Climate change: What can we do?

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

In my opinion we will not be successful in addressing climate change unless we address the all the causes of climate change as an essential part of the solution.  This planet has an ever-increasing population which places its demands upon all resources, including food and energy.  Our solutions to those demands are contributors to climate change.  If we want a sustainable planet without the imminent threat of irreversible climate change I believe that we must drastically reduce the world's population, not by war or euthanasia but by strictly limiting birth rates.  This will require international co-operation not seen to date and will jeopardise economies which are structured to thrive in increasing markets.  This will be highly unpalatable but we are living with a gun to our head, and unless we realise this the necessary action is unlikely to be forthcoming.  The target is a much smaller population which uses the planets resources in a sustainable manner.

3

 

The problem in a nutshell - the people with the power to change things are the very ones with the most vested interest in keeping things the same.

 

The irony is, the smaller population you speak of will be a natural result of doing nothing - billions will starve or die of thirst, many more will die in wars fighting over diminishing water and food resources. But it will be the little people who die, not the rich and powerful.

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

The irony is, the smaller population you speak of will be a natural result of doing nothing - billions will starve or die of thirst, many more will die in wars fighting over diminishing water and food resources. But it will be the little people who die, not the rich and powerful.

But the other side of that coin is the poorest people will also be ones who suffer on trying to tackle it.

 

No way of saying otherwise, we need to stop flying and driving - if that happens the rich will be the only ones who can afford to do so and even government legislation wouldn't change that.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The problem in a nutshell - the people with the power to change things are the very ones with the most vested interest in keeping things the same.

 

The irony is, the smaller population you speak of will be a natural result of doing nothing - billions will starve or die of thirst, many more will die in wars fighting over diminishing water and food resources. But it will be the little people who die, not the rich and powerful.

Those rich and powerful people would not escape such a collapse, not in the end. A population crash of that type would mean that they simply could not sustain the lifestyle they would wish for - it requires too many people doing too many complex things.

 

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

But the other side of that coin is the poorest people will also be ones who suffer on trying to tackle it.

 

No way of saying otherwise, we need to stop flying and driving - if that happens the rich will be the only ones who can afford to do so and even government legislation wouldn't change that.

Not if the bigger players help through making sustainable energy sources easily and cheaply available.

 

Transportation is a different matter, but it is power generation that is the key driver of increased carbon dioxide levels.

 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Those rich and powerful people would not escape such a collapse, not in the end. A population crash of that type would mean that they simply could not sustain the lifestyle they would wish for - it requires too many people doing too many complex things.

 

 

At the moment, but with increasing use of robots and AI, who knows?

 

Maybe I read too much Asimov...

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

At the moment, but with increasing use of robots and AI, who knows?

 

Maybe I read too much Asimov...

I'm a techie but I can't see civilisation being automated to that level for a while yet. There's so many complex areas of upkeep that people take for granted.

 

They might *think* they would be able to carry on as they are, but I think they would be fatally mistaken.

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Those rich and powerful people would not escape such a collapse, not in the Not if the bigger players help through making sustainable energy sources easily and cheaply available.

 

Transportation is a different matter, but it is power generation that is the key driver of increased carbon dioxide levels.

Problem is the collapse isn't really anytime soon and no matter how many 16 year old girls tell us the World is going to turn into a fireball before the end of their lives we all know it actually isn't. 

 

Surely it's going to need to be rationed whatever though? Even sustainable energy is going to need to be backed, the wind and the sun isn't going to give 7 billion the desire they need.

 

It's very strange how society has become this selfish, when I saw Notre Dame burning it struck me how many people worked on that and some dedicated their lives to building it despite knowing they would never see the result, I doubt many on the planet would have that dedication now.

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Problem is the collapse isn't really anytime soon and no matter how many 16 year old girls tell us the World is going to turn into a fireball before the end of their lives we all know it actually isn't. 

 

Surely it's going to need to be rationed whatever though? Even sustainable energy is going to need to be backed, the wind and the sun isn't going to give 7 billion the desire they need.

 

It's very strange how society has become this selfish, when I saw Notre Dame burning it struck me how many people worked on that and some dedicated their lives to building it despite knowing they would never see the result, I doubt many on the planet would have that dedication now.

