Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67544977

 

A good primer on current steps being taken and how effective they may or may not be.

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Well, as a long time non contributor to this thread, it still enlightens and entertains. 

Most certainly.

 

AFAIC though the actual nature of the problem and whether it is a problem or not didn't require any further discussion beyond the second post on the first page. Much in the same way that it doesn't need much discussion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and a square has four sides of equal length. It's just something that, well...is.

 

The response to the problem and how we go about it ethically, however...yeah, that's much more debatable.

[Fazzer 7]

When I look at my grid watch app, sad as that may be. Some days wind is providing as much as 60% of electricity generated and if memory serves correct occasionally higher. However, right now its 15% because there aint much wind. Wind seems to be the go to for renewables but the inescapable truth is. When there's little or no wind, there's no lecky generated by it. It's intermittent and unreliable. So are we really going to blot yet more landscape with massive ugly wind farms and hundreds of miles of overhead grid cables for a  source of energy that doesn't deliver half the time. Seems crazy to me but there you go.

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

When I look at my grid watch app, sad as that may be. Some days wind is providing as much as 60% of electricity generated and if memory serves correct occasionally higher. However, right now its 15% because there aint much wind. Wind seems to be the go to for renewables but the inescapable truth is. When there's little or no wind, there's no lecky generated by it. It's intermittent and unreliable. So are we really going to blot yet more landscape with massive ugly wind farms and hundreds of miles of overhead grid cables for a  source of energy that doesn't deliver half the time. Seems crazy to me but there you go.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that wind is the only solution, just part of a suite of solutions that make up the whole, along with solar, tidal, and Gen III/IV fission.

[MPH]

30 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

When I look at my grid watch app, sad as that may be. Some days wind is providing as much as 60% of electricity generated and if memory serves correct occasionally higher. However, right now its 15% because there aint much wind. Wind seems to be the go to for renewables but the inescapable truth is. When there's little or no wind, there's no lecky generated by it. It's intermittent and unreliable. So are we really going to blot yet more landscape with massive ugly wind farms and hundreds of miles of overhead grid cables for a  source of energy that doesn't deliver half the time. Seems crazy to me but there you go.

  I will also add..

 

 

If only there was a way someone could invent a way to store the generated electricity on  days a surplus is generated and use it on days when less is produced..

 

Edited 6 December 2023 by MPH

[Fazzer 7]

18 minutes ago, MPH said:

  I will also add..

 

 

If only there was a way someone could invent a way to store the generated electricity on  days a surplus is generated and use it on days when less is produced..

 

Ah yes, battery packs the size of tower blocks in every city, it would make one hell of a roman candle when it combusts like the occasional  electric car does

[MPH]

7 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Ah yes, battery packs the size of tower blocks in every city, it would make one hell of a roman candle when it combusts like the occasional  electric car does

 

Or we can trust that technology will advance and continue to reduce the size of battery banks, which had already happened to some extent and will likely  continue as per form..

 

 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-scale-battery-storage-is-on-the-rise

Edited 6 December 2023 by MPH

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Ah yes, battery packs the size of tower blocks in every city, it would make one hell of a roman candle when it combusts like the occasional  electric car does

Would still kill less than air pollution and increased global average temperature increase already do now - to say nothing of the future.

 

But on a more serious note, as mentioned above, the technology will mature and again, lest we forget, it's part of a solution that will avoid the needless death and suffering of an awful lot of people - even if (at first) they'll be out of sight and therefore out of mind for some.

[HighPeakFox]

I don't know why I originally employed the Ignore function on our 'climate scam' compadre, but it would appear my choice was a wise one. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65754296

 

Another good primer by the Beeb. Of particular import:

 

 

Current policies do indeed put us on course for a 2.5-2.9 degrees Celsius increase by the end of the century. Now, that's (probably) not apocalyptic, but it will result in vastly increased droughts, extreme weather, collapse of certain pollinating species, introduction of invasive species (like malarial mosquitoes), decreased resources and growing spaces, increased sea levels and biome changes. All of this will result in a great deal of currently inhabited land becoming pretty much uninhabitable, with the associated risk of death, suffering and displacement to (potentially) billions of people - with all the upheaval that will cause.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

 

This is a problem bigger in terms of threat to human life than any other barring global nuclear holocaust (which, if things go truly awful, it could end up leading to due to dwindling resources) - that's a simple matter of fact.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65754296

