Climate change/oblivion: breaking point or slow death spiral?

@ElShalimo

and where will we all get access to this land?

Ah, OK.  I see your question more clearly now.  You want us to grow our own food, not ‘change the way we grow our food’ 🙂

So since we need ten times less land, when we go and bosh the rich landowners and corporate mega-farms, we can take a little bit of their land, grow our own food, and then put the rest to nature.

Or, we could enforce a change in how we grow our food to how I mentioned above, and start exporting it to the rest of the planet because of our massive overabundence whilst living and working in a natural paradise.

🙂

I last went on holiday to Northumberland two years ago and haven’t been abroad since Shetland maybe 5 years ago 🤣🤣
But I’ll defend the right of people who do like to go away (mainly because if they’re here they’ll be wandering all over the place 🤣🤣🤣 ✈️ 👋🏻)

Fossil fuels have made our lives insanely better.

And renewables will make them better still.

My solar thermal produces piping hot water and costs buttons in depreciation

The PV produces more leccy than I use so makes me money

The insulated house is cosy in Winter and cool in Summer

I like travelling by train a bus and seeing the world go by

The EV is a delight to drive, as they replace ICEs the air I breathe will be cleaner

The cycle and pedestrian infrastructure in town is improving: pedestrianised, cycle lanes and paths – town used to be a stinking, noisy, dangerous place, it’s lovely to sit outside a cafe now.

Unless you sink a concrete wind turbine base into an old Hay meadow! Then them mycorrhizal assemblages gonna be well cross 🤣🤣

“The head of the climate watchdog behind the planned boiler ban has admitted that he still has gas heating in his own home. More than four years after claiming he was “keen” to convert to electric heating in his flat, Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, said he still has a gas boiler.”

Hmm. Not that much of a climate emergency then?

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2023%2F08%2F12%2Fheat-pumps-chris-stark-campaign-uses-gas-boiler-himself%2F

The best thing would be to only fly planes at full capacity. Instead, they’ll fly them empty to keep their slot if you stay at home (because you’re assuming people in Greece won’t want to travel back and forth just because you’ve decided to be a holiday-martyr 🤣).

Umm.. you seem to think that we believe that if WE as individuals stop flying, then it fixes everything? That’s not what we’re saying. We ALL need to fly less, including the people in Greece. Then if no-one’s on the plane they will reduce the schedule and get rid of the slots. No airline is going to maintain and fly planes into slots they have to pay for when there aren’t enough passengers to pay for it.

We need to collectively make the required changes. Now, I’m of the opinion that governments need to step in and mandate things, because even if people do believe in the concepts they will still make small bad decisions all the time in the same way that smokes still know its bad for them. Humans are not rational. However, governments won’t mandate anything unless it has popular support, and that’s where you and I and this thread come in. We need to have these conversations and the message needs to be get across. Not necessarily to actually get people to make sacrifices themselves, but to steer the public conversation to the point where governments can make the required changes. It’s already happened to an extent, it just needs to happen more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66396048

.

The people in this thread are almost without exception in the top 1% when it comes to global wealth. The idea that you’ve had your fill of fossil fuel-powered freedom and that burgeoning economies and populations around the world are going to sit back and let you impose like for like climate policies on them is bonkers.

LOL. You’re assuming most people in this thread are bringing in ~$1m a year (the approximate threshold for the top 1% in 2023)? You’ve seriously misjudged your audience.  I’d imagine most people in this thread wouldn’t individually make the top 10% threshold.

The global median wealth per capita is just $8,360

🤷🏻‍♂️

I’m not talking about the 1% of the 1%.

Neither am I.  The top 1% threshold in 2023 is $1m a year.  In 2020 it was ~$825k

https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/

Perhaps if you didn’t continually cherry pick facts and figures to support your viewpoint you might garner more credibility.

Uh, thats based on US wage data isn’t it?

Not being facetious but that article doesn’t say what it is referring to. Isn’t it talking about the top 1% of USA, not global income?

You’ll need at least six figures to count yourself among the nation’s top earners.

Conspiracy theorists are always going to be climate deniers. Long term it’s an education thing – hopefully children coming out of school now will have a better understanding of climate change – and in the short term a carrot and stick approach might work.

