Climate Emergency - Why has it taken so long..............

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

....to start a thread on this.

They say it is better late than never, although in the case of the climate emergency that may not be true as many scientists now seem pretty convinced that it is already too late to avoid most of the catastrophes that are heading our way.

Nevertheless a couple of wake up calls here, especially for the many people in the UK who apparently think that we won't much affected here and all the real damage will occur somewhere else in the world https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns

This is also rather depressing https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption - as if it wasn't bad enought that we have a government of serial liars that say some of the right things about combating climate change whilst doing absolutely nothing about it except step up support for fossil fuels. Turns out that our unelected Head of State is quite happy to use some archaic privileges, which have no place in a modern democrary, to stick the boot in as well. But of course we are not a modern democracy, in fact the UK is neither modern or democratic - we have a malign system of government which is rotten from top to bottom and is failing is in so many ways.

In some areas this just means that the vast majority of us are getting a bit poorer, having our public services overstretched or non-existent, having our rights and civil liberties gradually diminished etc etc - all of these are unpleasant and unwelcome but pale into insignificance compared to consequences that will flow from our abject failure to address climate change.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

Our infrastructure is antiquated, our flood defences are shaky in many places, there are too many people and houses are being built in places where they really bloody shouldn't. Bolton is not a flat town at all, yet parts of Horwich were flooded off heavy rainfall only a month or so ago, and the worst-affected part was a new estate not a million miles away from the University of Bolton Stadium (and they want to build more houses there - madness!).

Also, if everyone in the world lived like we do in the UK, we would need 2.5 times the Earth's available resources for everyone to live like us. Human ingenuity has brought us a very long way, however it should IMO now focus on coming up with a solution for people to learn to live with less, or for society to function with fewer people, without completely flatlining economic development. Considering that birth rates are below 2.1 in around half the world's countries now, if not just over more than that, my personal view is that it should be the latter.

[Well b back 3,190]

Well done CM I thought this today when I heard this report being discussed. It was mentioned that people ( I probably include myself ) thought this was a few decades away and there was time to put things right. It now seems this ‘ heat dome ‘ in America and Canada has spooked all the major scientists as no models have ever predicted that happening. 
They were talking about sucking the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, I hope they actually have the technology, all very disturbing.

 

[Indy 3,286]

I’ve been bleating on about it for years, even though I’ve been involved in the petrochemical industry I’ve been involved in a number of projects over the years including co2 capture and storage as well as hydrogen storage and distribution.

unfortunately we’re 30 years too late and we’ll never make that massive turnaround unless we decrease the population, that’s the biggest challenge and one not many want to tackle.

Its going to be a massive challenge to live with climate change from now onwards, far too late to make any difference now, humanity is moving forwards with massive projects to carry on our ever increasing population is catered for and there’s nothing going to change until nature does it for us!

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

13 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’ve been bleating on about it for years, even though I’ve been involved in the petrochemical industry I’ve been involved in a number of projects over the years including co2 capture and storage as well as hydrogen storage and distribution.

unfortunately we’re 30 years too late and we’ll never make that massive turnaround unless we decrease the population, that’s the biggest challenge and one not many want to tackle.

Its going to be a massive challenge to live with climate change from now onwards, far too late to make any difference now, humanity is moving forwards with massive projects to carry on our ever increasing population is catered for and there’s nothing going to change until nature does it for us!

Can't argue with any of that but I'd interested in your take on whether carbon capture is ever going to become genuinely feasible/mainstream - seems to be one of those ideas that has been around for a fair while now without making much progress towards being implementable on a large scale?

[Bill 1,788]

It is not necessarily the population size, but the effects each human has.

I would venture the average 'westerner' consumes far greater resources, and causes far more pollution than someone from the 3rd World

We then have the sheer stupidity of 'righties' who still deny that humans are the cause of these problems, and bleat that it is nothing more than a routine variation

If there is a start on reducing the population numbers then a cull of righties would be the best place to start - if only that it would raise the collective global IQ massively

[sonyc 5,492]

Likewise, a 'thank you' to CM for starting such a thread. I became a green party supporter in the last decade. I don't think there is a more important issue for the obvious reasons. Yet, the party still struggles in our FPTP system. Wrong time for our 'two party' state. Almost both are irrelevant.

