[Closed] The climate emergency.. who cares?

There is a large part of the population that currently don't even "believe" in climate change.

Then there are those that do but think "what can I do?"

Then there are those that think, "ok, but I won't be around by the time things go really bad."

Add in the usual human selfishness and greed and we are pretty much screwed.

I don't think most people will really wake up to things until their lives are directly threatened by it. Not in 50 years but in 5 days/ 5 hours. Even then many will choose to ignore it.

I console myself with the knowledge that the planet will continue with or without us. Life will endure and hopefully it evolves into a better model of sentience than humans seem to be able to attain.

We are/ were an interesting experiment in controlled chemistry though.

I care. Although clearly not quite enough to fully appreciate what I, as an individual, can do to affect what appears to be a spreadsheet exercise of counting carbon somethings.

Unless of course I further reduce my meat consumption to once a week? It’s about three times a week at the moment I suppose.

I often wonder why there isn’t a national tree planting program? Obviously, not the Laylandi weed type, but mixed indigenous species and if we’re paying farmers anyway...

I’m unable to afford to buy an electric car but don’t do that many road miles anyway and not convinced that getting rid of a perfectly useable car and replacing with a new item that has to be built would be carbon neutral or whatever anyway.

I live in rented accommodation so sticking Celotex or Kingspan to the outside of the house might not go down too well and there’s a carbon cost in producing that insulation anyway, would that eventually be offset by the small reduction in heating oil I use to heat the house? My loft is well insulated and plastic windows are fitted.

Nowadays I rarely fly from one country to another, perhaps once a year max.

What else, as an individuals can we practically do to have a positive impact on carbon offsetting/reduction? Or is it all just a numbers on a spreadsheet exercise?

The only party that would put anywhere near enough effort into it is the Green Party. Seeing that they got 2.7% of the vote then I would take that as people having it VERY low down on their priority.
It will only increase when there is direct impact combined with then being heavily sold it in the way they were heavily sold why Brexit needs to happen. Difference is, the climate actually matters...

Why is the country dragging its feet? Is the climate emergency not perceived as a real or something to care about?

No, they don’t give a shit. They’ve just voted in a govt that

missed 24 of its own 25 climate targets

Says it all.

End of thread.

Isn't it industry that needs to change most anyway? I thought the actions of individuals was just the 'marginal gains' of eco-friendliness?

For us to change would cost a lot (ditch diesel SUV we were gifted by in-laws, replace with expensive electric car and £15k of solar panels) but also require us to give up almost everything we enjoy and subsist on local, seasonal produce (root veg, er... that's it!). Hard to do when the neighbours will all be just carrying on as normal.

Would require concerted political action around the globe, so basically climate change is happening, get used to the idea.

I do, we've made quite a few changes, not enough though.
I ignore Christmas it is an abomination of epic proportions, grown adults buying each other landfill fodder and gorging themselves into a post festivity obesivic guilt trip, pathetic.
I await the January gym, running, weight loss threads.
DON'T EAt tHat CrAp in The FIrSt pLaCe.

Yes, enjoying ourselves is wrecking the planet, ban it I say.

You're welcome.

I care. Although clearly not quite enough to fully appreciate what I, as an individual, can do to affect what appears to be a spreadsheet exercise of counting carbon somethings.

The thing is, unless the solution is driven by worldwide governments policy, then all of the well meaning individual acts count for **** all. I think actually voting for the green party is now worth more to future generations than all the acts of environmental protection we can make as individuals.

I REALLY care and have done as much as I can over the past year to reduce my carbon footprint. I changed roles at work to reduce my flights from ~20 a year to less than 5. Reduced my families transport fuel consumption from 17000 miles to 2630. Have replaced every bulb in the house with LED. Systematically worked my way around the house plugging drafts and properly insulating and thermal curtains. Solar panels go in in March next year along with a Powerwall and triple glazing on the front windows.

Meat consumption is low and mostly chicken and fish.

We recycle almost everything and repair where possible rather than replace and won’t buy disposable rubbish as toys, gifts etc.

