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.
Erm, because we all want our children and children’s children to have happy lives?
i understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainabl. Everyone wanting to have children will always make it harder to keep the climate stable as they will all want to travel, buy and consume stuff perpetuating the cycle
Population decline is in full swing in most westernised countries (UK probably will due to Brexit lack of immigration) plus second poorer countries and whilst it solves some climate change isssue is brings short term issues of aging populations.
g5604
Free Member
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this?
I wasn't questioning EV's, just making the point that they are only part of the solution.
Interesting to note someone is saying qre at 40% renewables on the grid, interesting that, obviously my info a bit out of date. But still putting all the petrol and diesel emissions on to the grid say the morra, would knock that back a bit. how much I don't know. interested if anyone would know?
Interesting to note someone is saying qre at 40% renewables on the grid, interesting that, obviously my info a bit out of date.
20% carbon free as of just now.
Population decline is in full swing in most westernised countries (UK probably will due to Brexit lack of immigration)
whilst this is a start the U.K. population is still going up according the ons. Globally though population is still rising and consumption is increasing
The interesting one is gas, Squirrelking. 53% as I type. That is not a comfortable position for a nation to be in right now as North Sea production goes into free fall.
I suspect the person quoting 40% meant renewables plus carbon neutral which means nuclear.
i understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainabl.
Why do people keep saying this as if it was an accepted fact? It’s total bollocks. The problem is how we distribute and use resources, not how many people there are. This population stuff is just eugenic nonsense.
Population is a problem unless you are happy with the vast majority of people living unpleasant subsistance lives shortene by poor living conditions, Dazh.
The short term sustainable population might be 8 billion (UN) with intensive agriculture, fossil fuels and a progresive destruction of the environment. But that's not my idea of sustainable.
My idea of sustainable includes a reasonable quality of life, a level of economic activity sustainable for centuries rather than decades and environmental stability rather than progresive degradation. That gets hard to achieve beyond 2 billion. Do some Googling.
dazh
Full Member
The problem is how we distribute and use resources
It's no even that it's a question of energy production and emissions.
Population and consumption can continue to grow if we make the technological switch. It's no co-incidence that the energy production curve and emissions curves directly correlate to each other, particularly since the 50s.
We just need to change how we create energy, and population and consumption can continue as is.
I also think it's just unrealistic to expect either population or consumption to reduce. That's just not how people live.
Abstinence is a terrible solution tbh. Not least for the economic harm it'll also cause.
My idea of sustainable includes a reasonable quality of life, a level of economic activity sustainable for centuries rather than decades and environmental stability rather than progresive degradation. That gets hard to achieve beyond 2 billion.
So your solution is to kill 5 billion people to protect your way of life? Right… 😳
wbo - I live as I say - "do as you would be done by". I have a much more sustainable lifestyle than most in the UK - no car, no kids, no pets. I do not buy consumer goods new if I can possibly avoid it, I don't upgrade for the sake of it and I rarely fly. I buy food with the lowest food miles I can etc etc.
Even this as a more sustainable western lifestyle is not nearly enough. this is the issue - fiddling around the edges with PVs and EVs and so on is not enough. We simply need as a planet to be using less energy and to move people and things around far less and to consume less
Green consumerism is an oxymoron.
20% carbon free as of just now.
No such thing - you mean lower carbon. all energy generation has a carbon penalty - from the concrete and steel in windfarms to the pollution from extracting uranium and the concrete in the power stations
i understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainable.
Sorry, but i have to say i think this is a false premise.(Not a criticism of the poster,only the notion)
I mean, who decides such, who says its overpopulated and what exactly are they basing that supposition on 😕
usually the proposal is based on food supply - ie if all the food available was shared out equally would everyone have enough to eat?
the other aspect sometimes used is carbon cost of lifestyles - now as above I am sure I have a lower carbon lifestyle than most in the west - but if everyone on the planet had my lifestyle it still would not be sustainable. IIRC my lifestyle if followed by everyone on the planet we would need nearly two earths worth of resources.
if everyone on the planet had the lifestyles of the average westerner then something like 4 planets worth of resources would be needed
So either the west needs massive cuts in consumption and resource usage or those in developing nations are not allowed to raise their standard of living or we need less people - which do you choose?
So either the west needs massive cuts in consumption and resource usage or those in developing nations are not allowed to raise their standard of living or we need less people
Yup, i can see that. Things need to be done differently.
– which do you choose?
Now now, thats enough of that 😕
tjagain
Full Member
We simply need as a planet to be using less energy and to move people and things around far less and to consume less
how do you deal with the ensuing economic collapse?
I suspect the person quoting 40% meant renewables plus carbon neutral which means nuclear.
Renewables + nuclear = carbon neutral. Switch to 'meters' view and it's far more obvious. But yes, wind is doing far better today too. But no, we are not in a good place at all. Again, something that has been warned about for years but nobody did anything about.
No such thing – you mean lower carbon. all energy generation has a carbon penalty – from the concrete and steel in windfarms to the pollution from extracting uranium and the concrete in the power station
TJ I offered you books, if you can't be bothered listening I won't bother explaining.
Suffice to say whilst you are technically correct you're still talking rubbish. I meant exactly what I said, I have the technical qualification, you don't so stop trying to tell me what I do or don't mean.
tjagain
Full Member
which do you choose?
I choose a complete switch in energy production.
Go on squirrelking - explain to me how you can have carbon zero energy production?
All energy production has a carbon penalty. Its a simple statement of fact. You cannot have energy production without some CO2 emission. some forms are much lower than others yes - but none are zero
Renewables all have a carbon cost as does nuclear if you look at total lifetime CO2 cost which is the only sensible way. I am glad you agree i am "technically correct" as calling nuclear and renewables carbon free is simply wrong
I guess you mean once you discount the costs of building and removing the plant and in the case of nuclear digging and refining the fuel as well
Zero emmissions is a bit of a daft target, it's not neccessary, particularly in the short to medium term, what we need to do is stop burning stuff for energy.
Get rid of the first 2 and we're quite a bit there. Ye can deal with the higher hanging fruit at a later date.
