if we don't invest in it, it won't get more efficient. We need lots of small scale distributed power generation (which also makes the grid more resiliant).
Agree with you about the 70s, single or no car households, one telly, few foreign holidays, kids toys limited, lot less processed food. Wasn't as fun but was a lot more sustainable.
The problem I have with the whole climate change debate is the basic assumption at its heart. That is that the planet should stay in a state suitable for human habitation indefinitely. Why should it? Human habitation has occurred for a tiny fraction of the planets existence. Yes climate change is happening, yes we are making it worse, but the planet should change
The problem I have with the whole climate change debate is the basic assumption at its heart. That is that the planet should stay in a state suitable for human habitation indefinitely. Why should it? Human habitation has occurred for a tiny fraction of the planets existence. Yes climate change is happening, yes we are making it worse, but the planet should change
Erm, because we all want our children and children's children to have happy lives?
If my house is falling down, I fix it. If the planet's climate is changing (even naturally) to become inhospitable, we try to keep it hospitable.
Do you not put a coat on when it is cold outside? Or do you have a problem with the assumption that humans like to stay warm?
The problem I have with the whole climate change debate is the basic assumption at its heart. That is that the planet should stay in a state suitable for human habitation indefinitely. Why should it?
I suppose by the same token you're fine with, say, pouring untreated nuclear waste into the sea?
A more defensible position (IMO) is letting covid-22 run riot and eliminate the human species, allowing the planet to be "rewilded" by more interesting species.
The problem I have with the whole climate change debate is the basic assumption at its heart. That is that the planet should stay in a state suitable for human habitation indefinitely. Why should it?
I believe this because I'm a human, and I care about other humans. The planet itself does not care if we are here or not, it is inanimate. Most of the animals don't care either. Ironically, in complaining about one human value judgement you are simply applying another human value judgement.
No, there is no “tipping point” and it’s never too late. We’ve done some harm, plenty more is baked in to the next few decades, but just how much future harm we do is still down to our behaviour right now and in the future.
The problem I have with that view, even though you are a climate scientist, is that there is also a view that says at one point it will be too late. I have to pick a side and given that scientists on both sides believe they are correct I have to go with there is a tipping point side as if they are wrong then we still have a chance. If I go the other way and you are wrong we are screwed
The captain
Perhaps i would have been better saying irreparable damage?
Governments are full of fine words but short on the action required by a long way
We can already see devastating consequences of climate change.
I live a more sustainable life than most. No car,no kids,no pets,hardly fly,no consumerist and its still not enough. If everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle greenhouse gas emissions would still rise
the energy used is used less efficiently as it goes thru more conversions wasting energy at each step and any extra electricity consumption means more fossil fuels used for generation.
TJ I get your basic point about the number of energy changes but I think you're fundamentally wrong on this. A power station will be massively more efficient at converting a fossil fuel to electricity than an individual ICE engine. Plus the power station will be putting out a lot less other pollutants per kw than a car. Then there's the emissions for getting the fuel to the petrol station and even the electricity load associated with running the petrol station, the fuel pumps, lighting, heating for the kiosk etc.
EVs are also easier to maintain, no engine oil or nasty chemicals in the cooling system, no gear box oil etc.
EVs are far from perfect but relative to an ICE vehicle they are already much better than a technology that's been refined to death and still pollutes a lot.
The main benefit of EVs (from the climate POV) is not that FF electricity is much better than FF burnt directly in the car but that it enables a switch to renewable/low carbon electricity. There’s the added benefit of less urban pollution.
TJ - your maths for/against EV's and renewables sound like they're stuck in the Daily Mail circa 2017... also , this mass extinction event - it's not. Get over yourself - the planet won't become uninhabitable, but it will make many, many millions or billions have a much worse quality of life , including people in Britain . So I think it's worth doing things to stop that. The worst thing you can do it say 'I don't matter, nothing I do is worth it'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58938198
Man Utd flying 100 miles for Leicester game... That's your problem!
I think basically there are two things that will have significant effect
The wholesale movement to renewable electricity generation, and switch to electricity for all forms of power (industrial process, transport, domestic heating etc) Does leave flying as an un-reformable outlier.
Massive reduction in meat production/consumption - and other carbon intensive food production
Both these are achievable whilst maintaining good standards of living.
The problem is that both will really take concerted international governmental action. Fossil fuel generated electricity is cheaper (if medium/long term impacts are ignored). Meat is cheap to mass produce and popular.
So Govts need to tax fossil fuels and meat production appropriately - so the full long run costs to society are reflected in price. Use extra tax raised to invest in renewable/low carbon energy production and farming
Unfortunately this isn't a recipe for winning elections in the current political climate - anyone voting for 50p on a litre of unleaded?
thecaptain, yes obviously but even today with 60% of electricity from FF EVs are still better for the environment.