We’re trying, we really are. I just wish everyone would give the same thought to it.

Our only hope really is that technology will save us

I think many people believe it will and so do nothing. Electric cars are just making people think they can buy their way forward.

It's basically selling us more shit. We're never going to change and we're in for some incredibly dark times. Glad I don't have kids to be honest... 😐

I care as a parent and bacause I feel a responsibility to less fortunate around the globe. But its all a bit paternalistic.

The election however has confirmed that at least half the population are poorly educated gullible fools, likely racist too, so I'm struggling to come up with a reason to care about them.

So I'm verging on saying sod it, the planet will reecover whatever, let humans die out.

Going vegan and stopping flying are the two most effective things we can do. Not easy, but not that difficult either.
Personally, I’ve started to commute by train and use an electric car for shorter journeys. The house is already insulated to the max and we are on 100% green energy tariff. My biggest failure is skiing holidays. Looking at ways to practically get to the alps from Scotland for a week’s trip without flying or taking 2 days in each direction.

If you ask people "Do you care about the environment?" Nearly all will reply yes.

If you were then to ask them what steps they've taken to back up that action, most people will reply that they recycle and "try to do their bit" , which in reality means very little.

Is the climate emergency not perceived as a real or something to care about?

Sadly the level of inconvenience it takes to reduce personal emissions is simply too high for people it seems. And business will not do anything that puts them at a competitive disadvantage unless forced to.

Isn’t it industry that needs to change most anyway?

It's society that needs to change wholesale

This report says that to keep this target alive, the world needs to cut emissions by 7.6% every year for the next 10 years.

EU Emissions planned to be cut to 55% of 1990 level

To achieve those goals it's going to need to be so much more than just scraping out yogurt pots and walking to the shops once a week.

The only 2 ways I can see this happening is either by mass nationalised infrastructure that is invested in heavily by government to go green, or by legislation of a combination of huge widespread tax cuts for green businesses and equally huge penalties for non green businesses and industries.

The timetable for these to be implemented globally seems woefully short, and the fact that so many people seem to be indifferent at best means I see little hope for the future.

Facing Extinction by Catherine Ingram - This blog post is a depressing read, but one I find hard to argue against

I think the enormity of the task ahead is hidden from view. It's not "lots of people doing small things" it's "literally everyone doing huge changes"

I found This calculator useful. I've entered all my details honestly enough which then made it easier to implement the low hanging fruit of changes that cost the least and have the biggest impact.

Our only hope really is that technology will save us

I think many people believe it will and so do nothing. Electric cars are just making people think they can buy their way forward.

It’s basically selling us more shit.

It really is this. I think too many people think that just around the corner is some technology that will allow for a 1:1 swap for each thing in their lives that will be "green" and that life can continue on as it does now.

Even the phrase "green" I think is misleading and should be banned unless something is actively a net positive for the environment.

A car should only be allowed to be called green if it emits a negative amount of co2.

Otherwise it's just another thing damaging the environment, albeit slightly less than an ICE car.

We already know a sizeable proportion of the UK population think differently to a lot of people on here. In any event making the UK itself carbon neutral will be pointless unless and until we stop buying more s**t from the places in the world that are the worst polluters...!

I remember first reading about Global Warming in the New Scientist as a school child in the late 70’s, early 80’s. It seemed clear then that something drastic needed to be done, there and then. People have had a lot of time to change their behaviour. I would presume that posters on here are more enlightened than most, but we still have people who ‘have’ to commute 50 miles a day. Frequent posts asking where to fly to for a weekend break etc etc, whilst at the same time people are posting about being flooded out of their homes.
Part of the problem appears to me to be, that the people who contribute most to the problem are those most immune to the resulting consequences.

I really care, I fully recognise that there are lots of other countries doing much worse but I don't think we can just wait until everyone is on - and then all move together slowly.  Yes we should be doing everything we can as individuals and every small thing that someone does is brilliant but more importantly we need legislation to force the bigger changes.  So I'm really a fan of any sort of action that influences change at a higher level.  That can be changing your bank if your bank is one that invests heavily in fossil fuels (and telling them why you've done it),  changing your power provider to a green one or using the 'green' supply from your current provider (even if it is more expensive - we know it will be) but more importantly take part in any public actions.   We know that politicians care more about their own chance of election that anything else so they need to see it is something the public care about or it will just be business as usual.

