leicsmac

I'm not sure whether the denial of what this leads to is wilful or not from those involved, but it doesn't really matter either way - history shows very clearly the way it ends, regardless. But then those who can see it have to believe there is still time, still a chance to avert it, and work.

The road to darkness nearly a hundred years ago was paved with... ...leaders preaching the supremacy of nationalism and abomination of the "other" ...the subversion of the idea of "truth" ...and people either naive or malicious looking at the dark future ahead and saying "that can't/that'll never happen" ...but it did.

The rather cold comfort is that they won't have such power for very long. They still need human resources to live the life they lead, as much as the drive to automation is happening.

Policy concerning other nations voted for by people that perhaps have never ventured out of their state, never mind country. I'm sure Churchill would have something apposite to say on democracy right now.

If the point being made here is that this small subset of people are choosing solar panels because of fiscal self-interest, that's accurate and it's a case where self interest serves a greater good, however... It doesn't detract from the bigger picture and where they need to fit into a necessary transition, and it won't stop whoever is left (rightly) denouncing those who were too beholden to that self-interest should everything go horribly wrong.

He's a Labour PM, of course those sections of social and other media are going to caterwaul. Either too short memories to remember the last lot or too short-sighted and self interested to see what Reform really have to offer for the future of everyone, rather than a select few. Never let it be said that Trumpian politics wasn't built on the grossest hypocrisy.

For me there's a marked difference between Ukraine using UK weapons and UK (or any other Nato forces) and Russian forces actually engaging each other directly. That would be a red line that both sides stuck to in the Cold War because they knew what it meant (which is why it never happened), and I think it's still true today. But here's hoping we never have to find out.

Considering what any NATO member - including the UK - and Russian forces meeting directly on the field of battle would mean, I would hope that enough of the UK public would do anything to ensure that wouldn't happen.

On topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gvd7kxxj5o Definitely a pale horse.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/world-cup-sub-regional-africa-qualifier-group-c-2024-25-1459372/nigeria-vs-ivory-coast-5th-match-1459387/full-scorecard As T20I's go, this one was pretty one sided.

To say nothing of a lot of tropical Asia as flooding and drought really take hold over there. And when resources dwindle as a result, expect shooting to start. Another corollary.

Fair enough, seems like "not every extreme event is climate change driven but the climate change that is happening makes them much more likely" is perhaps some common ground to be found here.

Right. But I guess we're clearly going round and round at this point, with nothing said about events elsewhere (including Valencia).

... and I'm pretty sure that they haven't had two of such severity within four years of each other and the events in Valencia are pretty much unprecedented. I suppose we could bask in denial and say they were just unlucky, horrible to be them, though.

That's a pretty conclusive win.

... and I wonder what the poor souls in Pontypridd, Valenica and the like think about the current regularity and extremity of serious weather events and what is driving them? Apparently sympathy and empathy and willigness to prevent when the disaster is not immediately personal (and perhaps not even then) is in short supply, judging by some of the discussion here.

Luke vs Luke in another final.

It's not just mine, and though I have said this many times before, it's not an outcome I state for its own sake, nor one I seek to state for political capital. It is simply the outcome that has both enough likelihood and enough negative consequence that it needs to be considered and acted against accordingly. I'm not pushing catastrophism here (and nor is any climate scientist vaguely well versed in the matter) for any sake other than to try to prevent it, out of an obligation to the future of our species and those we share the planet with. If people don't buy into that, then fair enough - but should the worst come to pass, then don't expect the legacy of those who chose denial and short term self interest to be anything other than one of the lowest contempt.

It surely does. And given what we've already seen in terms of increased extreme weather, drought and flooding in various areas across the Earth, even with an overall temperature increase around 1.5 degrees C less than it is expected to be underthe current course, it is a rather safe assumption that those consequences will be at best ruinous regionally with millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of refugees... and at worst, globally catastrophic.

We don't really have a choice there. Maybe twenty years ago we would have, but things are accelerating and consequences approaching too fast now. I don't directly disagree with the short piece on the human condition here, but at the same time - again - the laws of thermodynamics really don't allow us much choice; either everyone gets on board (or are helped on board) or a great many people suffer and die, at least. We can bask in our denial as to the gravity of the problem if we like, but the Earth doesn't tend to entertain such delusions for long and treats them harshly.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we have to. It is perfectly possible to shift to energy generation methods that guarantee the future while maintaining our quality of life. And if folks are (rightly) unhappy about going back to living in Stone Age standards, then they should consider that not making the transition will most likely lead there.

... or at least hundreds of millions of people will die, vast amounts of infrastructure will be lost, and those around now in general and those who didn't see it is a problem in particular will be blamed. The lack of respect for nature and the underestimation of the consequences it can throw at us amazes me, too. And if we don't adapt, it will show us exactly why it, not other humans, are the biggest devastators around.

Well, considering the current rise in global average temperature is both a. Indisputable and b. Correlates entirely with human activity, I would say that yes, changing the way we do things (which does cost money, and look above at far greater "wastes" of money) can help, yes. The alternative, of course, being letting the consequences run amok, and being responsible for not only a great many human deaths, but also our very own biosphere extinction event (though due to related factors, that's likely happening anyway).

Depends. Do you like the environment the way it is and do people now want to be remembered with the uttermost revulsion by future generations as the ones that totally wrecked things for them? Do agree China need to put more in the pot (their current record on establishing renewable infrastructure putting everyone else in the shade notwithstanding) though, that particular loophole should have been closed years ago.

According to this, the cost in 2022 alone, let alone since, would cover it.