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.
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.