The numbers going around seem to suggest that it only takes 3.5% of the population to be protesting to make the change that is needed.  That has to be within reach

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

For me I think that although the numbers might be wrong, if we get to a point 8 years from now when change is irreversable then there is no way I can look at my kids and tell them I did nothing because I didn't know,  simples.

I still think forcing everyone to work from home unless they have an absolute concrete requirement to commute in would solve a lot of society's ills.

Not sure how you replace the social aspect though... pub?

Let’s see...

I grow most of my own vegetables
All water for the garden is rainfall capture
Eggs and meat are sourced locally
I planted 6000 trees before I lost count
Heating is by renewable wood from my own land
I work from home and drive around 2000 miles a year
I haven’t flown for work in over 10 years
I haven’t flown for myself in 14 years
I’ve bought less than a dozen bottles of water in my life
I repair rather than replace
A lot of stuff I make from scrap of things I can’t repair

Do I win the virtue signalling? Or do I have to pretend to care?

Do I win the virtue signalling? Or do I have to pretend to care?

You appear to have done both.  Good start 🙂

You appear to have done both. Good start 🙂

I’m still solidly part of the oil based economy and grateful for all the luxury it brings.

Judging by this thread, not many......

Isn’t it industry that needs to change most anyway? I thought the actions of individuals was just the ‘marginal gains’ of eco-friendliness?

This gets said a lot, but take a step back and think about it.

The oil industry will keep making petrol as long as you want it for your car.

The aluminium industry will keep making aluminium as long as you keep drinking cans.

The farming industry will keep making beef as long as you keep eating steak.

BA will keep flying as long as you keep going to meetings in person.

And so on and so forth.

Industry does not exist in a vacuum.

And your carbon footprint extends a long way past insulating your house and driving an electric car.

I still think forcing everyone to work from home unless they have an absolute concrete requirement to commute in would solve a lot of society’s ills.

My solution (to that) would be an extra 1% on income tax for both individual and company for every 10km a person lived from the place of work. But IMO that also needs a functioning housing market, that is relatively low cost and allows people to make such choices.

The solution is less people. Easily done.

One child voucher per woman. A global exchange where the vouchers can be bought and sold. Money will naturally move to people less able to cope with climate change and population will be quickly reduced.

I’ll take the cash alternative to the Nobel prize.

Many councils are going to start charging companies a substantial tax for every car parking space on their sites.

Many councils are going to start charging companies a substantial tax for every car parking space on their sites.

How is that green?

I'm wondering if a lot of the reaction is the enjoyment and belonging to a protest movement.

I work in environmental education. As a leading national organisation we've offered support and resources, to work with XREducation (and the two other XR school/education 'groups'). Absolutely no interest in teaching kids in school about anything other than protest and how to protest.
They've some education resources, all indoor, PowerPoint or workbook. No firsthand experience of nature or climate. No actually improving thier environment, empowering the children to be the difference - only to protest.
We've offered lesson ideas, funding for teachmeets or pedagoo's, training days. All in major UK cities, particularly London.

That's through meetings with various angry people. Lots of emails.

It's a seemingly disorganised group, looking to belong to a protest.

Yet when they hold a teachmeet, they get over 640 teachers attend in London. We and others struggle for 20!

Hmmm

According to the co2 calculator posted above, my 1 flight a year absolutely swamps all my other co2 impacts, and I think I read somewhere that 95% of flights are made by just a few percent of business travelers, so targeting them would clearly have the biggest impact.

Even if as individuals we all forgo our 1 holiday flight a year the impact will be insignificant. The answers are a mass political shift, not being left to the morality of individual choice.