 

Another good primer by the Beeb. Of particular import:

 

 

Current policies do indeed put us on course for a 2.5-2.9 degrees Celsius increase by the end of the century. Now, that's (probably) not apocalyptic, but it will result in vastly increased droughts, extreme weather, collapse of certain pollinating species, introduction of invasive species (like malarial mosquitoes), decreased resources and growing spaces, increased sea levels and biome changes. All of this will result in a great deal of currently inhabited land becoming pretty much uninhabitable, with the associated risk of death, suffering and displacement to (potentially) billions of people - with all the upheaval that will cause.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

 

This is a problem bigger in terms of threat to human life than any other barring global nuclear holocaust (which, if things go truly awful, it could end up leading to due to dwindling resources) - that's a simple matter of fact.

I posted something similar a week or so back and was shot down for bizarre reasons that still baffle 😂

Edited 7 December 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I posted something similar a week or so back and was shot down for bizarre reasons that still baffle

Denial is a very strong human emotion. There's a reason it's the first stage of any reaction to drastic negative change.

[WigstonWanderer]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Denial is a very strong human emotion. There's a reason it's the first stage of any reaction to drastic negative change.

Without wishing to open old arguments, it seemed more like “friendly” fire from a certain party. Anyway, nuff said.

[leicsmac]

@MPH to address your thoughts in this thread...

 

While the UK is making great strides in terms of developing renewable solutions, what's happening now isn't enough to prevent real problems, and that's clear. Of course, one may say that's out of the UK's hands, but at the very least might it be possible for the UK to exert more diplomatic pressure for other nations to follow its lead and avert those problems, as well as looking to do things perhaps even faster at home?

 

This is a global issue, after all.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

@MPH to address your thoughts in this thread...

 

While the UK is making great strides in terms of developing renewable solutions, what's happening now isn't enough to prevent real problems, and that's clear. Of course, one may say that's out of the UK's hands, but at the very least might it be possible for the UK to exert more diplomatic pressure for other nations to follow its lead and avert those problems, as well as looking to do things perhaps even faster at home?

 

This is a global issue, after all.

 

I agree this is a global issue and my only point is that the UK is not the issue, the rest of the world is. We are setting a fantastic example ( still a ways to go )  and if some nations were even making half the strides we were making, the global outlook wouldn’t  be so grim. We’d all be in a better place if more nations were stepping up to the plate.

 

Now im not suggesting we shouldn’t change direction and embrace all things oil, but I do actually think it would be better for the global environment  for us to be producing our own oil in the short term ( next 20-30 years) than shipping it thousands of miles around the world

[Trav Le Bleu]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65754296

 

Another good primer by the Beeb. Of particular import:

 

 

Current policies do indeed put us on course for a 2.5-2.9 degrees Celsius increase by the end of the century. Now, that's (probably) not apocalyptic, but it will result in vastly increased droughts, extreme weather, collapse of certain pollinating species, introduction of invasive species (like malarial mosquitoes), decreased resources and growing spaces, increased sea levels and biome changes. All of this will result in a great deal of currently inhabited land becoming pretty much uninhabitable, with the associated risk of death, suffering and displacement to (potentially) billions of people - with all the upheaval that will cause.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

 

This is a problem bigger in terms of threat to human life than any other barring global nuclear holocaust (which, if things go truly awful, it could end up leading to due to dwindling resources) - that's a simple matter of fact.

So we want to stop immigration to our crowded island AND carrying on making other countries unliveable whilst our country get smaller?

 

Right?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

I agree this is a global issue and my only point is that the UK is not the issue, the rest of the world is. We are setting a fantastic example ( still a ways to go )  and if some nations were even making half the strides we were making, the global outlook wouldn’t  be so grim. We’d all be in a better place if more nations were stepping up to the plate.

 

Now im not suggesting we shouldn’t change direction and embrace all things oil, but I do actually think it would be better for the global environment  for us to be producing our own oil in the short term ( next 20-30 years) than shipping it thousands of miles around the world

Well, hopefully that is not a straight dichotomy and more than those two options exist.

 

Oil really should have no place in terms of energy generation ASAP - sooner than a few decades, anyway. Producing plastics and other such things? Fine, no alternative. Burning the stuff? No. Better options ASAP.

