Climate Change - a poll

[Trav Le Bleu]

Remarkably warm today.

[CornwallFox]

Transparent and up to 75% less energy — China replaced solar panels with photovoltaic windows and now shows the results https://www.ecoportal.net/en/photovoltaic-windows-slash-energy-use/15250/

 

[nnfox]

On 18/12/2025 at 07:38, Trav Le Bleu said:

Remarkably warm today.

I've been saying this for a while.  Summers get all the headlines for heat because the extreme heat is noticed by everyone, but for me, Winters are now a lot milder than they used to be.  We seem to get a fair few days now where the temperature is 8 or 9 degrees above average which is really concerning.  But it's still cool enough to wear a coat, so nobody takes notice.

[Dahnsouff]

34 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I've been saying this for a while.  Summers get all the headlines for heat because the extreme heat is noticed by everyone, but for me, Winters are now a lot milder than they used to be.  We seem to get a fair few days now where the temperature is 8 or 9 degrees above average which is really concerning.  But it's still cool enough to wear a coat, so nobody takes notice.

Agree, this is a silent symptom of the bigger problem.

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I've been saying this for a while.  Summers get all the headlines for heat because the extreme heat is noticed by everyone, but for me, Winters are now a lot milder than they used to be.  We seem to get a fair few days now where the temperature is 8 or 9 degrees above average which is really concerning.  But it's still cool enough to wear a coat, so nobody takes notice.

The entire average is being shifted upwards, yes. 

 

Unfortunately it seems that most people won't really accept the gravity of the problem until it's right on their doorstep, which of course will be too late. 

 

Speaking of which, I saw that another couple of people have added to the poll indicating that rising global average temperatures are not real at all. Not entirely sure how I can get my head around that concept at all these days. I mean, disavowing human input, yes, but denying the entire phenomenon is happening wholesale?

[CornwallFox]

Why governments should be building solar and other clean energy capacity instead of outsourcing to the private sector - as capacity increases the system can oversupply depressing prices. This should be good for energy users but, of course, becomes a problem in a profit led system.

 

Solar power surplus in Spain triggers ‘discount season’ for plants https://share.google/qlrSx83ClAsETgnd8

Edited 26 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Why governments should be building solar and other clean energy capacity instead of outsourcing to the private sector - as capacity increases the system can oversupply depressing prices. This should be good for energy users but, of course, becomes a problem in a profit led system.

 

Solar power surplus in Spain triggers ‘discount season’ for plants https://share.google/qlrSx83ClAsETgnd8

Short term self interest, once again. 

 

On that topic, right now quite frankly I'd simply take enough powerful world governments simply accepting the problem fvcking exists and treating it as anywhere near a priority. 

 

Preferably before the bodies seriously start piling up.

[grobyfox1990]

Some of the world’s largest reinsurance companies boosted profitability this year after they reduced coverage to limit their risk from catastrophic events such as flooding and increased prices for their policies.

 

Your insurer is not going to bail you out when extreme weather conditions flatten your entire life. Start saving for when (not if) that happens ASAP

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Some of the world’s largest reinsurance companies boosted profitability this year after they reduced coverage to limit their risk from catastrophic events such as flooding and increased prices for their policies.

 

Your insurer is not going to bail you out when extreme weather conditions flatten your entire life. Start saving for when (not if) that happens ASAP

Should the full effects become apparent, then I'm not sure any sum of money is going to help tbh. 

 

You being spot on about the insurance companies in the short term notwithstanding.

[grobyfox1990]

https://www.esgtoday.com/china-releases-corporate-climate-reporting-standard/
 

China leading all the profitable transition related activities whilst simultaneously convincing old, tired and stuck in their ways happy clappers that they don’t care about climate change, so western countries should abandon initiatives and leave all the $ to China. 

Are China that clever or are western happy clappers that stupid? Prob somewhere in the middle 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

https://www.esgtoday.com/china-releases-corporate-climate-reporting-standard/
 

China leading all the profitable transition related activities whilst simultaneously convincing old, tired and stuck in their ways happy clappers that they don’t care about climate change, so western countries should abandon initiatives and leave all the $ to China. 

Are China that clever or are western happy clappers that stupid? Prob somewhere in the middle 

 

Yeah, something in the middle for me, too. 