Absolutely no interest in teaching kids in school about anything other than protest and how to protest.
They’ve some education resources, all indoor, PowerPoint or workbook. No firsthand experience of nature or climate. No actually improving thier environment, empowering the children to be the difference – only to protest.

@matt They are right, kind off. It would be good to connect the kids with the reasons for change, but empowering individual actions won't do anything, apart from a personal feeling of smugness. In fact I am beginning to suspect that policy focusing on peoples individual actions is just a slight of hand to allow the politicians and their backers to make no real changes.

Noone that matters.

One child voucher per woman. A global exchange where the vouchers can be bought and sold. Money will naturally move to people less able to cope with climate change and population will be quickly reduced.

Is that not objectively xenophobic?

sn’t it industry that needs to change most anyway? I thought the actions of individuals was just the ‘marginal gains’ of eco-friendliness?

This gets said a lot, but take a step back and think about it.

The government has introduced a massive road building program, and most people can't afford an electric car, so of course they are going to buy petrol.

The oil industry can no longer argue that climate change is not happening, so instead, they are blaming individuals, whilst at the same time lobbying government to prevent new regulations and tax.

It can't be solved by individual actions.

Is that not objectively xenophobic?

You are right in that any real solution will be too hard and all people want to do is virtue signal.

The good news is that the problem will solve itself. People will die off eventually. Problem solved.

but empowering individual actions won’t do anything, apart from a personal feeling of smugness

So you don't actually action anything?
All you do is protest?
I'm going to disagree with you.

This gets said a lot, but take a step back and think about it.

The oil industry will keep making petrol as long as you want it for your car.

.........

The issue is that for things such as cars, society isn't set up enough for people to not have one. It's easier to not have a car if public transport is good, employers let you work from home, school is close etc.

These things are societal level rather than individual. Change needs to come from both the top and the bottom.

Many councils are going to start charging companies a substantial tax for every car parking space on their sites.

The final nail in the coffin for the town centre. A good time to invest in business parks though. And concrete or steel manufacture.

How is that green?

Not all business are in town centres, some are in business parks where they will be taxed too. Unless I've misunderstood your point how would this make it more likely to build business parks?

Not all business are in town centres, some are in business parks where they will be taxed too. Unless I’ve misunderstood your point how would this make it more likely to build business parks?

If they can, then fair enough. More tax. Then what, spend the new found revenue on extra jollies for the mayor to that twinned town in Brazil?

One child voucher per woman. A global exchange where the vouchers can be bought and sold. Money will naturally move to people less able to cope with climate change and population will be quickly reduced.

Vouchers will move to the rich, increasing the amount of people in rich countries , who emit the most co2 anyway.

People in poor countries will then have no children with all the problems that would bring.

So you don’t actually action anything?
All you do is protest?
I’m going to disagree with you.

Another example, if you look at the German electrify market it is about 20% domestic usage, 30% commercial and 50% industrial (I don't know how the define the difference between commercial and industrial). And that is by cost, given the discounts available to large scale users the domestic users probably only account for 10% of the electricity used.
For individual users it would take a herculean effort, sacrifice and investment to reduce their electricity usage by 50% and is probably impossibe, but that would only result in a 5% change of electricity generation. Much better to put that investment of time, effort and even finance into affecting change at a political level which will yield much greater results,

Vouchers will move to the rich, increasing the amount of people in rich countries , who emit the most co2 anyway.

People in poor countries will then have no children with all the problems that would bring.

What? Helping those that would otherwise die get the money to live and save the world at the same time.

Becsuse each person in the uk is using something like 5x the sustainable level of resources. The poor people youre trying to "help" by denying them the next generation of doctors, engineers, and everything else in the developing world are probably <<1.

The government has introduced a massive road building program, and most people can’t afford an electric car, so of course they are going to buy petrol.

The oil industry can no longer argue that climate change is not happening, so instead, they are blaming individuals, whilst at the same time lobbying government to prevent new regulations and tax.

Road building is short sighted I agree and government spending is easier to manipulate than the free market so should be investing to offset that not supourt the problems.

