Jump to content

Climate Change

Sheaf Saint

By Sheaf Saint,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, scally said:

The temperature is getting warmer but millions won't die. 

It’s easy to say that if you live in a rich country with a temperate climate. You might think differently if you lived a subsistence lifestyle and your food relied on specific weather conditions or if you lived in a developing country and more severe weather doesn’t just mean your carpet might get ruined but could mean you face a real risk of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted
On 28/08/2021 at 17:01, scally said:

The temperature is getting warmer but millions won't die. 

Out of interest why do you think that? Why would literally thousands of climate scientists and researchers working independently of one another suddenly lie about something like that? Why haven't the oil and gas companies, or countries with a reliance on fossil fuel production, managed to come to the same conclusion as you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scally

scally

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

Out of interest why do you think that? Why would literally thousands of climate scientists and researchers working independently of one another suddenly lie about something like that? Why haven't the oil and gas companies, or countries with a reliance on fossil fuel production, managed to come to the same conclusion as you? 

Climate scientists have been predicting what is going to happen for as long as I can remember and not got much of it right. I'd be interested in your take on the video I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scally

scally

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Can you seriously not tell the difference between individual predictions made by one person who mostly are not climate scientists and the overwhelming consensus view of thousands of researchers who are climate scientists?     

Individuals? Go take another look

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, scally said:

Tell me whats wrong with the last one I put up

If somebody predicted in 1998 that an event would happen by 2020, and by 2021 it hadn't happened, but by 2025 it does, does that invalidate the original claim ? Many of the predictions on ExtinctionClock may perhaps have had overly pessimistic 'deadlines', but the predicted outcomes have not been proven to be false, they may well be merely later in arriving than originally presented.

 

For each of those predictions, have you any evidence that totally debunks them ?

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If somebody predicted in 1998 that an event would happen by 2020, and by 2021 it hadn't happened, but by 2025 it does, does that invalidate the original claim ? Many of the predictions on ExtinctionClock may perhaps have had overly pessimistic 'deadlines', but the predicted outcomes have not been proven to be false, they may well be merely later in arriving than originally presented.

“by 2020” does not mean any time after 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

“by 2020” does not mean any time after 2021.

True, but a late arrival does not disprove the claimed outcome. There are predictions about the loss of the Arctic sea ice, some of which have proved to be very pessimistic in timescale. However, the ice is declining, just not as quickly as the worst case scenario presented.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

Can't say I know much about climate change. I expect it probably is happening and even if it isn't, it makes sense to cut down on so much waste. I don't see much sense though and am yet to be convinced of the need for extreme and drastic measures here in the UK whilst the likes of China just carry on regardless. In terms of the world order its just going to handicap us and will make zero difference to global emissions. Personally I think it's a complete pipe dream to think you're seriously going to stop emissions from the likes of China at the level required. I think we'll probably just have to get on and adapt and face the consequences sadly even if that means loads of deaths. The human species will adapt and we will probably end up inventing stuff to help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, scally said:

So show me where it's wrong then, just saying something does not make it true

I wouldn’t hold out any hope that I am ever going to read any of the old shit you post up. We all know what you think, so it makes it easy for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Can't say I know much about climate change. I expect it probably is happening and even if it isn't, it makes sense to cut down on so much waste. I don't see much sense though and am yet to be convinced of the need for extreme and drastic measures here in the UK whilst the likes of China just carry on regardless. In terms of the world order its just going to handicap us and will make zero difference to global emissions. Personally I think it's a complete pipe dream to think you're seriously going to stop emissions from the likes of China at the level required. I think we'll probably just have to get on and adapt and face the consequences sadly even if that means loads of deaths. The human species will adapt and we will probably end up inventing stuff to help. 

China is always singled out as the bad guy  - despite being only 43rd in the ranking table of emissions per capita. Why not Canada at 7,  Australia at 11 or the US 16? Why not the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar at 13 and 14 respectively - all of which have more than double China's emissions per person?  Or is it simply a case of blaming those countries with big populations and giving ourselves a pass?  