 

While Trump and Putin are playing daft geopolitical games in denial of changing times, the Chinese are quietly getting on with things and guaranteeing a future for themselves (and, hopefully, the rest of the world).

[Grebfromgrebland]

3 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

https://www.esgtoday.com/china-releases-corporate-climate-reporting-standard/
 

China leading all the profitable transition related activities whilst simultaneously convincing old, tired and stuck in their ways happy clappers that they don’t care about climate change, so western countries should abandon initiatives and leave all the $ to China. 

Are China that clever or are western happy clappers that stupid? Prob somewhere in the middle 

 

Well be using fossil fuels till the last human draws breath. Just look at Greenland Venezuela etc. 

 

UK has record oil production we're a long way off taking climate change seriously and when reform get in there'll be zero climate love and full throttle on oil and gas. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Well be using fossil fuels till the last human draws breath. Just look at Greenland Venezuela etc. 

 

UK has record oil production we're a long way off taking climate change seriously and when reform get in there'll be zero climate love and full throttle on oil and gas. 

I've been predicting for a while that by the end of the 2030s there will no longer be any climate change denial but it will also be too late to save swathes of humanity. 

I think the US knows this - it's not like they don't have huge science divisions and resources, but I think they believe they can mitigate the effects once population reduces worldwide and they can grab more of the planet.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I've been predicting for a while that by the end of the 2030s there will no longer be any climate change denial but it will also be too late to save swathes of humanity. 

I think the US knows this - it's not like they don't have huge science divisions and resources, but I think they believe they can mitigate the effects once population reduces worldwide and they can grab more of the planet.

I think at least some of them think that way. They're wrong, of course. 

 

The upheaval and conflict caused by and connected with massive deprivation in vital resources in vast areas will consume their "civilisation" along with everyone else's.

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Well be using fossil fuels till the last human draws breath. Just look at Greenland Venezuela etc. 

 

UK has record oil production we're a long way off taking climate change seriously and when reform get in there'll be zero climate love and full throttle on oil and gas. 

Do you mean record low levels of oil production? Its the lowest its been since the 1970s, so I would guess so.

 

Doing well with our electrical production too. 

 

 

Some of the imports will be from renewables as they will be from France (Nuclear if they are working) and Norway for Hydro.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz947djd3d3o

[MC Prussian]

On 09/01/2026 at 17:58, leicsmac said:

I think at least some of them think that way. They're wrong, of course. 

 

The upheaval and conflict caused by and connected with massive deprivation in vital resources in vast areas will consume their "civilisation" along with everyone else's.

Just as the Chinese do.

 

On 09/01/2026 at 13:39, leicsmac said:

Yeah, something in the middle for me, too. 

 

While Trump and Putin are playing daft geopolitical games in denial of changing times, the Chinese are quietly getting on with things and guaranteeing a future for themselves (and, hopefully, the rest of the world).

By heavily relying on non-renewable resources and a very authoritarian political system (Big Brother, Social Credit).

Where's Greta Thunberg when you really need her?

Edited 11 January by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Just as the Chinese do.

 

Non-sequitur.

 

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

By heavily relying on non-renewable resources and a very authoritarian political system (Big Brother, Social Credit).

Where's Greta Thunberg when you really need her?

Relying less and less on non renewable resources while other major global players are going in the other (wrong) direction. And a system that is disagreeable, but if others don't get their arses in gear the choice will be between that and collapse to Mad Max. Which one of those people prefer evidently depends on the individual. 

 

In any case, the Chinese not getting everything right (but more than most) doesn't give the other big movers and shakers an excuse to be shitty anyway, unless a race to the bottom with all the consequences that entails is somehow appealing. 

[MC Prussian]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Non-sequitur.

 

Relying less and less on non renewable resources while other major global players are going in the other (wrong) direction. And a system that is disagreeable, but if others don't get their arses in gear the choice will be between that and collapse to Mad Max. Which one of those people prefer evidently depends on the individual. 

 

In any case, the Chinese not getting everything right (but more than most) doesn't give the other big movers and shakers an excuse to be shitty anyway, unless a race to the bottom with all the consequences that entails is somehow appealing. 

Non-sequitur to you.

Yes, that's why they've built a record number of new coal plants.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/chinas-commissioning-coal-power-9-year-high-first-half-report-says-2025-08-25/

 

If you look past the Party's statements, there's massive issues plaguing the country:
https://thediplomat.com/2025/01/chinas-internal-struggles-the-rising-violence-that-could-lead-to-foreign-aggression/

Including how the government treats the Uyghurs (Muslims) in the far West. Setting up concentration camps doesn't evoke memories of 1930ies Hitler Germany?