 

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So we want to stop immigration to our crowded island AND carrying on making other countries unliveable whilst our country get smaller?

 

Right?

So it would seem.

 

The moral implications of leaving hundreds of millions of people to their fate due to a problem that all of the industrialised world (the UK included) have a hand in is evidently flexible.

[Daggers]

7 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So we want to stop immigration to our crowded island AND carrying on making other countries unliveable whilst our country get smaller?

 

Right?

Aha, but if everyone else dies of starvation or drowning then they won’t be able to navigate the elevated waters to what’s left of Britain…which won’t need much in the way of food as most poor people will have drowned also.

 

Honestly, if you all weren’t clever enough to be multimillionaires before the climate catastrophe then that’s on you, suckers.

[Robo61]

15 hours ago, MPH said:

 

I agree this is a global issue and my only point is that the UK is not the issue, the rest of the world is. We are setting a fantastic example ( still a ways to go )  and if some nations were even making half the strides we were making, the global outlook wouldn’t  be so grim. We’d all be in a better place if more nations were stepping up to the plate.

 

Now im not suggesting we shouldn’t change direction and embrace all things oil, but I do actually think it would be better for the global environment  for us to be producing our own oil in the short term ( next 20-30 years) than shipping it thousands of miles around the world

80% of the oil.extracted in UK waters  is exported so actually producing more of our own will have only a minimal effect on the overall environment.

[MPH]

17 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

80% of the oil.extracted in UK waters  is exported so actually producing more of our own will have only a minimal effect on the overall environment.

 

 

and yet the UK IMPORTED 30 billion pounds worth of oil in 2021 and this is the segment we should be looking at with regards to the point i was making.

[Trav Le Bleu]

16 hours ago, Daggers said:

Aha, but if everyone else dies of starvation or drowning then they won’t be able to navigate the elevated waters to what’s left of Britain…which won’t need much in the way of food as most poor people will have drowned also.

 

Honestly, if you all weren’t clever enough to be multimillionaires before the climate catastrophe then that’s on you, suckers.

I'd say smarts won't cut it against a willingness to screw your fellow humans over.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I'd say smarts won't cut it against a willingness to screw your fellow humans over.

... and that is where such natural consequences might be perversely democratic, too. They won't differentiate between any social, financial or psychological differences. Of course, one might say that the rich, the smart and the ruthless might last longer, and that's likely true...but only for so long. No one will be insured from the consequences in the end if it gets as bad as it might.

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

and yet the UK IMPORTED 30 billion pounds worth of oil in 2021 and this is the segment we should be looking at with regards to the point i was making.

Then go on tell us how that can change in the short time we have before we have to stop burning fossil fuels, when we have not in the last 50 years found the investment needed to refine the oil we extract from our oil fields.

[jgtuk]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

and yet the UK IMPORTED 30 billion pounds worth of oil in 2021 and this is the segment we should be looking at with regards to the point i was making.

In 2022 the UK  extracted 38 million tonnes and consumed 54 million tonnes of oil.

Crude oil is not a uniform thing is also quite useful when thinking about future UK exploitation too. For instance, much of the oil coming from the newer prospective Shetland fields like Cambo is very heavy indeed - super viscous, waxy crude which needs to be heated up in the pipes through which it’s transported. This has two consequences: first it takes quite a lot of energy to move it and second it is probably not “compatible” with UK refineries, meaning it will have to be transported elsewhere. So it will have a higher carbon footprint than the lighter crudes you find up towards Norway.

 

https://edconway.substack.com/p/why-does-britain-export-80-of-its

[MPH]

26 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

In 2022 the UK  extracted 38 million tonnes and consumed 54 million tonnes of oil.

Crude oil is not a uniform thing is also quite useful when thinking about future UK exploitation too. For instance, much of the oil coming from the newer prospective Shetland fields like Cambo is very heavy indeed - super viscous, waxy crude which needs to be heated up in the pipes through which it’s transported. This has two consequences: first it takes quite a lot of energy to move it and second it is probably not “compatible” with UK refineries, meaning it will have to be transported elsewhere. So it will have a higher carbon footprint than the lighter crudes you find up towards Norway.

 

https://edconway.substack.com/p/why-does-britain-export-80-of-its

 

 

Dos this not argue the case we need to be producing more of our own oil, if we are consuming more than we are extracting?