It's why I believe that (naturally) it's the younger people who've yet to find their way into political or influential positions that will determine our future. It's why I've always maintained optimism for the future but I must confess here, I often despair and become self-critical of my idealism too. 

What can we do? I've tried to change lots of things (growing own food, not eating meat, going to one car, not over-consuming, recycling as much as possible ...maybe we get to 90%, cut water usage, buy vintage/secondhand, don't eat out etc etc). Yet...why do I still feel a massive hypocrite?! Because I still 'consume' (for that read consumerism) more than I need. I reckon many of us might struggle.

So, whilst I do some things I could do so much more. Time I think to try and get more 'think global, act local' schemes off the ground. I've posted before about local field to fork type schemes (buying local). The French have a Mangez Français push to give an example and another supermarket focussed scheme.

Just hope my sons get involved ahead in getting involved in the agenda. All I feel I can do is encourage and challenge others but keep trying to do my bit. Like Indy, I worry it's too late. This government feels all about greed, about money making. Indeed it feels like the main parties have never really been seriously interested in the agenda. It doesn't feel like values-based politics that's for sure. At least the Libs often try and delegate power at the most local level.

As for Brazil - to pick just one country - I truly despair at the rate that rainforests are declining and are being ripped up.

Capitalism will ultimately eat itself I'm afraid.

Edited July 29, 2021 by sonyc

[Indy 3,286]

1 minute ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Can't argue with any of that but I'd interested in your take on whether carbon capture is ever going to become genuinely feasible/mainstream - seems to be one of those ideas that has been around for a fair while now without making much progress towards being implementable on a large scale?

Carbon capture will never keep up with carbon releases as we are now, as far as I am aware, last year 33 billion metric tonnes of carbon was emitted, carbon capture in engineering terms is minuscule. The only way to really turn this around in the shortest way is, stop increasing the stress created by farming, replant as many trees as we can right now. Trees are by far the most effective carbon capture we have available.

Four hundred years ago the highlands of Scotland was 50% forrest, China have been very proactive in this and cleaning up their rivers too, but considering where they were to now it’s still one of the worst polluters along with US, India and Russia. 
Unfortunately it’s the destabilising of the jet stream which will cause more impacts and extreme events in the northern hemisphere, the lack of ice and the average rise in the northern hemisphere temperature increases the speed of the jet stream and the flow which now resembles waves drawing down cold weather events and pulls up high temperatures giving the variant in the US where central US was in a cold snap yet the two coasts are seeing record high temperatures. Basically unless we all start to go green as we can, start to plant Forrests in massive amounts and stop the population from growing any further we’re screwed…..

[Indy 3,286]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

It is not necessarily the population size, but the effects each human has.

I would venture the average 'westerner' consumes far greater resources, and causes far more pollution than someone from the 3rd World

We then have the sheer stupidity of 'righties' who still deny that humans are the cause of these problems, and bleat that it is nothing more than a routine variation

If there is a start on reducing the population numbers then a cull of righties would be the best place to start - if only that it would raise the collective global IQ massively

It is Bill, the population 50 years ago was at 3.7 billion, now we’re at 7.8 billion. As you correctly state some countries are by far the biggest polluters but the rest of the world is catching up slowly adding to the problem. Until we face up to cutting population there’s no changing the future, it will be done for us by nature.

[Indy 3,286]

6 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Likewise, a 'thank you' to CM for starting such a thread. I became a green party supporter in the last decade. I don't think there is a more important issue for the obvious reasons. Yet, the party still struggles in our FPTP system. Wrong time for our 'two party' state. Almost both are irrelevant.

It's why I believe that (naturally) it's the younger people who've yet to find their way into political or influential positions that will determine our future. It's why I've always maintained optimism for the future but I must confess here, I often despair and become self-critical of my idealism too. 