I'm sorry Matt, but you have no way of knowing that and frankly no right to take the gamble of assuming it isn't on the future of others.

 

WRT energy supply, I'm pointing out that the big players do have enough resources to build renewable infrastructure in places that need it - not enough for all those people to "live like Westerners" (what a vulgar term), but certainly enough to give them a chance to go by themselves from there. The poor around the world do not have to be the ones to feel the brunt of any shift in energy policy - that's solely in the hands of the powerful.

 

I'd agree with the last paragraph, though - perhaps it has always been this way but people do have to be more motivated to build a world that exists beyond the end of their own lives. Problem is (I think) we're sort of hardwired to only care about things within our own life time frame (evolutionary instinct and all that) so overcoming that is difficult, but the various projects like Notre Dame and the like show it can be done. That change to energy generation worldwide, a shift from oil, gas and coal to more sustainable, less polluting sources, is our Notre Dame - a chance to build something that future generations will remember and thank us for.

[Buce]

Corbyn launches bid to declare a national climate emergency

Labour will attempt to force Commons vote as it is revealed that the government has failed to spend anti-pollution cash

 

Labour will this week force a vote in parliament to declare a national environmental and climate change emergency as confidential documents show the government has spent only a fraction of a £100m fund allocated in 2015 to support clean air projects.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party will demand on Wednesday that the country wakes up to the threat and acts with urgency to avoid more than 1.5°C of warming, which will require global emissions to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching “net zero” before 2050.

The move will place Conservative MPs under pressure to back the plan, or explain why they refuse to do so, now fears over the combined problems of air pollution and climate change have risen to the top of the political agenda.

 

On Saturday night Corbyn said the recent wave of protests were “a massive and necessary wake-up call” that demanded “rapid and dramatic action, which only concerted government action and a green industrial revolution can deliver.” He said that if parliament backed the move and became the first national legislature to declare a climate emergency it would “trigger a wave of action from governments around the world”.

The motion was welcomed by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who has criticised the inaction of the world’s politicians. “It is a great first step because it sends a clear signal that we are in a crisis and that the ongoing climate and ecological crises must be our first priority,” she said. “We can not solve an emergency without treating it like an emergency. “I hope the other UK political parties join in and together pass this motion in parliament – and that political parties in other countries will follow their example.”

The motion will call for new targets on the mass rollout of renewable and low carbon energy and transport, proper funding of environmental protection, reversing species decline and developing plans to move towards a zero waste economy.

The plan comes as confidential minutes of a government advisory group obtained by the Observer show how all but a small proportion of a £100m pot allocated to Highways England to combat air pollution “on and near our roads” in 2015 has not been spent, despite a 2020 deadline.

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Highways England designated funds advisory group from last December and marked “Sensitivity - Official”, reveal concerns at the highest level that the money may not be spent within the defined timetable. Highways England is the government company charged with operating, maintaining and improving England’s motorways and major A roads. The minutes state that a “key risk remains of fully investing all remaining air quality designated funding by the end of March 2020. By the end of October 2018 just £2.82m had been invested.”

A Highways England spokesperson said on Saturday night that the total spent was now £7.7m: “We aim to deliver £75m of investment, as set out in the government’s road investment strategy.

“Since 2015 we have been doing the necessary investigation to find meaningful and effective measures to improve air quality alongside our network; to date we have spent £7.7m, of the air quality funds, including support for the electric van demonstration centre in Leeds, which is being delivered in partnership with Leeds city council, and electric charging points. We are also progressing the rollout of the national air quality barrier programme, and continue to support local authorities with the delivery of their clean air zones.”

Polly Billington, director of UK100, a network that campaigns for clean air, said on Saturday night: “This is scandalous. Ministers and quangos have sat on funding that should be used to clean up toxic fumes from our major roads and motorways 700 people in the UK die every week from diseases related to air pollution, 20 times the number of deaths in road accidents. No more dithering or delays – government must deliver this funding urgently to prevent more needless illness and deaths.”

UK100 has written to the transport secretary Chris Grayling and the chief executive of Highways England, Jim O’Sullivan, to demand a comprehensive action plan to use the remaining funding, including a major expansion of electric vehicle charging points. As of January 2019, there are just under 16,000 electric charging points in England.

