Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

I don’t disagree with anything that’s being said or needed, I just feel the time line and idealism behind it can be a bit unrealistic. I can’t get behind the “ we just need to be quicker” idea. I think we are on the right path . No one wants to do this slowly ( I hope). 

You and a lot of people share that same sentiment about the speed of progress.

 

I just hope that you and they are right and I'm wrong, because that will mean in a few decades this discussion will be able to be revisited without the backdrop of a truly horrific humanitarian crisis and a rather intolerant mob looking to hold people accountable for it.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You and a lot of people share that same sentiment about the speed of progress.

 

I just hope that you and they are right and I'm wrong, because that will mean in a few decades this discussion will be able to be revisited without the backdrop of a truly horrific humanitarian crisis and a rather intolerant mob looking to hold people accountable for it.

 

it’s just a shame we’ve left it so long and let it get to this stage..

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

it’s just a shame we’ve left it so long and let it get to this stage..

It is - especially considering the global climate science corps have stated things panning out in this way for the last few decades to the crossed T.

[reporterpenguin]

On 05/12/2023 at 21:15, Wortho said:

Yeah but things like axis variation and measuring historic sea level rises all sound like things that science would be needed to determine.
 

Why would you trust that when it’s all so corrupt #doyourownresearch 

[MPH]

And right now, during the climate change summit in Dubai. The largest producers of oil are holding back on the deal. Infuriating as all 200 nations need to agree to this deal for it to go through.

 

the reality is the rest will cave for the sake of getting a deal to go through and the terms will be weakened to suit the big producers a bit more. Too much power for the big producers! Take some of that power away by having more nations produce for of their own! And  yea, even if that means spending shed loads on converting refineries!

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, MPH said:

And right now, during the climate change summit in Dubai. The largest producers of oil are holding back on the deal. Infuriating as all 200 nations need to agree to this deal for it to go through.

 

the reality is the rest will cave for the sake of getting a deal to go through and the terms will be weakened to suit the big producers a bit more. Too much power for the big producers! Take some of that power away by having more nations produce for of their own! And  yea, even if that means spending shed loads on converting refineries!

Disappointing, but sadly not massively surprising.

 

Unfortunately, it shows that in this particular area the democratic agreement shop of disparate ideas and ambitions, while the vast majority of the time a brilliant thing, is sometimes deeply - if not fatally - flawed.

 

The most advanced species this planet has ever seen (that we know of) and it sees fit to destroy or severely degrade its own future by committee for the sake of its present.

 

....perhaps not so advanced, then - (slightly) more advanced process as other species, same outcome.

Edited 11 December 2023 by leicsmac

[fox_up_north]

What's laughable is they KNOW it's a finite resource anyway. So they have 3 options

 

1 - don't change and it runs out relatively quicky

 

2 - limit use/ ration it slowly and try to find ways to diversify

 

3 - actively move away from it and look to change quickly

 

I genuinely wonder if they think it'll be always there. This is one of those things where your desire to have all the power and money is kind of a false economy because the thing you have power over will run out.

 

On a base, human level, what do they actually think happens when they run out of the thing they control and people around start asking questions? People will just go "ah well you had a good run" and wander off?

 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

What's laughable is they KNOW it's a finite resource anyway. So they have 3 options

 

1 - don't change and it runs out relatively quicky

 

2 - limit use/ ration it slowly and try to find ways to diversify

 

3 - actively move away from it and look to change quickly

 

I genuinely wonder if they think it'll be always there. This is one of those things where your desire to have all the power and money is kind of a false economy because the thing you have power over will run out.

 

On a base, human level, what do they actually think happens when they run out of the thing they control and people around start asking questions? People will just go "ah well you had a good run" and wander off?

 

... or when things change grotesquely for the worse, people will simply lie down and take it and not seek to hold them accountable?

 

I think that they believe either they'll be dead by the time it all goes horrible, they'll have enough muscle bought to deal with it when it does, or they're so in denial about basic thermodynamics that they simply think things will always be able to go as they are (possibly linking to point 1 above).

 

In any case, they're wrong.

[MPH]

58 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

What's laughable is they KNOW it's a finite resource anyway. So they have 3 options

 

1 - don't change and it runs out relatively quicky

 

2 - limit use/ ration it slowly and try to find ways to diversify

 

3 - actively move away from it and look to change quickly

 

I genuinely wonder if they think it'll be always there. This is one of those things where your desire to have all the power and money is kind of a false economy because the thing you have power over will run out.

 

On a base, human level, what do they actually think happens when they run out of the thing they control and people around start asking questions? People will just go "ah well you had a good run" and wander off?

 

 

 

im waiting for the whole world to sink into a massive sinkhole all at the same time as a result to all the used up oil..