What can we do? I've tried to change lots of things (growing own food, not eating meat, going to one car, not over-consuming, recycling as much as possible ...maybe we get to 90%, cut water usage, buy vintage/secondhand, don't eat out etc etc). Yet...why do I still feel a massive hypocrite?! Because I still 'consume' (for that read consumerism) more than I need. I reckon many of us might struggle.

So, whilst I do some things I could do so much more. Time I think to try and get more 'think global, act local' schemes off the ground. I've posted before about local field to fork type schemes (buying local). The French have a Mangez Français push to give an example and another supermarket focussed scheme.

Just hope my sons get involved ahead in getting involved in the agenda. All I feel I can do is encourage and challenge others but keep trying to do my bit. Like Indy, I worry it's too late. This government feels all about greed, about money making. Indeed that feels like all either of the main parties have ever really been interested in. It doesn't feel like values-based politics that's for sure. At least the Libs often try and delegate power at the most local level.

As for Brazil - to pick just one country - I truly despair at the rate that rainforests are declining and are being ripped up.

Capitalism will ultimately eat itself I'm afraid.

Not just capitalism Sonyc, human nature to want more, demand better so the rest of the world develops big use of carbon emissions too.

Like you I’ve gone as green as I can, electric car, water meter, electric smart meter and doing as much as I can, but it makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

What I find amusing is that a vegan friend of mine sees himself in the vanguard of being green. Whilst I admire his passion and commitment to his cause of veganism, he can't remotely say he's as green as I am, and I do not claim to be particularly motivated by environmental concerns. Yet he has four kids and drives a correspondingly big vehicle.

Me, I never wanted to learn to drive (and indeed don't) and have never wanted kids. Sure, I do eat plenty of meat, and when I'm not restricted due to pandemics, I like to travel 6-8 times a year. But I can safely say my lifestyle is far more environmentally sustainable than his. Not to mention, it's so much cheaper to be me that I've been able to look at this pandemic in an exceptionally relaxed manner - although I do admit to being fortunate that I have still been able to work most of the way through with only a slight loss of income.

Edited July 29, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[sonyc 5,492]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Not just capitalism Sonyc, human nature to want more, demand better so the rest of the world develops big use of carbon emissions too.

Like you I’ve gone as green as I can, electric car, water meter, electric smart meter and doing as much as I can, but it makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Yep. I've stated too that I'm a hypocrite Indy. And I do all those things.

The thing about capitalism though is that the more cake you have the less there is for others. The idea that that cake can get bigger and bigger or benefits "trickle down" is a big myth.

If you talk about capitalism though, then right wingers accuse you of being a Marxist (without even knowing or understanding the concepts). Perhaps it's better to simply say it's a finite world we live in. 

 

[Bill 1,788]

13 minutes ago, Indy said:

It is Bill, the population 50 years ago was at 3.7 billion, now we’re at 7.8 billion. As you correctly state some countries are by far the biggest polluters but the rest of the world is catching up slowly adding to the problem. Until we face up to cutting population there’s no changing the future, it will be done for us by nature.

Bar a mass slaughter, population decrease is neither the solution, nor is feasible.

The biggest change required is in human understanding of how real, and threatening this is now.

In our own society those who are trying to raise awareness and treated as dangerous cranks, yet the real danger is posed by the likes of Trump, Farage etc who are allowed to peddle blatant lies on behalf of huge corporations.

By all means adapt your lifestyle, however I suggest better time can be spent organising to inform and educate others. Covid has distracted many, otherwise the freak weather events that are now becoming frequent might have attracted more of a collective awareness that something is 'wrong'.

We need to view this as a global concern, and act as one species with one voice - as has been the case with covid (mostly).

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

So then Bill will you be the first to get rid of your gas boiler or change to an electric car ?

[Indy 3,286]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

Bar a mass slaughter, population decrease is neither the solution, nor is feasible.

The biggest change required is in human understanding of how real, and threatening this is now.