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, buctootim said:

China is always singled out as the bad guy  - despite being only 43rd in the ranking table of emissions per capita. Why not Canada at 7,  Australia at 11 or the US 16? Why not the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar at 13 and 14 respectively - all of which have more than double China's emissions per person?  Or is it simply a case of blaming those countries with big populations and giving ourselves a pass?    

Nobody gets a pass but you can’t just sweep the fact the fact they have an obscenely large population under the rug. I doubt it’s much consolation to the residents of Beijing, Shanghai, New Delhi, Mexico City or Karachi that they are actually less polluted per person than a picturesque village in the Cotswolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Nobody gets a pass but you can’t just sweep the fact the fact they have an obscenely large population under the rug. I doubt it’s much consolation to the residents of Beijing, Shanghai, New Delhi, Mexico City or Karachi that they are actually less polluted per person than a picturesque village in the Cotswolds.

No, but you cant expect China to respond well to pressure to curb emissions when most of Europe, North America, Oceania and the Middle East are emitting more. 

Whether we like it or not the future is probably going to involve some kind of emissions trading based on every person having a carbon allowance.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, scally said:

why comment then you twat

Because the "I've dun my research on Facebook and crank websites that just reaffirm what I already think" brigade are worthy of mockery.

I'll comment on what I like when I like. Thanks for the love 👍 😘 ❤ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, buctootim said:

No, but you cant expect China to respond well to pressure to curb emissions when most of Europe, North America, Oceania and the Middle East are emitting more. 

Whether we like it or not the future is probably going to involve some kind of emissions trading based on every person having a carbon allowance.   

I expect everyone to work to curb their emissions to the best if their abilities. The Chinese government will know the affect their emissions are having on the area and the health of their citizens. Having an ageing population all dying of respiratory problems (thank god there’re none of them going round at the moment) will probably kick them into action more than any international pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, buctootim said:

No, but you cant expect China to respond well to pressure to curb emissions when most of Europe, North America, Oceania and the Middle East are emitting more. 

Whether we like it or not the future is probably going to involve some kind of emissions trading based on every person having a carbon allowance.   

And you have to consider that we have off-shored huge amounts of industrial production to China: they make pretty much everything. So it would be justifiable to reallocate some those emissions to the UK per capita.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

And you have to consider that we have off-shored huge amounts of industrial production to China: they make pretty much everything. So it would be justifiable to reallocate some those emissions to the UK per capita.

Exactly so. Britain's relatively good performance over the past 30 years has more to do with offshoring most manufacturing, Thatcher's closing of mines and the exhaustion of North Sea oil. If we had to make all the stuff we use emissions would be far far higher.    Considering how much stuff China make for the rest of the world their emissions are surprisingly low. 

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, buctootim said:

China is always singled out as the bad guy  - despite being only 43rd in the ranking table of emissions per capita. Why not Canada at 7,  Australia at 11 or the US 16? Why not the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar at 13 and 14 respectively - all of which have more than double China's emissions per person?  Or is it simply a case of blaming those countries with big populations and giving ourselves a pass?  

 

  

It's not about giving a pass, the point is that it doesn't really matter who is more or less to blame you're only really going to make real change if you can somehow persuade the biggest polluters to stop what they're doing and it's not going to happen in the timescale that some people are saying is required. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, buctootim said:

No, but you cant expect China to respond well to pressure to curb emissions when most of Europe, North America, Oceania and the Middle East are emitting more. 

Whether we like it or not the future is probably going to involve some kind of emissions trading based on every person having a carbon allowance.   

So what's the plan to curb things ib the timescale required. Let's say that the UK adopts all the recommendations of extinction rebellion. Then what? Threaten nations that have carried on as normal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, buctootim said:

China is always singled out as the bad guy  - despite being only 43rd in the ranking table of emissions per capita. Why not Canada at 7,  Australia at 11 or the US 16? Why not the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar at 13 and 14 respectively - all of which have more than double China's emissions per person?  Or is it simply a case of blaming those countries with big populations and giving ourselves a pass?  