Industry on the other hand, how do you propose to stop the production of petrol? Your statement that not everyone can afford an electric car is correct. But that also means not everyone can afford the x00% increace in fuel (used indomestic heating, transport and in the production of goods dont forget) that would be required to force them out of business or to change their business model.

You cant shout at BP that they're killing the plannet, then fill your car with petrol and go home to a centrally heated house to eat food grown with the use of tractors and fertiliser, cooked in a facrory, packaged in plastics and aluminium, then transported to the supermarket.

Becsuse each person in the uk is using something like 5x the sustainable level of resources. The poor people youre trying to “help” by denying them the next generation of doctors, engineers, and everything else in the developing world are probably <<1.

I do have a plan B. India and ****stan are very keen to nuke each other. That’s a quick win of a few billion plus a nuclear winter. China vs the US is plan C but that might be a bit much.

It’s a seemingly disorganised group, looking to belong to a protest

I think  you are talking about XR and that's what they are - a protest group.  Their view seems to be that there are other groups doing the various nature, climates, what you can change personally things and that is not their niche.  As I understand it their central message is to get goverments to take climate change seriously and be top of every agenda rather than advocating for one particular solution or action

other groups are available 🙂

It’s alright for a bunch of quite well off people on a bike forum (you are well off if you can afford a £500 bike) to lecture what other people should be doing about climate change but there are millions of people who don’t care.

They don’t care not because they don’t believe in climate change, or can’t be bothered to do anything, they just worry about keeping their job, getting to the end of the week, caring for their kids, keeping the house warm, buying enough food. It’s not something they think about, and even if they do it’s a load of rich peoples problems. When you are in a life situation where your forward planning at w stretch is a month ahead the 2050 climate targets may as well be from outer space.

And the people in this situation are very rich compared to the vast majority in the world who live much poorer lives than everyone in this country.

to lecture what other people should be doing about climate change

Exactly, we shouldn't be doing that.  We should be focusing on doing everything that WE can as well as getting the government to do everything that THEY can.  Whataboutery is a waste of time now

And the people in this situation are very rich compared to the vast majority in the world who live much poorer lives than everyone in this country.

Yes.  This is why we need our governent to take action now.  Poorer countries will be the first to be ****ed so we need to be making change ourselves first rather than waiting for them to get on with it

If we needed an effective UN it is now but that is never going to happen

Rather than demanding people are forced to comply you should put your energy into developing better technology.

I’ll buy a nuclear car if you make it better value than my diesel. I’ll buy solar if someone comes up with a technology with a better return on investment. I’ll stop my quarterly trek to London if someone comes up with decent VR.

Negative campaigning will never work. We need better shit. And less people.

How about sex androids?

Rather than demanding people are forced to comply you should put your energy into developing better technology.

Both is also an option.  Not sure there is time to design and deploy new technology.  Time is against us

Curing ageing. That’s where we should put the effort.

If I wasn’t planning on being dead shortly I’d look at things rather differently.

I’ll buy a nuclear car if you make it better value than my diesel. I’ll buy solar if someone comes up with a technology with a better return on investment. I’ll stop my quarterly trek to London if someone comes up with decent VR.

I know you're being glib, but it's this attitude that is the problem.

It doesn't need to be "I'll stop using diesel when a better cheaper solution comes along" , its has to be "I'll stop using diesel now, work around the changes that will bring, and maybe in the future be able to go back to how things are now but with clean energy".

I work from home, so what I drive is irrelevant, but give me something better and I’ll buy it. It does have to be better though. Trying to sell something that is worse will only appeal to the virtue signalling rich.

If they can, then fair enough. More tax. Then what, spend the new found revenue on extra jollies for the mayor to that twinned town in Brazil?

And this is an example of why it’s so depressing reading this sort of thread.

And this is an example of why it’s so depressing reading this sort of thread.

I'd be happy with extinction if it shut that mouthy **** 5thelefant up.

I find the concept of XR wholly self indulgent. As I understand it their focus is saving the human race (or it's place on the planet at least). Not about the planet per se.

Why not take it a step further. Accept that the human system is unviable and make it clear to people that they can do what they want but have to accept the consequences - extinction.

