Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, MPH said:

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

Yeah, perhaps I would have too.

 

Now, it's clearly inadequate.

Edited 13 December 2023 by leicsmac

[MPH]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, perhaps I would have too.

 

Now, it's clearly inadequate.

 

 

Qatar were actually using the conference as an opportunity to Network and gain more oil contracts. Thats the sort of thing we are all up against..

[bmt]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

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

To be fair COP1 was 28 years ago! But agree, you would have hoped this kind of wording would have been made shortly after the Paris agreement and would subsequently be strengthened.

 

I do think it is very difficult though, particularly managing:

i) less developed countries with fossil fuel resources who feel like they are once again being unfairly treated by developed countries who often already used exploitation of resources to develop.

ii) trying to get developed countries to voluntarily (financially) support less developed countries to either forego fossil fuel revenues or to adapt to the impacts of climate change that (primarily) developed countries have caused.

iii) rich countries with high O&G revenues who rightly see climate progress as against their current 'business model'.

 

I think with all of these it is really difficult to see how the current approach to climate progress will get us anywhere near 2 degrees, never mind 1.5.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, bmt said:

To be fair COP1 was 28 years ago! But agree, you would have hoped this kind of wording would have been made shortly after the Paris agreement and would subsequently be strengthened.

 

I do think it is very difficult though, particularly managing:

i) less developed countries with fossil fuel resources who feel like they are once again being unfairly treated by developed countries who often already used exploitation of resources to develop.

ii) trying to get developed countries to voluntarily (financially) support less developed countries to either forego fossil fuel revenues or to adapt to the impacts of climate change that (primarily) developed countries have caused.

iii) rich countries with high O&G revenues who rightly see climate progress as against their current 'business model'.

 

I think with all of these it is really difficult to see how the current approach to climate progress will get us anywhere near 2 degrees, never mind 1.5.

 

 

Yes. all very tricky.  I think  Iraq for instance and i think i mentioned them before.. by 2030 they are predicted to be the worlds 3rd biggest oil producer. they are a poor nation who feel they need oil to develop their country neglected for years through mishandling and wars... they are also determined to not live in Iran's shadow militarily. all this takes money they don't have but money that oil will give them. They are on record at this recent conference as saying they are focusing on emission and not the type of fuel.

 

 

and i agree, unfortunately, about the  2 degrees.. and its one of the reasons i have been saying repeatedly that we are progressing  but it will be a slow progress and wont ever be a case of  a quick phase out at least globally.

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Qatar were actually using the conference as an opportunity to Network and gain more oil contracts. Thats the sort of thing we are all up against..

Yep, pretty much. Now one might see why the global climate science corps have been tearing their hair out for the last couple of decades.

 

24 minutes ago, bmt said:

To be fair COP1 was 28 years ago! But agree, you would have hoped this kind of wording would have been made shortly after the Paris agreement and would subsequently be strengthened.

 

I do think it is very difficult though, particularly managing:

i) less developed countries with fossil fuel resources who feel like they are once again being unfairly treated by developed countries who often already used exploitation of resources to develop.

ii) trying to get developed countries to voluntarily (financially) support less developed countries to either forego fossil fuel revenues or to adapt to the impacts of climate change that (primarily) developed countries have caused.

iii) rich countries with high O&G revenues who rightly see climate progress as against their current 'business model'.

 

I think with all of these it is really difficult to see how the current approach to climate progress will get us anywhere near 2 degrees, never mind 1.5.

An accurate summation of three of the different standpoints there

 

The thing is, IMO there are (relatively) simple solutions to all of these issues, and all of them put together would still be far cheaper than the cost of kicking the can down the road and dealing with the resulting consequences. The powers that be simply don't want to pay the high short-term cost, for a variety of reasons. All of them ridiculously shortsighted and based more on political expediency and realpolitik than looking to do the right thing for our present and future as a species.

 

15 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Yes. all very tricky.  I think  Iraq for instance and i think i mentioned them before.. by 2030 they are predicted to be the worlds 3rd biggest oil producer. they are a poor nation who feel they need oil to develop their country neglected for years through mishandling and wars... they are also determined to not live in Iran's shadow militarily. all this takes money they don't have but money that oil will give them. They are on record at this recent conference as saying they are focusing on emission and not the type of fuel.

 

 

and i agree, unfortunately, about the  2 degrees.. and its one of the reasons i have been saying repeatedly that we are progressing  but it will be a slow progress and wont ever be a case of  a quick phase out at least globally.

If that's the case - and it looks like it may well be, sadly - those with the power had better be ready to aid the great many people who are going to be in a great deal of trouble over the next few decades. Because that humanitarian crisis will be on them.