This week, Pascal Lamy, the World Trade Organisation’s former director general, will add to the pressure on the government, warning a London audience that Brexit risks damaging the UK’s leadership on climate change. Lamy’s intervention accompanies new research from leading lawyers showing that existing preparations would not prevent damaging roll-backs on key climate change and environmental protections. It comes just days before the Committee on Climate Change publishes advice to the government on long-term climate change targets.

Lamy will say: “It is vital that any new trade deal or environment treaty between the UK and EU protects the region’s global leadership position on climate change. Without safeguards to ensure strong continued cooperation and alignment, Brexit could destroy environmental protections – well beyond allowing chlorinated chicken imports.”

Writing in Sunday’s Observer shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey says: “Unless we take rapid action to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere, we face total catastrophe.”

Edited 28 April 2019 by Buce

[Captain...]

On 27/04/2019 at 14:47, Crinklyfox said:

This will require international co-operation not seen to date and will jeopardise economies which are structured to thrive in increasing markets. 

That’s essentially the problem every business model is built around growth you can’t just keep growing with finite resources.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That’s essentially the problem every business model is built around growth you can’t just keep growing with finite resources.

And competition, too - which diverts even more resources.

 

That's the other part of the problem.

[ozleicester]

Officially a Climate emergency.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677

 

Well done protesters...now just needs action from government

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Officially a Climate emergency.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677

 

Well done protesters...now just needs action from government

Are you giving up driving and flying now like the protestors demand?

[David Guiza]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Are you giving up driving and flying now like the protestors demand?

I hate this argument, it's used across a range of different topics and is as infuriating each time. 

 

An example - people who critique those who are against the dog meat festival but are happy to eat a pig. Even as a vegetarian I find that bizarre. Yes it would be great if the meat/dairy industry was as scorned by the masses as the dog meat festival, but I much prefer those that actually stand up against something rather than sit in their computer chairs scorning those who do because said person doesn't live on a commune wearing Hemp and eating tofu. 

 

AS Roma travel to many of their away games on the train as opposed to flying, which is fantastic, but they would have an even smaller carbon footprint if they walked a few hundred miles to Turin; as with anything in life it's about moderation.

 

I have traveled on planes twice in the past 3/4 years, but I drive virtually every day because my place of work is 20 miles away and would take hours on public transport. Sure I could certainly do more, but 5 years of not eating meat (along with avoiding palm oil etc) and not really using air travel is a reasonable enough effort on my part and I'm not going to feel bad about it because some troll thinks those who care about the environment should swim to Europe whilst they continue to live care free. 

 

It's the same with those who are desperate for the young girl to fail because her mum once sang in Eurovision - it really is quite something to see grown adults throw their toys out the pram about a teenager's opinion not being valid because one of her parents is Sweden's answer to Scooch. 

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I hate this argument, it's used across a range of different topics and is as infuriating each time. 

 

An example - people who critique those who are against the dog meat festival but are happy to eat a pig. Even as a vegetarian I find that bizarre. Yes it would be great if the meat/dairy industry was as scorned by the masses as the dog meat festival, but I much prefer those that actually stand up against something rather than sit in their computer chairs scorning those who do because said person doesn't live on a commune wearing Hemp and eating tofu. 

 

AS Roma travel to many of their away games on the train as opposed to flying, which is fantastic, but they would have an even smaller carbon footprint if they walked a few hundred miles to Turin; as with anything in life it's about moderation.

 

I have traveled on planes twice in the past 3/4 years, but I drive virtually every day because my place of work is 20 miles away and would take hours on public transport. Sure I could certainly do more, but 5 years of not eating meat (along with avoiding palm oil etc) and not really using air travel is a reasonable enough effort on my part and I'm not going to feel bad about it because some troll thinks those who care about the environment should swim to Europe whilst they continue to live care free. 

 

It's the same with those who are desperate for the young girl to fail because her mum once sang in Eurovision - it really is quite something to see grown adults throw their toys out the pram about a teenager's opinion not being valid because one of her parents is Sweden's answer to Scooch. 