Fatalistic environmentalism.

Population reduction is the only way.

Look at whats happened from 1950 to present
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-by-world-regions-post-1820

<satire> boomers really have f'ed up everything </satire>

but look at the regions. Simplistically, its india/china, followed by africa; not us in europe and america who have got themselves from rural subsidence farming to urban living and working in secondary and increasingly tertiary industry, with the resulting increase in life expectancy within one persons lifetime.

We need to be helping them to not make the same mistakes we did 50 or 100 years before, rather than exploiting them as the global ghetto of cheap labour and produce like we are currently.
How to do this without being a post-colonial condescending hypocritical arsehole, I have no idea.

Here's the prediction in the decrease in population growth.

Its a decrease in growth (based on UN predictions), but still not a decrease in population.

Fatalistic environmentalism.

Probably responded with an indifferent shrug or "someone will invent something"

I care, a lot. The more I learn about it the more I realise we have left things way too late. Sadly people are lazy (me included) and don’t want to change their comfy lifestyles that they’re used to, I’ve done virtually everything I can to reduce I’m footprint, I just need to ditch the car and make the step from being a veggie to vegan.

It's clear many will only act in (perceived) self interest.

Recent elections have seen big data/analytics/click bait fake news/micro targeted ads weaponized to serve the baddies.

Even ignoring climate change, the growth in SUV sales and car use in general is already pushing me to action. Air quality and noise near big roads, jams on narrow streets that you can't even cycle past, parents clogging up roads near schools waiting for their obese kid, ...

I might try writing a Twitter/Facebook bot to convince people that cycling instead of driving can be fun and healthy.

[I already tried writing to my MP etc, obviously]

Question to all.

Does volcano eruptions contribute to global warming?

Bear in mind there are so many volcanos constantly spewing toxic fume at a slow rate but in large amount.

How does that compare to human generated fume?

Remember the theory that dinosaur was wiped out by volcano eruptions causing the weather to change?

Does that make sense?

I care

Does volcano eruptions contribute to global warming?

Bear in mind there are so many volcanos constantly spewing toxic fume at a slow rate but in large amount.

How does that compare to human generated fume?

Remember the theory that dinosaur was wiped out by volcano eruptions causing the weather to change?

Does that make sense?

Seems Krakatoa (1883) had the opposite effect:

There was a lasting effect on the world’s climate, too: aerosols emitted into the atmosphere by the blast led global air temperatures to drop by as much as 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius). According to a 2006 article in the journal Nature, the volcano caused oceans to cool for as much as a century, offsetting the effect of human activity on ocean temperatures. If the volcano had not erupted, the authors argue, our sea levels might be much higher than they are today.

@chewk - admirable whataboutery, let me check that for you.

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

A bot should be dealing with questions like this 🙁

Does volcano eruptions contribute to global warming?

Yes they do, to a greater or lesser extent. The Mount St Helens eruption in the 80s proved the early climate change modeling as the worlds climate reacted exactly as the models predicted it would.

But at the moment, the scientific consensus seems to be that they are not as significant a factor as man made pollution, and it would take a considerable increase in volcanic activity to drive us towards a mass extinction event, but not reversing man made pollution is going to guarantee it.

A bot should be dealing with questions like this

A bot dealing with a bot? Nice idea.  I suspect we would would move a bit faster on this stuff without the trolls having their bit of fun.  In general though whataboutery is a real problem as thinking there is a bigger problem elsewhere let's us off the hook

Right now we need to be doing it all and then some.  This isn't like an election where if it goes wrong someone can reverse that decision further down the line.  One chance and we should really have started properly some time ago

I cared, still do but to a lesser degree since the GE result has shown that people generally aren't that bothered about the sort of world their offspring'll inherit. They'd rather get some arbitrary short-term goal completed and worry about the important shit later when it's already too late. Meh. I'm enjoying not feeling monumentally guilty about owning a (low powered, admittedly) classic-ish motorcycle now, I genuinely feel like a weight's been lifted off my shoulders.