 

  

But they are the bad guy precisely because they have so many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted
On 27/08/2021 at 17:03, scally said:

Any one care to explain 

 

Okay I watched most of it. I've been scribbling down notes, but to be honest it would take me several hours to rebut every single thing. There was no point continuing past about half way as the entire argument he was providing had collapsed.

For those that fortunately haven't watched it- the premise of the argument seems to be challenging a 1988 Hansen study and model prediction of temperature rise over time. Now, challenging a single study about 38 years ago and using it as demonstrable evidence against current science and practice is rather ridiculous given the thousands of studies out there over the last couple of decades. You have far more unpicking to do to even make the slightest dent. 

Even then, the 'analysis' is completely wrong.

The Hansen study modeled three different emissions scenarios which I have screenshot here

image.png.f43643f6064617d471079dc8466f39e0.png

Most importantly, in Scenario A, it states that in this scenario hydroflurocarbons will continue to increase. In the real world though, and thanks to the Montreal Protocol and actual action, we have seen HFCs massively reduce. This is significant as they have a global warming potential that is thousands of times worse than CO2. 

When modelling is done, there are usually a few different scenarios but usually they are 1. What will happen to temperatures if GHG emissions increase aka worse scenario 2. What will happen if business as usual 3. What will happen if they stabilise and 4. What will happen if we reduce massively aka best case.

What the denialists often do is cherry pick the first one and say 'Ha, look, it was wrong'. Even though it was always designed as a worse case scenario.

Even in the report you can see that Scenario B was always more likely. The only reason Scenario A didn't happen was because we have eliminated a good chunk of hydroflurocarbons and some efforts to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions, albeit nowhere near enough

image.png.c093db61cee0da1c5404f22ef1e66017.png

The even more amusing thing is that this video is trying to show that the models were wrong. But if anything it is a demonstration of how accurate the models can be. What actually happened in the real world was a combination of scenarios A and B, where GHGs went up, but the highly forceful HFCs largely removed. Taking into this adjustment in the Hansen model, you would expect to see a global temperature rise of about .6 degrees from then. Something that has been measured to be largely spot on

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just to quickly jump on the China debate - they are far too complex to put down as either good guys or bad guys.

There isn't a country that is investing more in effective green technology and have made some real and genuine progress. Without some of the tech advancements from their investment we would be nowhere. Yet they are also responsible for some of the biggest environmental disasters on the planet - just look at the Mekong. Totally planned and totally irresponsible and damaging.

But the issue is really complex when you get into per capita emissions or overall country emissions.

Emissions from industry are generally the hardest to reduce. Especially those that don't really have effective tech solutions like steel or cement. 

In the UK we don't really produce anything anymore on any kind of scale. So our pathway to lowering emissions is actually pretty easy and we can set targets that look better (on paper). We have a high consumptive society (overall rather than anyone specifically) but our emissions are generally generated overseas. 

The big debate going is are we responsible for our emissions generated overseas? If countries like China, Bangladesh, India and Vietnam are making all our shit, are they solely responsible for reducing them, is it up to us, or is it a joint responsibility?

That's really where the debate should be. 

EDIT: Forgot to refresh page and hadn't realised the debate had already moved there :)

 

 

Edited by sydney_saint
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Okay I watched most of it. I've been scribbling down notes, but to be honest it would take me several hours to rebut every single thing. There was no point continuing past about half way as the entire argument he was providing had collapsed.

For those that fortunately haven't watched it- the premise of the argument seems to be challenging a 1988 Hansen study and model prediction of temperature rise over time. Now, challenging a single study about 38 years ago and using it as demonstrable evidence against current science and practice is rather ridiculous given the thousands of studies out there over the last couple of decades. You have far more unpicking to do to even make the slightest dent. 

Even then, the 'analysis' is completely wrong.