[MPH]

On 05/12/2023 at 16:15, Wortho said:

 

 

except of course the rate of melting  has happened more rapidly since 1993 than at previous rates. so whilst i can see why you would see  this as a contributing factor, it doesn't explain the recent rapid increase in melting. Neither is it something we can do anything about.  Use of fossil fuels IS something we can do something about though.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over the past 100 years,about 6 to 8 inches.

 

So if the sea levels have risen 7-8 inches in the last 100 years and 50% of that has been over the last 30 years..... thats 3-4 inches in 30 years. If you take the lowest amount of 3 inches over  30 years, thats 1 inch every ten years.. If the same rate had happened over the 18,000 years as what has been happening over 30 years then that could be a total of 1,800 inches or 150 foot or  more than 45 meters. more than double the rate this pic is suggesting.

 

Even putting aside all of that.... why would you NOT want less polution in there air?

Edited 11 December 2023 by MPH

[grobyfox1990]

Going into the LAST FEW HOURS in Dubai, COP 28 progress update:

 

Loss and damage fund - done

Article 6.2 - draft

Article 6.4 - draft

Article 6.8 - draft

Santiago network text - ready to sign

WIM L&D - ready to sign

Global stocktake - draft

Global goals on adaptation - draft

Adaptation fund - draft

Just transition - draft

Mitigation - draft

Response measures - ready to sign

Standing committee on finance  - draft

Post 2025 finance goal - nothing

Long term finance - nothing

Gender/climate - draft

Agriculture/food security - draft

GEF - draft

Finance reporting - nothing

Capacity building help - ready to sign

Green climate fund - ready to sign

 

A lot of draft need to turn to done by midnight

 

[Nick]

Greta did say COP would be blah blah blah to be fair.

[SecretPro]

COP is a parody of itself. This one a particular waste of time and effort, an achievement in greenwashing. COP is done. Change needs to be forced by the people, because Governments dont care.

 

Militancy is what will save us. Sad that it's come to this. 

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, SecretPro said:

COP is a parody of itself. This one a particular waste of time and effort, an achievement in greenwashing. COP is done. Change needs to be forced by the people, because Governments dont care.

 

Militancy is what will save us. Sad that it's come to this. 

But that inconveniences people 

[leicsmac]

I'm on the fence with the above discussion because quite frankly both sides make good points.

 

The current measures being ummed and ahhed about at past and present COP meetings are not far-ranging enough - or are not being well-executed enough - to prevent an outcome of an overall increase of global average temperature by 2.5 to 3 degrees C. This will have widespread, utterly brutal effects on a great many people in a great many places in short order. There will be a lot of blood on the floor, directly caused by the more extreme conditions or indirectly caused be fighting over land and resources as they both become more precious. So what's being done now is a failure in that regard, and that falls on the shoulders of the entire global community that have the power to do something but don't.

 

However, with all the above having been said, solutions involving more "action directe" haven't been proven to work well either - is there a single meaningful and far-reaching climate measure that was directly brought about by an act of militancy? As I've said before, speaking personally I'm more concerned about the efficacy of the methods rather than the methods themselves, given the worst outcome in terms of death and suffering will, every single time, be doing nothing - but I need more convincing that more direct ideas actually work.

 

What's the best way? Damned if I know but we'd better find out. The clock is ticking, the price keeps going up and the penalties for failure will be (and are) utterly merciless.

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, SecretPro said:

COP is a parody of itself. This one a particular waste of time and effort, an achievement in greenwashing. COP is done. Change needs to be forced by the people, because Governments dont care.

 

Militancy is what will save us. Sad that it's come to this. 

The same is true for the FCTC CoP, something that has become the sole preserve of Michael Bloomberg - issuing scientifically illiterate missives and bribing poor nations to enact vile legislation which results in perpetuating tobacco related illness and death. 
 

Someone needs to take a torch to the entire United Nations and rebuild it from the ground up. 

[MPH]

Heres an interesting take on things from Iraq..

 

Then I found Iraq's office, where I spoke to Yousif Muyad Yousif, director of the climate change department.

He showed me the following pictures of the impacts of climate change in Iraq, where rivers run dry and people forced to spend $80 a month on buying clean water.

 

By 2030, Iraq is forecast to be the third largest contributor to global oil supply. But it's a poor country reliant on that income.

Yousif said nations must respond to the climate crisis in ways that reflect their national circumstances.

"We want to focus on emissions, not the source," he says.

And a lack of financial support is crucial in their objections, he tells me.

"We need to increase our resilience to climate change - how can we do that without finance?"

It highlights just why there's so much disagreement here in Dubai.

 

I hadn't thought about the financial cost to the poorer nations.

 

 

 

But thats still not an excuse for so many other nations..

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, MPH said:

Heres an interesting take on things from Iraq..

 

Then I found Iraq's office, where I spoke to Yousif Muyad Yousif, director of the climate change department.

He showed me the following pictures of the impacts of climate change in Iraq, where rivers run dry and people forced to spend $80 a month on buying clean water.

