Extinction Rebellion

[nnfox]

It's plainly obvious that there is no simple solution to this.  It needs a joined up global response with international law and agreement which I fear will never happen to a meaningful level.

 

Realistically the solutions are technological.  Private industry has some of the technology and a close working relationship between the scientists who develop the ideas, industry that can mass produce and governments that can subsidise and facilitate the wider deployment of thise solutions.

 

It will cost a fortune and in my view, the cost should be picked up by the G7 nations who have historically benefitted most from industrialisation over the last couple of centuries.  They need to come together and assist the developing world with implementing the greener technology.

 

Some people will become fabulously wealthy off the back of it and that might be a problem for some, but we must look at the bigger picture.  The cost of not taking action will be far greater.

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

The simple Problem/truth is The Enlightened West, is probably not carrying  6% of the World's  populace

Probably then Not 2% Really care,though Not because they dont want to...Simply because everybody has to get on with life & Live their given lot...Roulade

 

Thats how Governments work, knowing their Electorate  are basically apathetic,

to much of their own  outside  environment & issues that dont seem to be effecting

their 24hr 7 day week routine. Grandads/Grandmas funeral, Tommy's Birthday,Heathers wedding,Tante Emma in hospital, the dog humping the the Apple tree,

the neighbours upset over the Cat Shitting in "his" garden....how is the Football Team getting on & when is the next chance of a decent Pint.

 

The Status Quo ( & Not from Rocking all over the world..sort) are Simply not that bovvered nor ready to react upon those things they complain about most...

It was just a good debate,and we all feel better humans now attitude..

 

 

If I'm reading this right, then it's saying that humans are displaying the kind of thinking that ensures they are doomed - by not thinking wide enough or long enough.

 

I hope that it is wrong.

[Wymsey]

27 minutes ago, jonthefox said:

Going to London tomorrow. It's going to be interesting to see, that's for sure. 

Would you join in the protests/believe in their beliefs/ideas?

[Houdini Logic]

Just now, ozleicester said:

feel free to explain

There is a drive from investors (for various boring reasons I won't go into) to invest in companies more longer term. This is driving a change from investors for companies/CEOs to put in place ESG policies because investors are realising (1) the company needs to be sustainable if they're going to invest in it for the next 10-20 years and (2) they're worried about the negative impact ESG concerns will have on the shareprice. So this is driving a change in business. It's not because investors care about people - they just care about protecting their money for the longer term.

The business world is also learning that climate change is having a genuine impact on them - e.g. insurance companies and crop failures. Whilst that may seem like a fairly isolated area, it's not - many companies invest their money (dare I say Pensions) in things like insurance markets and so if these insurance companies are starting to be impacted by climate change then a lot of organisations will feel the effect.

It may be worth looking at some of the videos on here - there is a lot of interesting stuff:
https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021/programme

https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021/sessions/developing-the-evolution-of-stakeholder-capitalism

[ozleicester]

6 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

There is a drive from investors (for various boring reasons I won't go into) to invest in companies more longer term. This is driving a change from investors for companies/CEOs to put in place ESG policies because investors are realising (1) the company needs to be sustainable if they're going to invest in it for the next 10-20 years and (2) they're worried about the negative impact ESG concerns will have on the shareprice. So this is driving a change in business. It's not because investors care about people - they just care about protecting their money for the longer term.

The business world is also learning that climate change is having a genuine impact on them - e.g. insurance companies and crop failures. Whilst that may seem like a fairly isolated area, it's not - many companies invest their money (dare I say Pensions) in things like insurance markets and so if these insurance companies are starting to be impacted by climate change then a lot of organisations will feel the effect.

It may be worth looking at some of the videos on here - there is a lot of interesting stuff:
https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021/programme

https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021/sessions/developing-the-evolution-of-stakeholder-capitalism

so.. and maybe im not understanding but.. business is seeing that it is in their interest to take action... and the reason for that is their shareholders demand it

[Houdini Logic]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

so.. and maybe im not understanding but.. business is seeing that it is in their interest to take action... and the reason for that is their shareholders demand it

Yes, pretty much. And sadly we live in a world where if shareholders/investors demand something it will likely bring about a change

[jonthefox]

18 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Would you join in the protests/believe in their beliefs/ideas?