For what it's worth, we're still mostly veggie and walk or cycle to the shops and stuff. I haven't been on an aeroplane since 2002 (I think) and my OH has never been abroad. Unfortunately our (me and my OH) responsible bits are offset by the idiots queuing at the local McD's drive through for plastic-wrapped shit burgers.

**** it. We're doing what we can but not to the detriment of our mental health. I was losing sleep over this shit FFS.

#entropy #heatdeath

Kevin Anderson who is a Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester gives an honest assessment of where he thinks we're at and what we need to do - worth a watch and sharing:

Watch here:

Keypoints:

• Legacy of not caring about the next generation
• Governments are deluding themselves (being 'creative' with the emissions reduction numbers - look far better than they actually are)
• Governments relying on tech solutions that don't exist yet (carbon capture/negative emissions) to make their figures work
• We know what we need to do to reduce impacts (we are just not doing it)
• Greenwashing - business as usual can continue with some green tweaks - this is what we are being sold by the establishment
• All wealthy parts of the world only have 9 years at current emissions left, if we want to stick to Paris commitment.
• UK would need to reduce it's emissions by 70 - 80% by 2030 to stay below 1.5 degrees
• 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions come from 10% of the global population
• Fundamental change in lifestyle of the to 10% - 20% is required (No more large houses, holiday homes, prestige cars, first class flights, fewer consumer goods).

Can i just ask a pertinent Q.
What exactly, that exists on this planet, actually causes the most problems regarding climate change. CO2, greenhouse gas, whatever. ?

Human beings. There are far too many of us fighting (literally) over resources. I think I read that the planet could reasonably be expected to sustain (and not be consumed/destroyed in the process) around 1 million humans. To paraphrase Guy Martin, the job's ****ed, chief.

edit- oh, and capitalism.

Humans +7.8 billion

Humans, far too many of us on the planet and far too many of us consuming goods.

As I understand it, any gas made of differing atoms, CO2, Methane CH4, Sulphur Hexaflouride (SF6) are green house gases.  I think the bond between the atoms is the energy absorber bit (any clever bods care to correct me).   Methane is more absorbing gas than CO2 and SF6 is orders of magnitude worse than both but so far there is comparatively little in the atmosphere but its very persistent and as more 80's/90's/00's vintage HV electrical switchgear is decommissioned more will escape.

Methane levels will increase dramatically as the tundra permafrost melts and the old frozen vegetation starts decomposing, also if the ocean temperature rises on certain bits of the continental shelf ridge bottoms the methane hydrates trapped by low temps and high pressure could degas and there are many millions of tonnes down there.

Volcanoes can warm and cool as the the CO2 emitted acts as a energy trap and the fine particulates that get lofted into the upper atmosphere in BIG eruptions acts as a sunshine reflector so cooling.

Well said Kayla & Houns.
So why do we keep reproducing what is killing the planet, in the numbers we do?
Doesn’t matter how ‘green’ you bring up your sprogs, we all have a carbon footprint. SO when you think you might have a bigger family, think again eh?

Doesn’t matter how ‘green’ you bring up your sprogs, we all have a carbon footprint.

It does matter. Compare the carbon footprint of the 1% of richest people with the 1% of poorest people. The idea the the poor shouldn’t have kids to mitigate the impact of people with Learjets is as old as the hills. It’s the “why seriously change how we do things, the real problem is other people having kids” meme.

@twowheels

@chewk – admirable whataboutery, let me check that for you.

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

Now your assumption is that I have heard the rumour but the truth is I have never heard of that at all. I asked because of the Ring of Fire in my region as there are many volcanoes waiting to erupt in near future. Including the largest of them all in my home town as we have earthquakes in the recent years.

Me. If we all do our bit we can do a lot mor ethan our respective governements. If you start to do things it will influence people around you too. I've been inspired by others and hope to inspire. When people visit and see what you've done it gives them ideas. When they hear that you use BlaBlaCar or Flixbus, and avoid flying they start to consider the possibility too. When you're happy with your electric car someone from a company makes enquiries about including electric vehicles in their fleet. It's a cultural thing and that will reduce emissions as much as anything our goverments will do.