It's used in this case by people who would rather the debate not happen at all because they don't want to see anything done to impair their own lives, nothing more.

 

If they actually wanted positive environmental change, such an argument would also come with alternative suggestions for doing so rather than just the ad hominems.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's used in this case by people who would rather the debate not happen at all because they don't want to see anything done to impair their own lives, nothing more.

 

If they actually wanted positive environmental change, such an argument would also come with alternative suggestions for doing so rather than just the ad hominems.

It's about holding people to the standards they expect of others. If you support extinction rebellion and it's aims then you should be adjusting your lifestyle to adapt to those aims.

 

Many people are sick of the left wing "do as I say not as I do" attitude and it's quite rightly called out.

 

Just because many on my side aren't being sycophantic to a 16 year old with no arguments or solutions doesn't mean we don't want to do anything about the problem.

[Guest]

There must be something wrong with me but I really don't think people (the vast, vast majority) are willing to do anything that would really make a difference. I think nearly everyone says they want to save the planet and says that they'd be willing to do what's needed but actions show that they aren't. in fact actions show exactly the oppososite, people are willing to continue destroying their planet in order to have a better life at the second.

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, MattP said:

It's about holding people to the standards they expect of others. If you support extinction rebellion and it's aims then you should be adjusting your lifestyle to adapt to those aims.

 

Many people are sick of the left wing "do as I say not as I do" attitude and it's quite rightly called out.

 

Just because many on my side aren't being sycophantic to a 16 year old with no arguments or solutions doesn't mean we don't want to do anything about the problem.

 

I'm sorry once again (seem to be saying that a lot on this topic recently), but beyond some vaguely Malthusian ideas about population control I've heard nothing from you personally about solutions to this problem, which leads me to believe the above. If you want to clarify here (Prussian actually made some decent points on doing something about it in the Trump thread) and prove me wrong then please, feel free.

 

Without actual counterpoints to the facts of the situation, the hypocrisy argument is a deflection from what needs to be done, nothing more. Even if pointing out hypocrisy does feel good as an argument (and is indeed accurate most of the time) and people can be as sick of hypocrisy as they like, it changes nothing about what is actually going on with the Earth.

 

Regarding Miss Thunberg, she has several arguments and solutions which have been made public knowledge and I'm not sure why the mention of her age is important beyond an attempt to condescendingly patronise.

 

11 hours ago, FIF said:

There must be something wrong with me but I really don't think people (the vast, vast majority) are willing to do anything that would really make a difference. I think nearly everyone says they want to save the planet and says that they'd be willing to do what's needed but actions show that they aren't. in fact actions show exactly the oppososite, people are willing to continue destroying their planet in order to have a better life at the second.

I really hope you're wrong, but right now I can't offer much in the way of compelling evidence to the contrary beyond some individual examples that aren't really enough.

Edited 3 May 2019 by leicsmac

[ozleicester]

https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/nine-things-you-can-do-to-save-the-environment/

[Buce]

Biodiversity crisis is about to put humanity at risk, UN scientists to warn

‘We are in trouble if we don’t act,’ say experts, with up to 1m species at risk of annihilation

 

The world’s leading scientists will warn the planet’s life-support systems are approaching a danger zone for humanity when they release the results of the most comprehensive study of life on Earth ever undertaken.

Up to 1m species are at risk of annihilation, many within decades, according to a leaked draft of the global assessment report, which has been compiled over three years by the UN’s leading research body on nature.

The 1,800-page study will show people living today, as well as wildlife and future generations, are at risk unless urgent action is taken to reverse the loss of plants, insects and other creatures on which humanity depends for food, pollination, clean water and a stable climate.

 

The final wording of the summary for policymakers is being finalised in Paris by a gathering of experts and government representatives before the launch on Monday, but the overall message is already clear, according to Robert Watson, the chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

“There is no question we are losing biodiversity at a truly unsustainable rate that will affect human wellbeing both for current and future generations,” he said. “We are in trouble if we don’t act, but there are a range of actions that can be taken to protect nature and meet human goals for health and development.”