I think it’s a lost cause to stop aircraft flying but it can be made carbon neutral with money and effort (biofuels that don’t involve stripping rainforests bare, for example). Banning older aircraft from the sky completely for a start. There are still old 4-engine passenger aircraft around in the EU, with a fuel burn roughly double that per passenger than something new like a 787.

The UK is confused because of things like ULEZ, which attempts to prevent local harm, and actual carbon reductions. But again, this is a successive government failure that’s led to enormous car ownership while diesel trains rumble slowly up and down the ECML.

Personally I don’t see why we can’t work on both at the same time. It’s not going to make the world worse and will certainly lead to local improvements. With appropriate nuclear power, investment in solar and battery storage, the UK will not have a problem moving from fossil fuels.

funkmasterp

I also answered your question. We shouldn’t just be concentrating on the human element. We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences.

How many tens of millions of human deaths are you willing to accept for his ideal?
Or do you not really believe the consequences of climate change to humans will result in at least tens of millions of deaths?

By tackling climate change we will achieve this. There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.

Except you just contradicted this above.
It’s pretty simple – tens of millions of humans are going to die as a result of climate change and that is close to the best case scenario. Only discovering some new as yet not considered carbon capture is going to prevent that.

If that doesn’t sound real then consider the Great Chinese Famine cost 15 to 55 million lives depending which source you take and the period you include. (1959 – 1961 or 1958 – 1962)

We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences.

Climate change is real and happening … we either address it as the most important existential threat or not.

There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.

and there never will be whilst it’s diluted and conflated

https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i

So… the average UK salary of £26400 ish after tax  puts you in the top 2.8% globally with this calculator.

I’d wager the average STW salary is a tad higher….

So my instinctive guess was not magnitudes of order out…..

Reading this you are highly likely to be in the top 1% of global income……

Edukator

Greenpeace supports black lives matter

Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards

Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools

Greenpeace works to protect indiginous peoples

Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis

Greenpeace promotes renewable energy

Greenpeace campaigns against bee-killing pesticides (bees are essential to many people’s lives)

Greenpeace fights against illegal deforestation

Greenpeace has succesfully campaigned against hydroflourocarbons

But don’t let facts get in the way, Stevextc.

Take out the political virtue signalling and what are you left with?
What has BLM or protecting indigenous populations got to do with an environmental organisation for example?

Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards – nothing specific about humans here
Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools – they oppose full stop.. they are just jumping on a political bandwagon

Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis

Sure but they keep trying to tag stuff on…

Greenpeace promotes renewable energy

to the exclusion of nuclear

We ALL need to fly less, including the people in Greece

Is this not like Climate Change colonialism??

It’s none of your business what other nations decide is it?

How many tens of millions of human deaths are you willing to accept for his ideal?
Or do you not really believe the consequences of climate change to humans will result in at least tens of millions of deaths?

Big sigh. You’re clearly not understanding are you? You’re failing to read or comprehend. Tackling climate change will result in a better outcome for all species. I’m not responsible for any human deaths so I don’t have a say in your theoretical limit. You’re just attempting to be theatrical and failing miserably.

We (not me) need to collectively tackle climate change for the sake of all species on the planet. It needs direct and immediate action on a global scale. Sadly that won’t happen. There’s a war going on in Ukraine and several brewing or on the go in Africa.

Species loss is, and I’ll say it again, a part of climate change. We are losing f species as a direct result of the effects of it. If we had the will, on a global scale, to tackle it we could reduce the loss of human and other species lives. The fact that we’ve always put humans above all else is part of the reason we’re in this **** mess in the first place.

Crosshair, you do realise that on this forum we are very used the use of question marks to put words in people’s mouths. Most people have stopped because they realise that it’s agressive bad faith provocation.

Another thing that means that this forum is more civil than most is that most people understand and generally abide by rule #1

I meant to write ‘isn’t it’ sorry. Wasn’t being obtuse. Trying to argue and work 🤣

Edit- what are you on about, I used question marks where I posed a question 🤷🏻‍♂️

Flaperon

The UK is confused because of things like ULEZ, which attempts to prevent local harm, and actual carbon reductions. But again, this is a successive government failure that’s led to enormous car ownership while diesel trains rumble slowly up and down the ECML.

How much CO2 to diesel trains contribute? I strongly suspect people taking diesel trains are creating multiple times less CO2 than those driving electric cars (and multiple times less particulates).

How does driving 5x the distance reduce CO2 ?

Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?