 

By 2030, Iraq is forecast to be the third largest contributor to global oil supply. But it's a poor country reliant on that income.

Yousif said nations must respond to the climate crisis in ways that reflect their national circumstances.

"We want to focus on emissions, not the source," he says.

And a lack of financial support is crucial in their objections, he tells me.

"We need to increase our resilience to climate change - how can we do that without finance?"

It highlights just why there's so much disagreement here in Dubai.

 

I hadn't thought about the financial cost to the poorer nations.

 

 

 

But thats still not an excuse for so many other nations..

Certainly, both the poorer nations and the nations currently reliant on fossil fuels for economic stability need the financial incentive to play ball and adjust/prepare accordingly.

 

That, however, really can't be a sticking point in the way that it is because, once again, the cost of inaction - to everyone - will always be far higher.

[Fazzer 7]

Is that Cop thing still going on. When will all the delegates and advocates depart on their private jets. Surely it must wrap up this week.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly, both the poorer nations and the nations currently reliant on fossil fuels for economic stability need the financial incentive to play ball and adjust/prepare accordingly.

 

That, however, really can't be a sticking point in the way that it is because, once again, the cost of inaction - to everyone - will always be far higher.

 

 

And this bring us back to a point you made a couple of days ago... I wonder if it isnt our intelligence thats the problem , i wonder if its because we all have such strong emotions - for Iraq, they love for their own country outweighs anything else, it seems. 

 

 

Just a guess... no idea really...

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Is that Cop thing still going on. When will all the delegates and advocates depart on their private jets. Surely it must wrap up this week.

Pretty much all of them have overrun, apparently - can't say that I'm surprised about that.

 

Hopefully some kind of deal can be done today or tonight.

 

NB, Thinly-veiled, if accurate, jabs at the hypocrisy of those attending doesn't actually mean much to the laws of physical thermodynamics or what we might have to do to help ourselves against them. Nor does denying their clear and obvious effect at the present time.

[leicsmac]

Just now, MPH said:

 

 

And this bring us back to a point you made a couple of days ago... I wonder if it isnt our intelligence thats the problem , i wonder if its because we all have such strong emotions - for Iraq, they love for their own country outweighs anything else, it seems. 

 

 

Just a guess... no idea really...

Self-interest or tribal interest is the biggest problem on this particular matter, yes. I've said it for years on other matters too - when it comes to a lot of things, it's a strength, but when it comes to matters requiring global collaboration with severe penalties for not doing so, it is a (possibly fatal) weakness.

[fox_up_north]

Looks like they've seen the backlash and read the room. However, small islands look buggered. 

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Looks like they've seen the backlash and read the room. However, small islands look buggered. 

To expand on this, some key points of the deal that has been arrived at include:

 

• Countries will "contribute... to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner". This is the first time there has been a clear reference to the future of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) in a COP text. It doesn't include any wording on the "phase out of fossil fuels" - something many governments wanted
• There is a recognition that global emissions will likely peak before 2025 - and that for developing nations this may be later
• On adaptation and finance, the language appears to have been weakened, with the text "reiterating" rather than "requesting" developed countries give support to vulnerable nations facing climate change

 

So...a half-arse IMO, but then (as per above) given the nature of the democratic talking shop and so many differing interests, perhaps this is the best compromise that could have been expected. There really should have been a remit in there for a strict timeline to phase out fossil fuels for energy generation and a strict remit for developed nations to fund developing nations to help them do so. Of course, the established powers that be would squawk in their own short-sighted self-interest and so that was never going to happen, but hey.

 

One more observation: I've no idea why China is still considered a "developing" nation and they've got some brass neck calling out the "developed" nations for not doing enough to help the others when they themselves are one of the biggest contributors to the problem and are so economically powerful they could easily help them themselves.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

To expand on this, some key points of the deal that has been arrived at include:

 

• Countries will "contribute... to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner". This is the first time there has been a clear reference to the future of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) in a COP text. It doesn't include any wording on the "phase out of fossil fuels" - something many governments wanted
• There is a recognition that global emissions will likely peak before 2025 - and that for developing nations this may be later
• On adaptation and finance, the language appears to have been weakened, with the text "reiterating" rather than "requesting" developed countries give support to vulnerable nations facing climate change

 

So...a half-arse IMO, but then (as per above) given the nature of the democratic talking shop and so many differing interests, perhaps this is the best compromise that could have been expected. There really should have been a remit in there for a strict timeline to phase out fossil fuels for energy generation and a strict remit for developed nations to fund developing nations to help them do so. Of course, the established powers that be would squawk in their own short-sighted self-interest and so that was never going to happen, but hey.

 

One more observation: I've no idea why China is still considered a "developing" nation and they've got some brass neck calling out the "developed" nations for not doing enough to help the others when they themselves are one of the biggest contributors to the problem and are so economically powerful they could easily help them themselves.

I would have accepted this wording at the first meeting a few years ago…