Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The increase in ocean temps in the n Atlantic and n Pacific over the past forty years is likely more driven by geo thermal than any other contributor.  The issue for the planet is that the oceans are its natural air conditioning (over a long period which is also relevant ).  if we’ve been unlucky enough to get our massive co2 contribution occurring at the same time as a notable spell of ocean based geo thermal input then we’ve lost what might have mitigated some of the mess we’ve heavily contributed to.
 

  

That would be a serious coincidence, given the historic correlation between carbon emissions and temperature forcing of air and water.

 

I reckon it's reasonably moot anyway except as an excuse, what needs to be done still needs to be done.

 

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

the red herrings are only going to get bigger if trump makes it in two weeks 
 

  

Without a shadow of a doubt.

 

And everything should be done to hold such parties accountable for that when (not if) the worst happens because of their apathy and short term self interest.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0d24w28qno

 

The headlines are pretty grim - without action the world could warm by a massive 3.1C this century, the UN says in a new report published today.

But how likely is that?

As is often the case with climate change and the science behind it - the answer is complicated.

The UN Emissions Gap report indicates that if only “current policies” are implemented the world could warm by up to 3.1C.

This would be “catastrophic” for the world according to the UN, leading to dramatic increases in extreme weather events including heatwaves and floods.

Working outside under that level of warming would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

 

Nothing new under the sun (pun not intended) from this report, but it is a reminder that without change, things go bad (or worse), and they go bad pretty quickly.

[ozleicester]

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime

[Trav Le Bleu]

18 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime

Unsurprising.

[ozleicester]

7 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Unsurprising.

What i find surprising is the blase' attitude to them and their ways by the gen pub.... you got them destroying the environment, buying elections and literally causing starvation and homelessness and war.... and if someone dares to question them or suggest tax increase... bob the bootlicker is all....

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dpnxnvv2go

 

It is now "virtually certain" that 2024 - a year punctuated by intense heatwaves and deadly storms - will be the world's warmest on record, according to projections by the European climate service.

Global average temperatures across the year are on track to end up more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, which would make 2024 the first calendar year to breach this symbolic mark.

 

Ahead of schedule too. How about that.

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0zd2z53xo

 

World leaders are set to arrive at a big annual UN climate meeting hoping to rein in rising global temperatures, which are making deadly events like the recent floods in Spain far worse.

A key aim at this year's meeting in Azerbaijan is agreeing on how to get more cash to poorer countries to help them curb their planet-warming gases and to help them cope with the growing impacts of climate change.

But the US election victory of Donald Trump - a known climate sceptic - as well as wars and cost of living crises are proving a distraction, and some important leaders are not attending.

Hosts Azerbaijan are also under intense scrutiny over their human rights record, as well as accusations they are using the meeting to line up fossil fuel deals.

A look at the latest preparation for the next COP in the light of recent events.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lknel1xpo

 

The United Nations' COP climate talks are "no longer fit for purpose" and need an urgent overhaul, key experts including a former UN secretary general and former UN climate chief have said.

 

Well, that's not great.

 

But again the issue rises; luminaries can write these strongly worded letters as much as they like (and may well be right about it) but to actually see change now than words is needed for enforcement.

 

How that gets sorted I have no bloody idea, but the clock continues to tick and the present and future cost continues to rise.

[WigstonWanderer]

 

Edited 18 November 2024 by WigstonWanderer

[fox_up_north]

The more I think about it, the more I'm sort of glad of where I live. I'm actively trying to contribute less to climate change by eating around 40% less meat and having solar. 

 

I'll likely by dead by the worst of it and at least I tried. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, fox_up_north said:

The more I think about it, the more I'm sort of glad of where I live. I'm actively trying to contribute less to climate change by eating around 40% less meat and having solar. 

 

I'll likely by dead by the worst of it and at least I tried. 

That's all any of us can do, really.

 

And if it all comes to naught, hope that those left behind don't view every single one of us with contempt, but just those who, through ignorance or malice, chose to do nothing.

[DennisNedry]

I thought this was an interesting read so thought I'd share it here:

 

https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2023/09/climate-change-planetary-health-and-the-deep-significance-of-the-anthropocene/

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

I thought this was an interesting read so thought I'd share it here:

 

https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2023/09/climate-change-planetary-health-and-the-deep-significance-of-the-anthropocene/

A very good piece because it does highlight the fact that once we "save" the world (for ourselves and for the life that's here now), then we're going to have to be dynamic in terms of finding solutions to keep saving it. The current changes, if humanity is truly to be a long lived species, are merely the first of many.

[leicsmac]

$300 billion deal reached at COP29.

 

Sadly not enough though, in terms of money or proposed action.

[Wymsey]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

$300 billion deal reached at COP29.

 

Sadly not enough though, in terms of money or proposed action.

How much is enough?

 

Don't think any government in the world has much climate change action proposals; unlike perhaps the likes of Iceland, Norway etc.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Wymsey said:

How much is enough?

 

Don't think any government in the world has much climate change action proposals; unlike perhaps the likes of Iceland, Norway etc.

The sum asked for and likely needed is around four times that.

 

It's a vast sum and people are naturally going to ask where it might come from, but the cost if it isn't done will be so much higher.

 

I think there are solutions that exist on paper and could be implemented, but sadly the politicking and petty nationalism seems to do all it can to get in the way.

[Izzy]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The sum asked for and likely needed is around four times that.

 

It's a vast sum and people are naturally going to ask where it might come from, but the cost if it isn't done will be so much higher.

 

I think there are solutions that exist on paper and could be implemented, but sadly the politicking and petty nationalism seems to do all it can to get in the way.

I imagine all the existing funding of the Ukraine/Russia war would just about cover it 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I imagine all the existing funding of the Ukraine/Russia war would just about cover it 

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

[Izzy]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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

Holy shit, that's outrageous 

[FoxyPV]

There's always money for war but never for helping people

[Otis]

£60 billion from the UK.

Yet £0.5 billion & £2 billion  from the farmers and pensioners is needed to prevent economic collapse. 

 

Oh and China are paying nothing. 

 

Did someone say grift.

 

Meanwhile our energy bills are increasing again. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Otis said:

£60 billion from the UK.

Yet £0.5 billion & £2 billion  from the farmers and pensioners is needed to prevent economic collapse. 

 

Oh and China are paying nothing. 

 

Did someone say grift.

 

Meanwhile our energy bills are increasing again. 

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.

[Otis]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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.

Suppose it depends if you believe that spending vast amounts of money can change the Earths climate, to any real/noticeable extent. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Otis said:

Suppose it depends if you believe that spending vast amounts of money can change the Earths climate, to any real/noticeable extent. 

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).

[Zear0]

According to the IMF, globally the world subsidised the fossil fuel industry by $7 trillion in 2022 alone. 

 https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion

 

Sending some of that money to renewables would provide the benefit of cheaper energy, cleaner air and reduce the severity of climate change. 

 

Unfortunately there are so many economies (the entire middle East, Russia and it's neighbouring - stans, and the US) who's entire economy relies on these industries. Sadly people don't notice these subsidies and make the assumption that green is more expensive when it's actually a fraction of the price. 

 

It's all money and governments looking after themselves. 

Edited 24 November 2024 by Zear0