The authors hope the first global assessment of biodiversity in almost 15 years will push the nature crisis into the global spotlight in the same way climate breakdown has surged up the political agenda since the 1.5C report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Like its predecessor, the report is a compilation of reams of academic studies, in this case on subjects ranging from ocean plankton and subterranean bacteria to honey bees and Amazonian botany. Following previous findings on the decimation of wildlife, the overview of the state of the world’s nature is expected to provide evidence that the world is facing a sixth wave of extinction. Unlike the past five, this one is human-driven.

Mike Barrett, WWF’s executive director of conservation and science, said: “All of our ecosystems are in trouble. This is the most comprehensive report on the state of the environment. It irrefutably confirms that nature is in steep decline.”

Barrett said this posed an environmental emergency for humanity, which is threatened by a triple challenge of climate, nature and food production. “There is no time to despair,” he said. “We should be hopeful that we have a window of opportunity to do something about it over these two years.”

The report will sketch out possible future scenarios that will vary depending on the decisions taken by governments, businesses and individuals. The next year and a half is likely to be crucial because world leaders will agree rescue plans for nature and the climate at two big conferences at the end of 2020.

That is when China will host the UN framework convention on biodiversity gathering in Kunming, which will establish new 20-year targets to replace those agreed in Aichi, Japan, in 2010. Soon after, the UN framework convention on climate change will revise Paris agreement commitments at a meeting in either the UK, Italy, Belgium or Turkey.

Watson, a British professor who has headed both of the UN’s leading scientific panels, said the forthcoming report will delve more deeply than anything before into the causes of nature collapse, chief among which is the conversion of forests, wetlands and other wild landscapes into ploughed fields, dam reservoirs and concrete cities. Three-quarters of the world’s land surface has been severely altered, according to the leaked draft. Humanity is also decimating the living systems on which we depend by emitting carbon dioxide and spreading invasive species.

Watson said the authors have learned from attribution science, which has transformed the debate on the climate crisis by showing how much more likely hurricanes, droughts and floods have become as a result of global heating.

The goal is to persuade an audience beyond the usual green NGOs and government departments. “We need to appeal not just to environment ministers, but to those in charge of agriculture, transport and energy because they are the ones responsible for the drivers of biodiversity loss,” he said.

A focus will be to move away from protection of individual species and areas, and to look at systemic drivers of change, including consumption and trade.

The political environment is changing in some countries due to overwhelming scientific evidence and increasing public concern about the twin crises of nature and climate, which have prompted more than 1 million students to strike from school and led to street protests by Extinction Rebellion activists in more than a dozen countries.

The UK parliament declared a climate emergency this week and the government’s chief climate advisory body recommended an accelerated plan to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050. Until now, however, the nature crisis has been treated as far less of a priority. “Where are the headlines? Where are the emergency meetings?” asked the school strike founder, Greta Thunberg, in a recent tweet on the subject.

Extinction Rebellion activists said protests that blocked several London streets last month were as much aimed at the defence of nature as stabilising the climate. “They are two sides of the same destructive coin,” said Farhana Yamin, a coordinator of the movement who is also an environmental lawyer and formerly a lead author of the IPCC report.

“The work of IPBES is as crucial as the work done by the IPCC on the 1.5-degree report. That is why Extinction Rebellion is demanding an end [to] biodiversity loss and a net-zero phaseout by 2020. We can’t save humanity by only tackling climate change or only caring about biodiversity.”

Edited 3 May 2019 by Buce

[Dr The Singh]

Without the likes of India and China massively reducing pollution were pissong I the wind 

 

Any stats on India are false, my dad owns 3 manufacturing plants that pay off the pollution officials, to state they are on target, X that by millions my friends.

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, Dr The Singh said:

Without the likes of India and China massively reducing pollution were pissong I the wind 

 

Any stats on India are false, my dad owns 3 manufacturing plants that pay off the pollution officials, to state they are on target, X that by millions my friends.

Making plastic sex dolls is toxic but you must have your pick of the litter!

[Dr The Singh]

6 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Making plastic sex dolls is toxic but you must have your pick of the litter!

Not really,.l people from your pind are wearing them as gimp masks my friend.

[Jattdogg]

3 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

Not really,.l people from your pind are wearing them as gimp masks my friend.

Lol its india nothing surprises me on that front.