[bmt]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The thing is, IMO there are (relatively) simple solutions to all of these issues, and all of them put together would still be far cheaper than the cost of kicking the can down the road and dealing with the resulting consequences. The powers that be simply don't want to pay the high short-term cost, for a variety of reasons. All of them ridiculously shortsighted and based more on political expediency and realpolitik than looking to do the right thing for our present and future as a species.

Agree, it's a bit of a game theory conundrum to be honest. And of course the most selfish but best outcome (at least in the short term) for many countries would be if other countries reduce their emissions without them reducing theirs, so there is an additional free-rider problem. Added to that that governing parties terms usually last a shorter period than it would take to feel significant negative climate impacts (at least in high emitting countries), although there is at least now significant evidence around the importance and magnitude of the impacts of climate change.

 

There are simple (I agree) solutions, but they require a level of collaboration that politics makes very difficult, particularly given the uneven distribution of benefits of fossil fuel usage and costs of climate change.

Edited 13 December 2023 by bmt

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, bmt said:

Agree, it's a bit of a game theory conundrum to be honest. And of course the most selfish but best outcome (at least in the short term) for many countries would be if other countries reduce their emissions without them reducing theirs, so there is an additional free-rider problem. Added to that that governing parties terms usually last a shorter period than it would take to feel significant negative climate impacts (at least in high emitting countries), although there is at least now significant evidence around the importance and magnitude of the impacts of climate change.

 

There are simple (I agree) solutions, but they require a level of collaboration that politics makes very difficult, particularly given the uneven distribution of benefits of fossil fuel usage and costs of climate change.

That's about the size of it, yes. Would that be the "game of chicken" situation - one party benefits if they don't back down while the other loses heavily if they do, but the worst possible outcome is if neither back down?

 

I think I should clarify on the remarks above - the politics of the solution is very complex for these exact reasons, but the actual solution itself is, again, relatively simple. As are the consequences of not applying them - it's not like the laws of thermodynamics care about our politics.

[leicsmac]

"No doubt there will be lots of cheering and back-slapping... but the physics will not care. As the new agreement locks in high levels of emissions for years to come, so the temperature will continue to rise" - Prof Kevin Anderson, University of Manchester.

 

It is just one talking head, but yes, the physics doesn't care.

[fox_up_north]

Realistically, how would our lifestyles need to change, in the west (and heaviest users) to make sure everything doesn't go to pot?

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Realistically, how would our lifestyles need to change, in the west (and heaviest users) to make sure everything doesn't go to pot?

Not much at all, given correct management. That's why both the neo-Luddities and the do-nothings at either end of the spectrum are so frustrating - they both assume that in order to prevent catastrophe living standards in developed countries will have to take a hit.

 

It's simply not true - there is time and plans to switch to alternative forms of energy generation across the world that will prevent a temperature increase that will be really bad. If it's done right, the Average John on the street may never know the transition has taken place at all, in terms of everyday life.

 

The issue is such plans cost money and long-term thinking that the established political powers are unwilling to pay, because it will mildly inconvenience them in terms of their present day cash flow, and so current progress is bogged down by politicking and so is not nearly as swift as it needs to be.

[Dunge]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not much at all, given correct management. That's why both the neo-Luddities and the do-nothings at either end of the spectrum are so frustrating - they both assume that in order to prevent catastrophe living standards in developed countries will have to take a hit.

 

It's simply not true - there is time and plans to switch to alternative forms of energy generation across the world that will prevent a temperature increase that will be really bad. If it's done right, the Average John on the street may never know the transition has taken place at all, in terms of everyday life.

 

The issue is such plans cost money and long-term thinking that the established political powers are unwilling to pay, because it will mildly inconvenience them in terms of their present day cash flow, and so current progress is bogged down by politicking and so is not nearly as swift as it needs to be.

You say that but that’s not the way it’s put to the public. For instance, the other week on Planet Earth we had David Attenborough stating that we need to transition to a plant-based diet. Average John is going to notice that, and will be treated by people as at best an imposition and at worst a plot.

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Dunge said:

You say that but that’s not the way it’s put to the public. For instance, the other week on Planet Earth we had David Attenborough stating that we need to transition to a plant-based diet. Average John is going to notice that, and will be treated by people as at best an imposition and at worst a plot.

I agree, which is why I cringed when I heard that line spoken - a very rare misstep from Sir David. A plant-based diet would surely help the transition, but it's not a necessity in the same way energy generation transition is and doesn't need to be packaged to the public in the same way.

 

The whole matter of communication in a democratic system where such decisions are subject to that democratic process has to be done so damn carefully - but that's the price paid for a freer society.

Edited 15 December 2023 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67705812

 

"The loss of predictable weather patterns is "causing chaos" for nature, according to the National Trust.