Not really. I understand their objective but it's not for me.

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-climate-comprehensive.html

 

"Climate change is happening and accelerating. Earth will continue to warm. And these changes are unequivocally caused by human activities."

 

"The latest IPCC report shows clearly that if we do not drastically curb our emissions, we will head towards temperatures that Earth has not seen in millions of years."

 

And yet there's still folks on here and out in the wider world who won't accept there is a problem (or at least not discuss a solution) for their own reasons.

[Raj]

@Houdini Logic has made some interesting  points  about the business world.

Still needs the mere mortals  to make a noise too

Edited 28 August 2021 by Raj

[fuchsntf]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If I'm reading this right, then it's saying that humans are displaying the kind of thinking that ensures they are doomed - by not thinking wide enough or long enough.

 

I hope that it is wrong.

I Read from the left...Right is for Stokesy...

[Mickey O'Neil]

On 27/08/2021 at 10:41, pmcla26 said:

Missed most of this, can someone do a bullet point run down of what's going on in here please? 

Raj is on one.

We're apparently against saving the planet just because we don't agree with XR's methods.

Leicsmac has taken on the roll of headmaster and is scolding us all

XR are not smelly tramps after all 

XR don't add to the carbon footprint

 

That's about it for now

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

Raj is on one.

We're apparently against saving the planet just because we don't agree with XR's methods.

Leicsmac has taken on the roll of headmaster and is scolding us all

XR are not smelly tramps after all 

XR don't add to the carbon footprint

 

That's about it for now

 

 

Yeah, this particular issue does put something of a bee in my bonnet.

 

In my own defence though, I did say that folks who go after XR and then don't come up with their own idea about what might be done (bolded and italicised for emphasis and some folks here have come up with their own ideas) appear to not consider the actual problem all that important for whatever reason. I mean, what other conclusions can I come to? I'd be happy to hear some.

 

Just struggling the get my head round the mentality of it, and I'd like to.

[dsr-burnley]

What doesn't help is when even respectable organisations like the BBC try to get on the stop-global-warming train and get it wrong.  Badly wrong.

 

There was a long article on BBC News this lunchtime about forest fires.  Mediterranean, mostly.  Making out that forest fires rampaging over the area are mankind's fault.

 

Well, they aren't.  If there were no people within 100 miles of the Mediterranean, there would still be forest fires.  Trees grow, they die, they dry out, and in hot seasons, they spontaneously combust.  (Not in the UK - they rot.)  If there was no human activity, the trees would combust irregularly and cause small fires which would die out when they reach a band of healthy, moist trees or a patch with little growth because of a previous fire or they basically wouldn't get going.  But because mankind does its best to stop the fires happening, usually without simulating the effects of fires as if they had happened, then when the fire takes hold, it goes like stink.

 

I'm never impressed with pictures of floods on flood plains either.  They need to get serious scientists involved and make sure that what they are broadcasting is rigorous and stands up to those who would criticise.

[dsr-burnley]

On 26/08/2021 at 14:12, ealingfox said:

How does one know that people at the XR protests aren't practising what they preach? Has every individual been privately investigated? Just sounds like classic projection assuming that because you don't do something, others can't be doing it either.

 

You might not lead a zero-carbon lifestyle, but carbon offsetting schemes are widely accessible now.

Isn't carbon offsetting, just a way of putting prices up?  Any action on climate change that is based on the idea that the rich can carry on jetsetting while the poor must go back to a week in Blackpool - it isn't going to work.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

What doesn't help is when even respectable organisations like the BBC try to get on the stop-global-warming train and get it wrong.  Badly wrong.

 

There was a long article on BBC News this lunchtime about forest fires.  Mediterranean, mostly.  Making out that forest fires rampaging over the area are mankind's fault.

 

Well, they aren't.  If there were no people within 100 miles of the Mediterranean, there would still be forest fires.  Trees grow, they die, they dry out, and in hot seasons, they spontaneously combust.  (Not in the UK - they rot.)  If there was no human activity, the trees would combust irregularly and cause small fires which would die out when they reach a band of healthy, moist trees or a patch with little growth because of a previous fire or they basically wouldn't get going.  But because mankind does its best to stop the fires happening, usually without simulating the effects of fires as if they had happened, then when the fire takes hold, it goes like stink.

