Climate Change - The Existential Threat

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Climate Change - The Existential Threat

It’s possible and very likely probable that like me you have decided to rely upon our governments, whoever they are, to ensure that the UK reduces it carbon footprint as part of a global pact. I hasten to add that there will be some of you who have an excellent knowledge of this subject and are making your own contributions. My opening call to action was not intended as a personal snub to you.

Just Stop Oil have recently been in the news. Whatever I think, nay, whatever we think, about how they are delivering their message, it is the message itself that is of importance to me, to us. I cannot and will not condone their methods, which are appalling.

The majority of the Lemon Fool community are somewhat longer in the tooth. We may have children and grandchildren, perhaps great grandchildren. If you do nothing else today I’d ask you to listen to David Attenborough for a mere 70 seconds.

AiY(D)

[kempiejon]

What's the point. The planet's on fire, in the UK we're actually and metaphorically shitting in our gardens, well seas, rivers and streams.
No hope of hitting carbon reduction targets, we've killed the planet. The tipping point has been past. I cannot share David's limited optimism. More fool him, after decades of telling people to sort it out, they're still not listening, he naively thinks they will this time.

I recycle, ironically.

[scotview]

The jet stream has turned to the South of the Country for the last month, it's like November up here. I just hope it repositions itself. Not much sign of Global Warming here. It's ironic that we are World leader in returning to the middle ages.

Mother Nature eh ?

[swill453]

I recycle, ironically.

Comma optional?

Scott.

[Tedx]

The oceans have hit their hottest ever recorded temperature as they soak up warmth from climate change, with dire implications for our planet's health.
The average daily global sea surface temperature beat a 2016 record this week, according to the EU's climate change service Copernicus.
It reached 20.96C. That's far above the average for this time of year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537

Meanwhile, in the air.....

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

[XFool]

If this thread had existed yesterday...

Anyway, as it is here today, I will just gently point you at this thread, on this very board: viewtopic.php?p=606819#p606819

I posted it yesterday on the Macro and Global Topics board. Why? Well, what could be more "Macro" and "Global" than this topic? Especially given the long term global scientific, economic and yes political(!) implications, which are very well put across in this (long) interview. This precipitated (predictably enough) a game of trivial pursuit by those so blinded by their ideological fixations they are unable to deal with too much (any?) reality.

I found the interview fascinating but ominous. Interesting points, IMO, are his view that the discussion around climate change, based as it is on (small changes in) temperature, makes it difficult for laymen and politicians to really grasp the significance of what is happening - that it would have been better to have originally presented the whole matter in a different manner. Also, his point about the necessarily conservative and measured presentation by the consensus driven IPCC reports - as opposed to what climate scientists really think if you speak with them individually, talking in the bar.

Somehow - whether you agree with him or not - he managed to convey the actual scale of the future (now imminent?) issues involved beyond the +1.5C/+2.0C speak. Something I have always found difficult to grasp for myself.

One way or another it doesn't make for happy listening.

[scotview]

If this thread had existed yesterday...

This precipitated (predictably enough) a game of trivial pursuit by those so blinded by their ideological fixations they are unable to deal with too much (any?) reality.

I found the interview fascinating but ominous. Interesting points

Firstly, you are taking the point of view that you are right and I am wrong. I do not say that you are wrong. Please allow me to have my point of view.

Secondly, the guy in the interview spoke an awful lot but didn't produce any "science" or meaningful data, in my opinion. His main contributions to the debate were:
1 When large houses are sold, they must be divided into at least two properties.
2 All future houses must be "small".
3 Cars should be scrapped and the recovered metal turned into wind turbines.

My specific query from your post was in respect of the statement "energy is on the decline" , I simply wanted you to explain what this meant.

[NotSure]

Weather from South America at the moment. Not happy reading (article not paywalled)

https://wapo.st/3QnFyd8

[XFool]

If this thread had existed yesterday...

This precipitated (predictably enough) a game of trivial pursuit by those so blinded by their ideological fixations they are unable to deal with too much (any?) reality.

I found the interview fascinating but ominous. Interesting points

Firstly, you are taking the point of view that you are right and I am wrong. I do not say that you are wrong. Please allow me to have my point of view.

Absolutely not.

Why do you fail to understand that it is nothing whatsoever to do with whether I am "right or wrong"? I am neither right nor wrong - I am not a climate scientist. When it comes to the science of the climate I listen to climate scientists. I don't listen to political ideologists, because they have absolutely nothing to bring to the table.

You need to ask yourself the above question. Not me.

[Lootman]

If this thread had existed yesterday...

This precipitated (predictably enough) a game of trivial pursuit by those so blinded by their ideological fixations they are unable to deal with too much (any?) reality.

I found the interview fascinating but ominous. Interesting points

Firstly, you are taking the point of view that you are right and I am wrong. I do not say that you are wrong. Please allow me to have my point of view.

Secondly, the guy in the interview spoke an awful lot but didn't produce any "science" or meaningful data, in my opinion. His main contributions to the debate were:
1 When large houses are sold, they must be divided into at least two properties.
2 All future houses must be "small".
3 Cars should be scrapped and the recovered metal turned into wind turbines.

My specific query from your post was in respect of the statement "energy is on the decline" , I simply wanted you to explain what this meant.

The article suffers from the author's desire to relate everything to everything else, and loses all focus. I often find that with sources that are ideologically left-wing like this one.