Me. If we all do our bit we can do a lot mor ethan our respective governements. If you start to do things it will influence people around you too. I’ve been inspired by others and hope to inspire. When people visit and see what you’ve done it gives them ideas. When they hear that you use BlaBlaCar or Flixbus, and avoid flying they start to consider the possibility too. When you’re happy with your electric car someone from a company makes enquiries about including electric vehicles in their fleet. It’s a cultural thing and that will reduce emissions as much as anything our goverments will do.

Shite from start to finish. As a species, humans in the west are keen to rape the planet. Other parts of the planet are doing it on our behalf. I include myself in this. I am just back from a meal out in Edinburgh. I see it more so at Xmas. Every little thing that we in the first world consider a necessity is something that people in some parts of the world can consider a pipe dream. Our consumerism blinds us to how much we require to keep it going. There are people on the planet that wake up with a belief that surviving the day is a success not far removed from finding food and water similar to animals. Our wish for more efficient loft insulation or a reduction of 20 to 5 flights a year ring hollow. I say this typing into a smart phone whilst watching a Hollywood film on a 40 inch TV with a spaghetti junction of power cables behind the TV for a printer, xmas tree lights, xbox 360, tv box, Wifi box, Nintendo wii and a stereo. Is anyone else's tv area much different?

Who knew?

SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/25/suvs-second-biggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal

@chewkw - indeed I did assume that and having seen how other threads have degenerated have decided to apologise.

I am serious about building a bot though 🙂

It's funny how eco-warriors have taken on many of the most negative aspects of religion: asceticism (I must restrict myself from these terrible pleasures, such as cars, heating and ample food); eschatology (the world's going to end in an inferno); and mortification (I must suffer for my sins against the environment).

If people could avoid relentlessly pursuing this sort of cultish proselytising and instead focused on solutions that didn't involve taking society back to pre-industrial levels of development then we'd be in a much better situation.

Technology has repeatedly been able to solve humanity's problems, yet is viewed in the most pessimistic light by most eco types. If you don't accept this, consider, like an MP did in the late Victorian era, just how many horses the population of London would now require had the internal combustion engine not been invented and productionised. Let's just say the streets would not have smelt good. Ultimately, a technology that the Victorians hadn't even foreseen circumvented a prospective problem.

This is just one example of hundreds where technology has provided a solution to a seemingly impossible problem. It is worth remembering, in all this self-flaggelation, that human beings are nothing if not ingenious, especially when there is necessity involved.

But then, I'm an optimist, unlike all the doomsday members on here, who, presumably were building bunkers in the 80s to protect themselves from the cause du jour back then.

JP

Shite from start to finish.

Athray continues to work hard in his critical thinking lessons. Despite his efforts his recent work shows that he is handicapped by a poor of grasp of the fundamentals of this subject. Unless rectified he will continue to obtain results below his potential.

Do you take pride in being insultingly dismissive? As much pride as you take in maxing out your carbon footprint?

Technology has repeatedly been able to solve humanity’s problems, yet is viewed in the most pessimistic light by most eco types.

Most ‘eco types’ I know are very much in favour of advancing and utilising technology to move us away from unnecessary commutes, and getting our energy from sources other than burning stuff.

I don’t think it’s a question of being a doomsday member; it’s more the recognition of the increasingly likelihood that we are utterly ****ed. For all the well meaning intentions of individuals (which is absolutely not deriding the importance of individual action) en masse, humans are self-serving and wilfully ignorant. And as long as the voters are self serving and willfully ignorant, then governments will follow suit.

Personally, the issue fills me with complete dread. I have 2 young children and my heart aches at the thought of the the state of the world we will hand over to them. But as someone else posted above, I cannot stand by and do nothing (even if I believe my actions are futile) yet look my kids in the face and plead ignorance.

Er, the streets of london do not smell good, in fact they are poisonous and inefficient.

yay for technological solutions.. I think I would rather smell horseshit than have to listen to it.