 

I'm never impressed with pictures of floods on flood plains either.  They need to get serious scientists involved and make sure that what they are broadcasting is rigorous and stands up to those who would criticise.

This is true. The fires themselves aren't the fault of man.

 

The severity and increased likelihood of them through increased global temperatures, however, is. Ditto increased severe rainfall events that lead to more frequent and severe flooding events. To say nothing of possible droughts that will cause famine and lack of potable water.

 

I'd agree that they need to get it right though and state that these events are exacerbated by man, rather than just being caused by them. As you say, being correct is important because those who wish for the status quo will jump on almost any error.

 

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Isn't carbon offsetting, just a way of putting prices up?  Any action on climate change that is based on the idea that the rich can carry on jetsetting while the poor must go back to a week in Blackpool - it isn't going to work.

Agree with the sentiment here and I'm sure there is a way to apply a solution that means no one has to give up their current level of comfort.

Edited 29 August 2021 by leicsmac

[yorkie1999]

16 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Isn't carbon offsetting, just a way of putting prices up?  Any action on climate change that is based on the idea that the rich can carry on jetsetting while the poor must go back to a week in Blackpool - it isn't going to work.

Carbon offsetting is investing in things like green energy such as wind farms,  in order to allow you, or big companies, to produce pollutant carbon gasses. The fact that those carbon gasses are still produced seems to be forgotten about and someone somewhere is making a shitload of cash.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Isn't carbon offsetting, just a way of putting prices up?  Any action on climate change that is based on the idea that the rich can carry on jetsetting while the poor must go back to a week in Blackpool - it isn't going to work.

IMO

Carbon offsetting is simply a tax... if we reverted to where we used to be in making the rich (and Corps) PAY MORE TAX... it would help

[Raj]

10 hours ago, Mickey O'Neil said:

Raj is on one.

We're apparently against saving the planet just because we don't agree with XR's methods.

Leicsmac has taken on the roll of headmaster and is scolding us all

XR are not smelly tramps after all 

XR don't add to the carbon footprint

 

That's about it for now

 

😁😁😁reading back some of my comments, I am abit Greta Thunbergy!!!

 

[The People's Hero]

I'm so pleased that I was born early enough that I experienced some life before virtue-signalling was a thing!

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, The People's Hero said:

I'm so pleased that I was born early enough that I experienced some life before virtue-signalling was a thing!

There's an interesting discussion there, I reckon. How long has what some folks would describe as "virtue-signalling" been around?

 

Did the CND protestors in the Cold War engage in it? How about the suffragettes further back?

 

I guess it comes down to how one defines the term.

[Phil Bowman]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's an interesting discussion there, I reckon. How long has what some folks would describe as "virtue-signalling" been around?

Seeing as some folks slap the ‘virtue-signalling’ label on any expression of support for something they have a problem with (usually something like the environment, equality, anti-racism - all that liberal snowflake stuff), probably forever.

 

If virtue signalling is an actual thing, then also probably forever. There have always people who have wanted to sound cooler or more right-on than they are.

 

There are interesting and probably productive discussions to be had around it, to be sure. (Is virtue-signalling really a thing at all, or just a label used to try to shut down debate?)

But I have my doubts about FT being the ideal place for these interesting and productive discussions…

[leicsmac]

A sort-of accurate summation...

[Fightforever]

One of the easier fixes would be to do something about cattle the amount of land used for cattle and cattle itself. It always blows my mind how much land we use for cattle in comparison to how much we use for ourselves as humans. I am in no way a vegan but I find it ridiculous how much resources we put into one type of animal that creates so much pollution. This is just for the USA. Imagine being a starving kid and looking at that graph. Stuff like fake meat look very promising as replacements and they use much less resources to create.

 

If you want to fix climate change most fixes have to be tech fixes. Imagine being a state like Nigeria and being told by wealthy westerners that due to climate change they can't export their only real export that's worth any value (oil). That's asking for countless civil wars in the 3rd world it's just very unrealistic. Some people look down on tech fixes to our enviroment which always has baffled me. Industries all have their own unique case for causing pollution coming up with bespoke solutions for each one in every state and company in the world would just be unfeasible.