The OP should not have been on the Macro board as it is not about investment. It should not be here either since it is blatantly political in nature. It should be on CAN as it is really an ideological fluff piece.

[XFool]

I see the game of 'trivial pursuit' has spread now to this board. I think that speaks for itself.

[Lootman]

I see the game of 'trivial pursuit' has spread now to this board. I think that speaks for itself.

Did you want peoples' opinions or not?

Or only if thy agree with your opinions?

[JohnB]

I went to an exhibition at LSE yesterday, with posters and newsletters from the Ecology Party (originally the People Party, then the Green Party) warning of these things in the 1970s. So little has changed in the past 50 years, so how can we expect much to change in the next 20? Its not a threat to humanity's existence, just a thread to pleasant existence.

[Lootman]

So little has changed in the past 50 years, so how can we expect much to change in the next 20? Its not a threat to humanity's existence, just a thread to pleasant existence.

I think a lot has changed in 50 years.

In 1973 cars were far less fuel-efficient. Americans were driving around in huge cars that barely got 10 mpg. Vehicle emissions were not tested. Petrol had lead in it.

And we were flying around in 727s and VC-10s that used double the fuel of a 787 or A350 now.

There were far more coal plants belching smoke into the air. And so on.

The focus always seems to be on what we are not doing but actually we have done a lot.

[scrumpyjack]

Climate Change - The Existential Threat

It’s possible and very likely probable that like me you have decided to rely upon our governments, whoever they are, to ensure that the UK reduces it carbon footprint as part of a global pact. I hasten to add that there will be some of you who have an excellent knowledge of this subject and are making your own contributions. My opening call to action was not intended as a personal snub to you.

Just Stop Oil have recently been in the news. Whatever I think, nay, whatever we think, about how they are delivering their message, it is the message itself that is of importance to me, to us. I cannot and will not condone their methods, which are appalling.

The majority of the Lemon Fool community are somewhat longer in the tooth. We may have children and grandchildren, perhaps great grandchildren. If you do nothing else today I’d ask you to listen to David Attenborough for a mere 70 seconds.

AiY(D)

The trouble is that their message should be delivered to the Chinese above all else. China outputs 33 times as much as we do and 60% more on a per capita basis. Added to that China's CO2 output is increasing each year by about the same amount as our total output.

JSO should be picketing the Chinese embassy or sitting down in Tianenmen Square instead of virtue signalling over here in a way that alienates almost everyone and is extremely negative for the cause they claim to espouse.

[JohnB]

This diversionary tactic is used all too commonly on LF to justify us not doing anything, either as a country or as individuals. China are doing something, and much more rapidly than the West, and if you buy products from China, you are connected to their emissions strategy, as you are to all the world's economy.

[scrumpyjack]

This diversionary tactic is used all too commonly on LF to justify us not doing anything, either as a country or as individuals. China are doing something, and much more rapidly than the West, and if you buy products from China, you are connected to their emissions strategy, as you are to all the world's economy.

It isn't 'a diversionary tactic', it is the uncomfortable truth (or inconvenient truth to use Al Gore's words). Whilst they may have great plans to reduce CO2, the fact is they are still opening loads of new coal fired power stations and their CO2 emissions are increasing rapidly, not falling. Perhaps the West should be factoring in Chinese CO2 output by having a CO2 levy on Chines imports. There is no point in us closing high CO2 factories over here and the outputs are then produced instead in China with even greater CO2!

[SalvorHardin]

As Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit says:

"I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis"

Well heeled lobbyists flying private jets to conferences where the menu is a gastronomic delight doesn't go down well with the public whose cars they want to price off the road whilst stopping them from eating meat.

The UK emits roughly 1% of the world's carbon dioxide. Reducing this to 0% will have very little effect, though it will make a lot of the population much poorer (making us poorer is a feature, not a bug, for many of the anti-growth supporters, notably the Greens and the Communists).

What's needed is economic growth and technological developments in energy storage (making wind and solar power more reliable) and electricity transmission.

With politicians of all parties favouring low economic growth policies whilst discouraging development (planning restrictions, newt protection, NIMBYism) that's going to be difficult.

[JohnB]

No-one has a plan that won't make us poorer, if the true cost of the ecosystem services we are abusing is incorporated in economics, by either changing our ways or by continuing business as usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China is worth reading, UK government policy documents on Net Zero aren't

[Lootman]

This diversionary tactic is used all too commonly on LF to justify us not doing anything, either as a country or as individuals. China are doing something, and much more rapidly than the West, and if you buy products from China, you are connected to their emissions strategy, as you are to all the world's economy.

It isn't 'a diversionary tactic', it is the uncomfortable truth (or inconvenient truth to use Al Gore's words). Whilst they may have great plans to reduce CO2, the fact is they are still opening loads of new coal fired power stations and their CO2 emissions are increasing rapidly, not falling. Perhaps the West should be factoring in Chinese CO2 output by having a CO2 levy on Chines imports. There is no point in us closing high CO2 factories over here and the outputs are then produced instead in China with even greater CO2!

Aviation is booming in China as well. As its population becomes wealthier, tourism is growing. China is building new airports and buying lots of planes. And it seems you can't go anywhere now without seeing parties of Chinese tourists. China is a big part of the projections of a doubling of air travel globally by 2050.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-econ ... iver-delta

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... nal-610263