Also, a rising number of car attacks in China (the irony):
https://apnews.com/article/china-vehicle-car-knife-attack-b1534d572f0f2b34f0d2f1bec109a693

All that talk about how bad it is in the US, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to China. I wonder why.

Edited 11 January by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Non-sequitur to you.

Yes, that's why they've built a record number of new coal plants.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/chinas-commissioning-coal-power-9-year-high-first-half-report-says-2025-08-25/

 

 

"Soaring renewables growth has brought progress on carbon emissions despite the continued use of coal, with China's CO2 emissions falling 1% in the first half of the year, according to a CREA analysis last week'"

 

Like I said, right direction.

 

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

If you look past the Party's statements, there's massive issues plaguing the country:
https://thediplomat.com/2025/01/chinas-internal-struggles-the-rising-violence-that-could-lead-to-foreign-aggression/

Including how the government treats the Uyghurs (muslims) in the far West of the country.

Also, a rising number of car attacks in China (the irony):
https://apnews.com/article/china-vehicle-car-knife-attack-b1534d572f0f2b34f0d2f1bec109a693

All that talk about how bad it is in the US, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to China. I wonder why.

As per above, I find the way the Chinese carry out their business (at least sometimes) disagreeable, so I don't think there's disagreement there. This particular area is not one of those areas, apart from perhaps they could be moving a bit faster - but then so could everyone.

 

And to answer the last statement, the "why" is obvious: the US is both not heading in the right direction on this matter and (more importantly) broadcasting on all frequencies worldwide that wrong direction is in fact the right one to take. Passing themselves off as paragons of virtue through Anglosphere social media manipulation and attempting to influence others into following their path, when the current government is anything but. Which, exactly, is worse news for the future?

 

Anyway, the situation is what it is, the consequences will be global, and the solution will take everyone on board or it will fail. And those who come afterwards in their vastly worse world will, rightly, blame every single human who didn't do enough to help - no matter their nationality or demographic.

 

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

"Soaring renewables growth has brought progress on carbon emissions despite the continued use of coal, with China's CO2 emissions falling 1% in the first half of the year, according to a CREA analysis last week'"

 

Like I said, right direction.

 

As per above, I find the way the Chinese carry out their business (at least sometimes) disagreeable, so I don't think there's disagreement there. This particular area is not one of those areas, apart from perhaps they could be moving a bit faster - but then so could everyone.

 

And to answer the last statement, the "why" is obvious: the US is both not heading in the right direction on this matter and (more importantly) broadcasting on all frequencies worldwide that wrong direction is in fact the right one to take. Passing themselves off as paragons of virtue through Anglosphere social media manipulation and attempting to influence others into following their path, when the current government is anything but. Which, exactly, is worse news for the future?

 

Anyway, the situation is what it is, the consequences will be global, and the solution will take everyone on board or it will fail. And those who come afterwards in their vastly worse world will, rightly, blame every single human who didn't do enough to help - no matter their nationality or demographic.

 

1% less CO2 emissions in a six-month window is laughable.

Does the article also talk about the increase in emissions prior or the future development?

 

Yes, it does, and it doesn't hold back:

"However, they remain only 1% below the latest peak, implying that any short-term jump could cause China’s CO2 emissions to rise to a new record."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/

 

I wonder why you wouldn't mention that. Surely the "right direction"...

Coming back to the topic here in terms of climate change and energy consumption, there's been hardly any criticism of China's role in Africa when it comes to obtaining raw materials:
https://www.africansecurityanalysis.org/reports/china-s-strategic-engagement-in-africa
https://nrdc-ita.nato.int/newsroom/insights/chinas-influence-in-africa-challenges-and-strategic-implications

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

1% less CO2 emissions in a six-month window is laughable.

Does the article also talk about the increase in emissions prior or the future development?

 

Rather missing my point. it's still better than other global players. All of these matters are relative and should be measured as such, not absolute. 