Personally I don’t see why we can’t work on both at the same time. It’s not going to make the world worse and will certainly lead to local improvements. With appropriate nuclear power, investment in solar and battery storage, the UK will not have a problem moving from fossil fuels.

I don’t disagree except we need to stop conflating the two and have clear priorities and to me clear priorities meand mitigating climate change to the best of our ability.
We need to make it very clear that improving things is a “nice thing to do” but not helping mitigate climate change in the short term and short term is absolutely critical.
Doubtless there will be different levels of support the the “nice to do”… but we have to accept that and ensure climate change is kept as a separate and clear priority.

It’s none of your business what other nations decide is it?

Remove the question mark and that’s what you really mean, a reproach telling us to mind our own business. We aren’t daft and daft provocation is why people point out you’re trolling.

You think you’re being clever but I’ve been around here long enough to know that the survivors here are a lot cleverer than you’re taking us/them for.

There are sub-commubities here in STW, you’ll get along fine on petrolhead threads, in these kind of threads though you’l find people for whom “woke” is a compliment.

Okay let me try again.

Is it any of our business whether the other 99% of the world wish to share our luxury of climate guilt?

Should a poor Indonesian factory worker have to join a lottery for the chance to ever experience a flight in an aeroplane?

(I’m trying not to get drawn into personal conflict with anyone and answering posts regardless of the user name- but first I was told this is not an echo chamber, now I’m being told to find a different echo chamber as this one doesn’t like considered debate with people who don’t conform to the average view here. Which is it? Is this a closed minded echo chamber or not?)

Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?

Both knowledge and technology are changing:

Back when diesels were first promoted they produced very little NOX which is the main killer of asthmatics in big cities. However they did produce a lot of soot. The came common rail – more NOX, then turbos – more NOX, then th eEuro normes started to bite but didn’t – dieselgate. A now we have Euro6 and whilst an improvemnt on previous diesels under test conditions which are more rigorously applied they are still **** filthy when people boot it. The level of ultra fine particles is still IMO unacceptable. As for the older diesels, ride a bike in town for a while and get back to us.

Lowering CO2 is still a priority, that’s why there’s legisaltion in place to progessively replace ICEs with EVs. The problem is that’s it’s not a priority for petrolheads (and dieselheads obviously)

Adding a question mark in same manner as Crosshair when you know it’s false puts you in th esame category in terms of quality of debate.

Is it any of our business whether the other 99% of the world wish to share our luxury of climate guilt?

Yes it is, because what they’re doing is what’s going to make the planet much less inhabitable for both us and them.

We need to persuade them too, and happily there’s a growing world-wide concensus that doing soemthing is essential because this is an existential threat that concerns us all.

But some people who could do something to contribute are too selfish, too stupid, to anti or so caught up in conspiracy crap that they rejoice in doing nothing positive or are even gratuitously destrctive taking pride in smoking out cyclists with their filthy diesel van or or fitting a radiator in their uninsulated patio to use a couple of examples from this forum.

It’s none of your business what other nations decide is it?

No country can solve this alone. Nations absolutely need to work together.

So… the average UK salary of £26400 ish after tax  puts you in the top 2.8% globally with this calculator.

Again you’re being selective. It only does that if you live alone.

I strongly suspect people taking diesel trains are creating multiple times less CO2 than those driving electric cars (and multiple times less particulates).

I was thinking more of particulate emissions when the option to run electric trains is available. The cloud of black shit that comes out of the exhaust of a train running a 50-year-old engine design and fluid coupling gearbox is horrendous.

You are right about particle emissons, 40% of diesels in use have no certified depollution equipment. However those old ineffficient diesels were also low on NOX

https://www.esglegalhub.com/insight/green-future-modified-rolling-stock

Edukator

Adding a question mark in same manner as Crosshair when you know it’s false puts you in th esame category in terms of quality of debate.

It’s not false. I’ll clarify.

Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?

I can clarify .. caps to clarify not shouting

Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems TO MANY OF THEM THAT lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?

Back when diesels were first promoted they produced very little NOX which is the main killer of asthmatics in big cities. However they did produce a lot of soot. The came common rail – more NOX, then turbos – more NOX, then th eEuro normes started to bite but didn’t – dieselgate. A now we have Euro6 and whilst an improvemnt on previous diesels under test conditions which are more rigorously applied they are still **** filthy when people boot it. The level of ultra fine particles is still IMO unacceptable. As for the older diesels, ride a bike in town for a while and get back to us.