The Hansen study modeled three different emissions scenarios which I have screenshot here

image.png.f43643f6064617d471079dc8466f39e0.png

Most importantly, in Scenario A, it states that in this scenario hydroflurocarbons will continue to increase. In the real world though, and thanks to the Montreal Protocol and actual action, we have seen HFCs massively reduce. This is significant as they have a global warming potential that is thousands of times worse than CO2. 

When modelling is done, there are usually a few different scenarios but usually they are 1. What will happen to temperatures if GHG emissions increase aka worse scenario 2. What will happen if business as usual 3. What will happen if they stabilise and 4. What will happen if we reduce massively aka best case.

What the denialists often do is cherry pick the first one and say 'Ha, look, it was wrong'. Even though it was always designed as a worse case scenario.

Even in the report you can see that Scenario B was always more likely. The only reason Scenario A didn't happen was because we have eliminated a good chunk of hydroflurocarbons and some efforts to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions, albeit nowhere near enough

image.png.c093db61cee0da1c5404f22ef1e66017.png

The even more amusing thing is that this video is trying to show that the models were wrong. But if anything it is a demonstration of how accurate the models can be. What actually happened in the real world was a combination of scenarios A and B, where GHGs went up, but the highly forceful HFCs largely removed. Taking into this adjustment in the Hansen model, you would expect to see a global temperature rise of about .6 degrees from then. Something that has been measured to be largely spot on

 

 

This is what I come on this thread for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scally

scally

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

Okay I watched most of it. I've been scribbling down notes, but to be honest it would take me several hours to rebut every single thing. There was no point continuing past about half way as the entire argument he was providing had collapsed.

For those that fortunately haven't watched it- the premise of the argument seems to be challenging a 1988 Hansen study and model prediction of temperature rise over time. Now, challenging a single study about 38 years ago and using it as demonstrable evidence against current science and practice is rather ridiculous given the thousands of studies out there over the last couple of decades. You have far more unpicking to do to even make the slightest dent. 

Even then, the 'analysis' is completely wrong.

The Hansen study modeled three different emissions scenarios which I have screenshot here

image.png.f43643f6064617d471079dc8466f39e0.png

Most importantly, in Scenario A, it states that in this scenario hydroflurocarbons will continue to increase. In the real world though, and thanks to the Montreal Protocol and actual action, we have seen HFCs massively reduce. This is significant as they have a global warming potential that is thousands of times worse than CO2. 

When modelling is done, there are usually a few different scenarios but usually they are 1. What will happen to temperatures if GHG emissions increase aka worse scenario 2. What will happen if business as usual 3. What will happen if they stabilise and 4. What will happen if we reduce massively aka best case.

What the denialists often do is cherry pick the first one and say 'Ha, look, it was wrong'. Even though it was always designed as a worse case scenario.

Even in the report you can see that Scenario B was always more likely. The only reason Scenario A didn't happen was because we have eliminated a good chunk of hydroflurocarbons and some efforts to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions, albeit nowhere near enough

image.png.c093db61cee0da1c5404f22ef1e66017.png

The even more amusing thing is that this video is trying to show that the models were wrong. But if anything it is a demonstration of how accurate the models can be. What actually happened in the real world was a combination of scenarios A and B, where GHGs went up, but the highly forceful HFCs largely removed. Taking into this adjustment in the Hansen model, you would expect to see a global temperature rise of about .6 degrees from then. Something that has been measured to be largely spot on

 

 

The video is not about one report from 1988 it's about the fact that global warming shows up first in the tropical troposphere. You cannot have no warming here and have massive warming on the earths surface. The video points out that actual recorded data does not match up with any models including present ones, it also points out that this is a problem climate scientists know about but don't understand why there has been very little warming. In an area where climate scientists have no reason to adjust the data and have to use the actual data the models don't work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

I want to know why we no longer get 5p back for returning a bottle of Corona that will be reused. Seriously though we make so much shit for convenience and supermarket packaging is ridiculous. If they were serious they would do something about it but hey 5p a bag and we can all comfort ourselves that we are saving dolphins. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, scally said:

The video is not about one report from 1988 it's about the fact that global warming shows up first in the tropical troposphere. You cannot have no warming here and have massive warming on the earths surface. The video points out that actual recorded data does not match up with any models including present ones, it also points out that this is a problem climate scientists know about but don't understand why there has been very little warming. In an area where climate scientists have no reason to adjust the data and have to use the actual data the models don't work. 