 

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Coming back to the topic here in terms of climate change and energy consumption, there's been hardly any criticism of China's role in Africa when it comes to obtaining raw materials:
https://www.africansecurityanalysis.org/reports/china-s-strategic-engagement-in-africa
https://nrdc-ita.nato.int/newsroom/insights/chinas-influence-in-africa-challenges-and-strategic-implications

 

Possibly because they're actually doing business the right way rather than stomping colonial boots and offering ridiculously lop-sided deals because of the power disparity between the parties involved? 

 

... or they might just have a really good PR team and there's a massive conspiracy to make them look good and those nice people across the pond look bad, who knows. 

 

In any case:

 

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

the US is both not heading in the right direction on this matter and (more importantly) broadcasting on all frequencies worldwide that wrong direction is in fact the right one to take. Passing themselves off as paragons of virtue through Anglosphere social media manipulation and attempting to influence others into following their path, when the current government is anything but. Which, exactly, is worse news for the future?

 

Anyway, the situation is what it is, the consequences will be global, and the solution will take everyone on board or it will fail. And those who come afterwards in their vastly worse world will, rightly, blame every single human who didn't do enough to help - no matter their nationality or demographic.

 

This still stands. 

[MC Prussian]

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Rather missing my point. it's still better than other global players. All of these matters are relative and should be measured as such, not absolute. 

 

 

Possibly because they're actually doing business the right way rather than stomping colonial boots and offering ridiculously lop-sided deals because of the power disparity between the parties involved? 

 

... or they might just have a really good PR team and there's a massive conspiracy to make them look good and those nice people across the pond look bad, who knows. 

 

In any case:

 

This still stands. 

Climate change isn't a game of six-month-windows or measured in six months... because six months later, all the progress will have evaporated (and then some).

And in the case of China, the likelihood is very high.

 

Again, no comment on the security issues on Chinese work sites in Africa, the low pay, the disregard for human life, et cetera. Nothing to do with workers' exploitation, or some sort of modern slavery (which is going stronger today than ever before).

That's "doing business the right way rather than stomping colonial boots and offering ridiculously lop-sided deals because of the power disparity between the parties involved", I guess.

That's the PR machinery that you buy into.

 

The US have made great strides in recent years in terms of renewable energy:
https://www.wri.org/insights/clean-energy-progress-united-states

 

Sadly, Trump doesn't like solar and wind energy that much (I think he's wrong on solar energy – the impact/effect of wind energy, however, is debatable).

https://www.econotimes.com/What-are-Donald-Trumps-views-on-renewable-energy-investments-in-2025-1698169

 

I'm a big proponent of public transport. In the US, those projects have a tough time coming to fruition.

As an example, the bullet train line project between San Francisco and Los Angeles is a mess (note California has been under Democrat leadership for decades now):

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-20/house-committee-investigation-california-high-speed-rail-project

 

However, with all that need for additional power (the article highlights data centers in particular), it'd be foolish to think we'd be able to cover it all by renewable energies only. At least for now. A mix is needed.

The challenge is the race between the technological advancements and the global population growth. Electric cars and the constant rise in electrical appliances all require more energy.

The biggest driver is... Africa.

It's only a matter of time before more coal or even nuclear power plants pop up on that continent. Because you cannot satisfy the demand by renewable energy alone (at first).

Edited 11 January by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Climate change isn't a game of six-month-windows or measured in six months... because six months later, all the progress will have evaporated (and then some).

And in the case of China, the likelihood is very high.

 

 

You're very right, it's a long game.

 

But again, I must ask; if (and that's a big if) China aren't playing it well, then is that an excuse for other big players to do similarly, rather than leading by example?

 

31 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Again, no comment on the security issues on Chinese work sites in Africa, the low pay, the disregard for human life, et cetera. Nothing to do with workers' exploitation, or some sort of modern slavery (which is going stronger today than ever before).

That's "doing business the right way rather than stomping colonial boots and offering ridiculously lop-sided deals because of the power disparity between the parties involved", I guess.

That's the PR machinery that you buy into.

 

 

As per above, it could be either. My own take (very much opinion rather than fact) is that they're no worse than the powers that have come before them, or the ones that exist now, in that regard.

 

It's interesting that some folks think China is better at the PR game than some Anglosphere players - at least in that same Anglosphere.