Lowering CO2 is still a priority, that’s why there’s legisaltion in place to progessively replace ICEs with EVs. The problem is that’s it’s not a priority for petrolheads (and dieselheads obviously)

You just did the same thing.. petrol still produces more CO2 asthmatics dying is completely irrelevant
I’m not saying asthmatics dying is good … I’m saying it is not causing climate change (unless they are cremated if you want to be a pedant).

We can’t just tag stuff on we think is beneficial, it needs to be a clear and unambiguous (and watertight) case for climate change mitigation.

Flaperon

I was thinking more of particulate emissions when the option to run electric trains is available. The cloud of black shit that comes out of the exhaust of a train running a 50-year-old engine design and fluid coupling gearbox is horrendous.

Sure but that’s not climate change… the point is remove those trains and people will drive instead.
Obviously some modern electric trains produced with low CO2 electric is ideal… but in the meantime from a climate change perspective we are better off with polluting diesels than people forced into driving

Again you’re being selective. It only does that if you live alone.

Hey? That’s already captured in the fact that the salary figure I used is the UK average.
So it will be uk salary average x number of inhabitants. Then divide that by number of inhabitants 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ie 1x £26400 is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Ha! This story is pretty fascinating. Cuts to sulfur emissions into the atmosphere by ships has increased global warming because the smog was literally protecting the sea as a proxy for cloud cover 🤣

https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ScienceAdviser&utm_content=distillation&et_rid=960447322&et_cid=4847916

Then, to add insult to injury, the shippers are getting around the law by still using the cheaper, dirtier fuel but scrubbing the pollution out and then….. draining it into the sea 🤣

Now they are refusing to work with scientists to provide further data because of their inherent bias!!

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.372.6543.672

This to me is a great illustration of why pursuing one narrow agenda at all costs (‘restore’ the atmosphere) with knee jerk regulations- is a red herring. (quite literally if the Herring swim through an underwater sulfur cloud too 🤣 )

Listening to scientists is one thing- but if those scientists are micro-focused on one outcome, I can see more and more of these unintended consequences occurring.

If I’m honest, this is one of the great unintended consequences of internet debates- I’m learning cool stuff every day at the minute 😀 (Still can’t get over that 14,000 species in London stat 🤯)

Maybe all those diesel drivers ‘rolling coal’ as they pass Edukator have bought us another decade! 😀

Hey? That’s already captured in the fact that the salary figure I used is the UK average.
So it will be uk salary average x number of inhabitants. Then divide that by number of inhabitants 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ie 1x £26400 is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Nope that’s not how it works.

It’s a household calculator that we are using to assess ‘your’ personal wealth as that’s what I was referring to.

If you want to delve around, find a better way to compare global personal income and discover that, the average STW reader is in fact only in the 98th percentile of global wealth then go for it. The fact will remain that ‘we’ are discussing this subject from a position of extreme privileged luxury not afforded to ‘around’ 98-99% of the rest of the world.

Another calculator here. Summarises the point nicely- 90% of the UK population are in the Global middle class.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global-income-calculator/

Even using it as a household calculator- 2 adults on UK average wage with one child would be in the 93rd percentile…. Two adults on £40k with two kids would be back above the 95th percentile.

I know it makes attacking the super rich harder (#arewethebaddies 🤣) so it’s a tough pill to swallow, but we are all very very lucky folks to have a choice about any of this stuff.

It’s a household calculator that we are using to assess ‘your’ personal wealth as that’s what I was referring to.

It’s an annual wage income calculator, if you’re going off the average family you need to add two kids. Wealth and wage aren’t the same thing. Yes, most people on here are above the poverty line, many aren’t. Not many will be in the 1%. Your unsubstantial claims aren’t convincing anyone.

Even using it as a household calculator- 2 adults on UK average wage with one child would be in the 93rd percentile…. Two adults on £40k with two kids would be back above the 95th percentile.

So not 1%

So not 1%

As individual members of the forum, you will be-  yes. Whether you choose to use some of your extreme wealth privilege (in a global context) to support a family  is entirely up to you.

(And even as a household- most of you will still be 1% too.)

None of your evidence has proven that to be the case, it’s proven to be the opposite. I’m very lucky to be on an income way above the average. I don’t make the 1% you claim, I only think you mean 10%.