So what are you trying to argue here.

1. Climate change is not happening

2. Climate is happening but humans are not the cause

3. Climate change is happening, human are a driving cause, but the impacts are not bad?

There are some things though you simply can't argue.

- You can not argue that the Earth has not warmed about 1 degree since 1900. That is just fact.

- You can not argue that the climate models have not predicted the correlation between concentration of GHGs and temperature rise. Because they have done so with incredible accuracy, as shown that even an early 1988 model managed to get today's temperature rise with unerring accuracy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not about giving a pass, the point is that it doesn't really matter who is more or less to blame you're only really going to make real change if you can somehow persuade the biggest polluters to stop what they're doing and it's not going to happen in the timescale that some people are saying is required. 

The answer would seem pretty simple....

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Quote

Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scally

scally

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

So what are you trying to argue here.

1. Climate change is not happening

2. Climate is happening but humans are not the cause

3. Climate change is happening, human are a driving cause, but the impacts are not bad?

There are some things though you simply can't argue.

- You can not argue that the Earth has not warmed about 1 degree since 1900. That is just fact.

- You can not argue that the climate models have not predicted the correlation between concentration of GHGs and temperature rise. Because they have done so with incredible accuracy, as shown that even an early 1988 model managed to get today's temperature rise with unerring accuracy. 

 

I'm arguing that climate change is not going to seriously warm the world as quickly as we're being told. The fact that very little recorded temperature change has happened in the tropical troposphere should make all of us question if we're being told the truth about the rate and acceleration of temperature change at ground level. As a climate scientist you should be able to show me the video is incorrect, so far you've not answered the main point of the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scally

scally

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

So what are you trying to argue here.

1. Climate change is not happening

2. Climate is happening but humans are not the cause

3. Climate change is happening, human are a driving cause, but the impacts are not bad?

There are some things though you simply can't argue.

- You can not argue that the Earth has not warmed about 1 degree since 1900. That is just fact.

- You can not argue that the climate models have not predicted the correlation between concentration of GHGs and temperature rise. Because they have done so with incredible accuracy, as shown that even an early 1988 model managed to get today's temperature rise with unerring accuracy. 

 

If you're a climate scientist I'd love to know your thoughts on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, scally said:

The video is not about one report from 1988 it's about the fact that global warming shows up first in the tropical troposphere. You cannot have no warming here and have massive warming on the earths surface. The video points out that actual recorded data does not match up with any models including present ones, it also points out that this is a problem climate scientists know about but don't understand why there has been very little warming. In an area where climate scientists have no reason to adjust the data and have to use the actual data the models don't work. 

I haven't looked at troposphere for a number of years so not my area of expertise. However the claim there is no warming on the troposphere is clearly rubbish. It took me five minutes to find a number of peer reviewed research demonstrating that there has been warming such as this https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/19/jcliD190998.xml, or this https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf, or this https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/4/jcli-d-16-0457.1.xml  

I'm surprised given your research that you didn't manage to find them?

But.

I'm gonna humour you for a moment. I'm gonna pretend for a second that you are right. That there has been substantial warming on the surface, but no warming in the troposphere and that no model predicted it. 

Well.

What then?

It doesn't change anything. It doesn't change that the earth surface has warmed about a degree in a century. It doesn't change that we are observing the rapid retreat of the ice caps. It doesn't change we are observing mass coral bleaching events. It doesn't change the observed increasing acidication of the oceans. 

Targeting one small amount of research when there are literally thousands of studies of supporting evidence doesn't change anything.

As an example, take a look at this and what do you see?

Medieval Rabbit Running European Cushion, Wall Tapestry, 19"x19" - Farmhouse - Tapestries - by European Wall Art | Houzz

Of course. It's a fucking rabbit. 