 

33 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The US have made great strides in recent years in terms of renewable energy:
https://www.wri.org/insights/clean-energy-progress-united-states

 

Sadly, Trump doesn't like solar and wind energy that much (I think he's wrong on solar energy – the impact/effect of wind energy, however, is debatable).

https://www.econotimes.com/What-are-Donald-Trumps-views-on-renewable-energy-investments-in-2025-1698169

 

Which Trump and the Repubs want to massively regress and are already making strides in so doing, as is admitted here. I'm pretty sure that isn't the right way to go from the ones supposed to be the premier world power. 

 

They are making decent leaps, now is not the time to go backwards.

 

35 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

I'm a big proponent of public transport. In the US, those projects have a tough time coming to fruition.

As an example, the bullet train line project between San Francisco and Los Angeles is a mess (note California has been under Democrat leadership for decades now):

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-20/house-committee-investigation-california-high-speed-rail-project

 

 

The general individualist attitude in the US (which Trump and his party embody), coupled with the size of the nation, does make public transport projects difficult. But, like you, I would definitely like to see more of a shift towards that kind of model over there, if at all possible.

 

36 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

However, with all that need for additional power (the article highlights data centers in particular), it'd be foolish to think we'd be able to cover it all by renewable energies only. At least for now. A mix is needed.

The challenge is the race between the technological advancements and the global population growth. Electric cars and the constant rise in electrical appliances all require more energy.

The biggest driver is... Africa.

It's only a matter of time before more coal or even nuclear power plants pop up on that continent. Because you cannot satisfy the demand by renewable energy alone (at first).

No disagreement here, apart from the point regarding global population growth which is (thankfully) slowing as a natural byproduct of nation development. The demand for energy is only going to grow.

 

To meet increased energy demand, a suite of solutions is called for, including both renewable and fission power depending on location and circumstance. That has to be applied everywhere - which means that such solutions are going to have to be exported to developing countries as needed. Good thing is that this is happening already - there's quite a few sub-Saharan and South American nations running at or close to 100% renewable energy grids now. But it is the big players - China, India, the US and Russia - who all need to pick up their game. Fusion would be a massive game changer, but then folks have been saying that for half a century and it's proving a difficult bastard to pin down. Perhaps one day, though.

[st albans fox]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You're very right, it's a long game.

 

But again, I must ask; if (and that's a big if) China aren't playing it well, then is that an excuse for other big players to do similarly, rather than leading by example?

 

As per above, it could be either. My own take (very much opinion rather than fact) is that they're no worse than the powers that have come before them, or the ones that exist now, in that regard.

 

It's interesting that some folks think China is better at the PR game than some Anglosphere players - at least in that same Anglosphere.

 

Which Trump and the Repubs want to massively regress and are already making strides in so doing, as is admitted here. I'm pretty sure that isn't the right way to go from the ones supposed to be the premier world power. 

 

They are making decent leaps, now is not the time to go backwards.

 

The general individualist attitude in the US (which Trump and his party embody), coupled with the size of the nation, does make public transport projects difficult. But, like you, I would definitely like to see more of a shift towards that kind of model over there, if at all possible.

 

No disagreement here, apart from the point regarding global population growth which is (thankfully) slowing as a natural byproduct of nation development. The demand for energy is only going to grow.

 

To meet increased energy demand, a suite of solutions is called for, including both renewable and fission power depending on location and circumstance. That has to be applied everywhere - which means that such solutions are going to have to be exported to developing countries as needed. Good thing is that this is happening already - there's quite a few sub-Saharan and South American nations running at or close to 100% renewable energy grids now. But it is the big players - China, India, the US and Russia - who all need to pick up their game. Fusion would be a massive game changer, but then folks have been saying that for half a century and it's proving a difficult bastard to pin down. Perhaps one day, though.

I think the Americans (well the right anyway) are expecting fusion to work and be commercial en masse within 25 years.    Too late ?  Probably for a lot of people but then if fusion can work we’ll have affordable A/C everywhere that wants it.  Across large parts of the globe we’d become effectively an indoor species for much of the year.  

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I think the Americans (well the right anyway) are expecting fusion to work and be commercial en masse within 25 years.    Too late ?  Probably for a lot of people but then if fusion can work we’ll have affordable A/C everywhere that wants it.  Across large parts of the globe we’d become effectively an indoor species for much of the year.  

Possibly so. 

 

Of course, that still misses a pretty major issue whereby humans may be able to live indoors, but various species, including crop and animal species vital to human continuity, won't. 

 

No point in having indoor complexes when you have no food or potable water accessible to them.