In our own society those who are trying to raise awareness and treated as dangerous cranks, yet the real danger is posed by the likes of Trump, Farage etc who are allowed to peddle blatant lies on behalf of huge corporations.

By all means adapt your lifestyle, however I suggest better time can be spent organising to inform and educate others. Covid has distracted many, otherwise the freak weather events that are now becoming frequent might have attracted more of a collective awareness that something is 'wrong'.

We need to view this as a global concern, and act as one species with one voice - as has been the case with covid (mostly).

 

No one is talking of mass culling, though the way we’re heading this will come from natural events. But to restrict number of births for the next 50 years to keep the population in check. We’re already struggling with mass migration towards Europe, the pressure on society will reach a very critical point if it continues on our continent.

But totally agree a massive step change in cultural teaching is a must, stop turning rain forest land into agricultural land etc.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Indy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Its also obvious to me that science has not helped. Child death is lower and death rate lower (although it has gone up slightly I believe). We are living longer and in most cases, healthier.believe

Apart from Logans Run's Carousel, science will ensure there are more humans on the planet next week than last week and so on.

[Mr Apples 1,317]

The time for action was unfortunately when global warming (rebranded as climate change and then as the Climate Emergency) were abstract concepts which people could not/chose not to comprehend or take action against. Now it's appearing to become all too real its likely we will have to mainly adapt while trying various methods for mitigation.

What with net zero not arriving until 2050 and any subsequent carbon lag during this reduction period I'm with Indy. We probably won't be here to feel the full impact, but future generations may be royally screwed. The one saving grace is that we have seen through international action how global environmental problems can be addressed (such as stratospheric ozone depletion...which is due to have fully healed by 2065/70) and COVID has demonstrated how quickly nations can leap into action if the will is there.

The dinosaurs were wiped out once before...this time the dinosaurs may lead to their children/grandchildren/great grandchildren suffering a similar fate.

Apples

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

9 minutes ago, Mr Apples said:

The time for action was unfortunately when global warming (rebranded as climate change and then as the Climate Emergency) were abstract concepts which people could not/chose not to comprehend or take action against. Now it's appearing to become all too real its likely we will have to mainly adapt while trying various methods for mitigation.

What with net zero not arriving until 2050 and any subsequent carbon lag during this reduction period I'm with Indy. We probably won't be here to feel the full impact, but future generations may be royally screwed. The one saving grace is that we have seen through international action how global environmental problems can be addressed (such as stratospheric ozone depletion...which is due to have fully healed by 2065/70) and COVID has demonstrated how quickly nations can leap into action if the will is there.

The dinosaurs were wiped out once before...this time the dinosaurs may lead to their children/grandchildren/great grandchildren suffering a similar fate.

Apples

Agree with all that but I think your point 'COVID has demonstrated how quickly nations can leap into action if the will is there' is a very double-edged one.

You are absolutely right that Covid has demonstrated what is possible, it also highlights the almost complete lack of will that exists to take action against climate change - certainly in the UK and in many other countries.

It makes you wonder just how bad things are going to have to get before our politicans, who are all very happy to talk about the climate emergency, actually started treating it like one.

[Mark .Y. 351]

https://climate.selectra.com/en/carbon-footprint/most-polluting-countries

 

This link is quite revealing, says that the UK is not in the 10 most polluting countries in the world (CO2 emissions) nor in the 10 most polluting countries in the world per capita.

Interestingly, it says Germany is responsible for a quarter of the whole of the EU's CO2 emissions on it's own.

(Note : I have not checked the validity/veracity of this particular site)

[Herman 9,717]

Absolutely tone deaf news.Who ever thought that this was a good idea in the first place. The gagging order is the least of the problem.

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,182]

21 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

https://climate.selectra.com/en/carbon-footprint/most-polluting-countries

 

This link is quite revealing, says that the UK is not in the 10 most polluting countries in the world (CO2 emissions) nor in the 10 most polluting countries in the world per capita.

Interestingly, it says Germany is responsible for a quarter of the whole of the EU's CO2 emissions on it's own.