Now imagine the rabbit was made by thousands of people, each creating their own little square to make the rabbit over decades. Maybe some of the squares are a little faded, and maybe some of them aren't even complete yet as we don't have the tools to create that square yet. Regardless. It is still a rabbit.

You may see one with a thread hanging out, and untangle that single square. Maybe even take a couple of little squares. Well. It is still a fucking rabbit. There are just so many thousands of robust other squares there that you need to untangle before it doesn't look like a rabbit. 

The process of getting research published is long and grueling and often for little reward. I had a paper published over three years after I completed it. The checks and challenges is ridiculous tough and brutal. The fact there are thousands of studies that have gone through this process should give anyone confidence.

But my question to you is.

If your claims are correct. And that climate change can be proven to overstated. Why isn't the multi trillion dollar Oil and Gas industry running with it? Why aren't they walking up to the next COP with their dicks out saying we have demonstrated proof that your claims are absolutely incorrect? 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, scally said:

If you're a climate scientist I'd love to know your thoughts on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. 

Yep the study's main conclusion was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unparalled compared to the previous 1,000 years. A study that has long been backed up with further studies studies such as this https://www.sciencemag.org/CONTENT/339/6124/1198.abstract 

And no research proving that claims are wrong. 

Edited by sydney_saint
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The answer would seem pretty simple....

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

 

Yes and I guarantee that many of those companies will be fronts for the government so actually its just the nations who you aren't going to persuade to cut off their arm now for some nebulous benefit in the future. We might not like it but that's the reality. In 30 years time when the likes of the UK have hobbled themselves with a load of green technologies and fallen further behind those who have just ignored it then it will all seem a bit pointless won't it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trout-Tickler

Trout-Tickler

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Why isn't the multi trillion dollar Oil and Gas industry running with it? Why aren't they walking up to the next COP with their dicks out saying we have demonstrated proof that your claims are absolutely incorrect?

The answer to that is obvious, they've conducted their own research and know it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sydney_saint

sydney_saint

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes and I guarantee that many of those companies will be fronts for the government so actually its just the nations who you aren't going to persuade to cut off their arm now for some nebulous benefit in the future. We might not like it but that's the reality. In 30 years time when the likes of the UK have hobbled themselves with a load of green technologies and fallen further behind those who have just ignored it then it will all seem a bit pointless won't it. 

Hmm I disagree about the fronts for government. I work with a number of very large companies such as H&M on climate change strategies and they are doing their own thing really. If anything trying to lobby governments for more support rather than the other way around. Truth is, so many companies are simply too big and transnational to be bound to any singular government.

The short term approach though is sadly true and you are bang on. It is classic tragedy of the commons. Why should I do something if no other country is? And then we all get fucked because of that approach.

Reality is whether we do something now, or just focus on adaptation, it is gonna come at a price. We are already seeing cotton prices rise for example. Part of that is driven by demand, and part of it is changing weather in countries such as India and Pakistan which is impacting output. This is only getting worse. So we can't escape costs.

But there are also benefits to use green tech that just don't get talked about enough. For example it was long suggested that solar and wind were super expensive and we shouldn't touch them. Well the levelised cost of energy (which is generally one of the fairest way of determining cheapest energy per kwh), shows that wind and solar have massively reduced in price. This is from a UK report last year for new energy added

image.thumb.png.5deffc2dacc601d52f6f0cbe571c2845.png

With further learning and scale, renewables are gonna keep dropping in price. So that is undoubtedly better for us. Where the UK has messed up in my opinion is that it should/could still take a leadership position. It should have been a leader in innovation and production in wind energy and sell it around the world. Sure, it costs more in short term, but it is an investment that would pay off. 

If you look at something like circularity, that is another one that requires a fair amount of up front investment. But would pay off long run. Products use raw materials that go to many countries before it gets to us. It would make more sense to develop the systems to recycle and reuse materials with only small amount of raw material to top up, especially as raw resources are likely to go up in price.

So I personally don't see green tech as something that cripples us, but can be something that can make things cheaper and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...