We need the G7 to put serious funding into carbon capturing tech or creating bacteria that eat greenhouse gasses and churn out oxygen. Give them the funding and tone down the regulation and you would be suprised how creative scientists can be. We found a covid vaccine way quicker than estimated I don't see why without an effort we can't do something about climate change. We need to put more money into thorium reactors as well. The capability to create thorium reactors has been around for ages but no one has given it any investment and the usual scaremongering over anything nuclear has pretty much made it so no progress has been made on that front.

Edited 30 August 2021 by Fightforever

[Nicolo Barella]

41 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

One of the easier fixes would be to do something about cattle the amount of land used for cattle and cattle itself. It always blows my mind how much land we use for cattle in comparison to how much we use for ourselves as humans. I am in no way a vegan but I find it ridicoulous how much resources we put into one type of animal that creates so much pollution. This is just for USA. Imagine being a starving kid and looking at that graph. Stuff like fake meat look very promising as replacements and they use much less resources to create.

 

If you want to fix climate change most fixes have to be tech fixes. Imagine being a state like Nigeria and being told by wealthy westerners that due to climate change they can't export their only real export that's worth any value (oil). That's asking for countless civil wars in the 3rd world it's just very unrealistic. Some people look down on tech fixes to our enviroment which always has baffled me. Industries all have their own unique case for causing pollution coming up with bespoke solutions for each one in every state and company in the world would just be unfeasible.

We need the G7 to put serious funding into carbon capturing tech or creating bacteria that eat greenhouse gasses and churn out oxygen. Give them the funding and tone down the regulation and you would be suprised how creative scientists can be. We found a covid vaccine way quicker than estimated I don't see why without an effort we can't do something about climate change. We need to put more money into thorium reactors as well. The capability to create thorium reactors has been around for ages but no one has given it any investment and the usual scaremongering over anything nuclear has pretty much made it so no progress has been made on that front.

We have all we the tools we need right now to make huge changes to our footprint. Change the focus of subsidies from corn/cattle in the West, develop nuclear reactors, build better train systems, so many obvious fixes that would have huge impacts that are very achievable. Technological advances will help us but we shouldn't be relying on them - with political will, we could very easily start making huge positive impacts. It is depressing that the biggest pushes are from ultimately smaller issues like plastic bags/straws

[leicsmac]

48 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

One of the easier fixes would be to do something about cattle the amount of land used for cattle and cattle itself. It always blows my mind how much land we use for cattle in comparison to how much we use for ourselves as humans. I am in no way a vegan but I find it ridicoulous how much resources we put into one type of animal that creates so much pollution. This is just for USA. Imagine being a starving kid and looking at that graph. Stuff like fake meat look very promising as replacements and they use much less resources to create.

 

If you want to fix climate change most fixes have to be tech fixes. Imagine being a state like Nigeria and being told by wealthy westerners that due to climate change they can't export their only real export that's worth any value (oil). That's asking for countless civil wars in the 3rd world it's just very unrealistic. Some people look down on tech fixes to our enviroment which always has baffled me. Industries all have their own unique case for causing pollution coming up with bespoke solutions for each one in every state and company in the world would just be unfeasible.

We need the G7 to put serious funding into carbon capturing tech or creating bacteria that eat greenhouse gasses and churn out oxygen. Give them the funding and tone down the regulation and you would be suprised how creative scientists can be. We found a covid vaccine way quicker than estimated I don't see why without an effort we can't do something about climate change. We need to put more money into thorium reactors as well. The capability to create thorium reactors has been around for ages but no one has given it any investment and the usual scaremongering over anything nuclear has pretty much made it so no progress has been made on that front.

Yep.

 

Not only are tech fixes more likely to be acceptable to people around the world, looking at long term civilisational survival they're the only option anyway.

 

2 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

We have all we the tools we need right now to make huge changes to our footprint. Change the focus of subsidies from corn/cattle in the West, develop nuclear reactors, build better train systems, so many obvious fixes that would have huge impacts that are very achievable. Technological advances will help us but we shouldn't be relying on them - with political will, we could very easily start making huge positive impacts. It is depressing that the biggest pushes are from ultimately smaller issues like plastic bags/straws

The problem is that there are a lot of vested interests (agri and oil lobby to name but two) invested in maintaining the status quo. That's why making the big changes politically can be difficult.