(Note : I have not checked the validity/veracity of this particular site)

The link states 

"The most densely populated and industrialised countries are therefore at the top of the list of the world's most polluted countries."

...then lists China, The United States and India as the top 3

They most certainly aren't the most densely populated

[Mark .Y. 351]

11 hours ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

The link states 

"The most densely populated and industrialised countries are therefore at the top of the list of the world's most polluted countries."

...then lists China, The United States and India as the top 3

They most certainly aren't the most densely populated

Agreed, certainly amongst the most industrialised though ??

[Indy 3,286]

The problems come in emerging countries, especially like India with such massive populations who as they grow then demand the trappings of wealth, so cars, infrastructure etc. All, adding to carbon growth not cutting. 
I read that China have decided to increase their forrest by 35%, Brazil on the other hand is destroying its forrest faster! The massive forrest fires round the globe aren’t helping, it’s a massive issue in lots of countries too. 
Totally agree we have the tools and could certainly make changes, the sad thing is it’s 50 years too late. One thing which hasn’t been mentioned is that we have hit average temperature now which is allowing large areas of permafrost to melt increasing the trapped greenhouse gasses, it’s estimated that there’s a potential three times the total of current co2 in the atmosphere trapped ready to be released. So regardless of our efforts to stop our production any cuts we make now are overtaken by other greenhouse gasses which were trapped.

Like I said I worked for two massive oil and gas companies for many years and one thing they were all very keen to publicise was the billions spent in future green technologies, the reality was buying up certain companies and rights to slow down development. Now the big companies are acting.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Indy

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

On 29/07/2021 at 20:30, SwindonCanary said:

So then Bill will you be the first to get rid of your gas boiler or change to an electric car ?

Don't know about Bill but I think you'll find that many of us have already done both.

How about you?

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,182]

11 hours ago, Mark .Y. said:

Agreed, certainly amongst the most industrialised though ??

I would expect so, and I would think that has more relevance 

[Mark .Y. 351]

1 minute ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I would expect so, and I would think that has more relevance 

Yes, that was why I was quite surprised that the UK didn't figure in the top 10

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

6 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

Yes, that was why I was quite surprised that the UK didn't figure in the top 10

I imagine that would be because we don't make anything any more or indeed have hardly any heavy industry, plus the fact that we don't count most of our airline emissions.

Plus there are many different ways of calculating the figures depending upon what you want to prove - going back to the fact we make very little nowadays but we buy and use huge amounts of 'stuff' manufactured elsewhere and transported to us, especially from China but also from Germany, France etc etc. So whose is responsible for those emissions? China because they made the stuff in China or us because they made the stuff to export to us - on our behalf in effect. And who is responsible for the emissions generated by transporting them from China to UK - China, us or Panama because they're probably shipped on Panamanian flagged ships even though they have no actual connection with Panama, or more likely they are quietly forgottent about.

So if you calculate based on emissions actually generated within the UK then we may well not be in the top 10 but if you calculate emissions based upon what is 'consumed' by the UK then we most definitely are.

[SwindonCanary 455]

6 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Don't know about Bill but I think you'll find that many of us have already done both.

How about you?

No, I need my diesel BMW to get to Norwich and back without filling up I can't do that in an electric 

 

 

[horsefly 4,287]

On 29/07/2021 at 20:30, SwindonCanary said:

So then Bill will you be the first to get rid of your gas boiler or change to an electric car ?

 

6 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

No, I need my diesel BMW to get to Norwich and back without filling up I can't do that in an electric 

 

 

Type the word "hypocrite" into google then take a look into a mirror. No one "NEEDS" a diesel BMW to travel anywhere. You have chosen to continue polluting the planet because you're selfish. At least have the decency to own your own behaviour.

[A Load of Squit 5,135]

8 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

No, I need my diesel BMW to get to Norwich and back without filling up I can't do that in an electric 

 

 

In an electric car you could drive to Norwich, charge it up during the game (in some cases for free) and then drive home.

That's not too difficult, is it?