It warns climate change is upsetting the regular rhythm of the seasons, making plants and wildlife more susceptible to disease.

The effects can be seen across the estates the National Trust manages.

This seasonal "baseline shift" is disrupting the annual behaviours of animals in particular but also impacting trees and plants, it said.

"The incremental shifts we're experiencing in terms of our seasons extending may not feel like much in a 12-month period, but over a decade the changes are extremely significant", said Ben McCarthy, head of Nature and Restoration Ecology at the National Trust."

 

Yet another consequence.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Lots of talk regarding floods right now, and they will only become more common.

 

And all of that disruption caused by such flooding, including compensation to both homeowners, farmers and supply chains, is just one of the consequences.

[Wymsey]

It's happening now throughout the UK, with the floods..

 

It shows that the nation is poorly prepared for such situations.

[fox_up_north]

My mum is in an area of Lincs that could definitely be at risk, as the garden has flooded a few times in the last year. Though it does mostly seem to be because there's a manhole in the garden that gets blocked by crap.

 

I've strongly suggested moving sooner rather than later. 

[leicsmac]

On the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67877086

 

Flood-hit farmers are calling on the government to invest more in river defences in rural areas to protect UK food production.

Thousands of acres of crops and productive farmland are now sitting under floodwater left by Storm Henk.

The NFU says farmers who are expected to let fields of crops flood to protect towns should also be compensated.

A government spokesperson said £221m was being spent on maintaining flood defences in 2023/24.

Persistent wet weather over the Christmas period and New Year has caused further damage to farms that had already been hit by Storms Babet and Ciaran in the autumn.

 

And yet again, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67861954

 

"The year 2023 has been confirmed as the warmest on record, driven by human-caused climate change and boosted by the natural El Niño weather event.

Last year was about 1.48C warmer than the long-term average before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the EU's climate service says.

Almost every day since July has seen a new global air temperature high for the time of year, BBC analysis shows.

Sea surface temperatures have also smashed previous highs."

 

 

Hmmm. Good to be a consistent record breaker, huh?

 

[jgtuk]

iT’s JuST ThE WeATher ThOUgh

[Daggers]

[ozleicester]

On 06/01/2024 at 20:21, leicsmac said:

On the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67877086

 

Flood-hit farmers are calling on the government to invest more in river defences in rural areas to protect UK food production.

Thousands of acres of crops and productive farmland are now sitting under floodwater left by Storm Henk.

The NFU says farmers who are expected to let fields of crops flood to protect towns should also be compensated.

A government spokesperson said £221m was being spent on maintaining flood defences in 2023/24.

Persistent wet weather over the Christmas period and New Year has caused further damage to farms that had already been hit by Storms Babet and Ciaran in the autumn.

 

And yet again, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Bloody socialists... 

[leicsmac]

https://www.ft.com/content/ed4b352b-5c06-4f8d-9df7-1b1f9fecb269

Donald Trump is planning to gut US President Joe Biden’s landmark climate law, increase investment in fossil fuels and roll back regulations aimed at accelerating the transition to electric vehicles if he is elected next year.

 

Senior campaign officials and advisers to the former president said he would seek to radically overhaul US climate and energy policy to “maximise fossil fuel production” during a second term.

 

@David Oldfields Gate, if I may, this is probably the main reason why an endorsement of Trump is... let's say, perhaps unwise.

[leicsmac]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2024/01/15/the-climate-optimists-fighting-back-against-the-doomers/

 

Don't just read the headline, and certainly don't read the ridiculous denial-of-the-laws-of-thermodynamics comments, the actual article itself is fair. Fatalism helps no one.

[leicsmac]

A reminder:

 

"Lynas et al. (2021) took 88,125 papers published between 2012-2020, randomly subset the dataset to 2,718 papers (a representative sample; see note), and examined those abstracts for stated agreement or disagreement with anthropogenic climate change. Of these, only four rejected anthropogenic climate change. That’s a 99.85% consensus of evidence. Similarly, if we apply the Cook et al. criteria, we get a 99.53% consensus of evidence. 

 

These surveys of the literature are extremely compelling evidence that a consensus has been reached and the topic is “settled.” If there was actually serious debate, if actual evidence existed discrediting anthropogenic global warming, we would see that in the literature. We would see numerous studies publishing evidence against anthropogenic climate change, but we don’t see those studies because that evidence doesn’t exist. All of the available data very clearly shows that we are causing climate change. The scientific consensus on this topic is truly overwhelming."

[String fellow]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A reminder:

 

"Lynas et al. (2021) took 88,125 papers published between 2012-2020, randomly subset the dataset to 2,718 papers (a representative sample; see note), and examined those abstracts for stated agreement or disagreement with anthropogenic climate change. Of these, only four rejected anthropogenic climate change. That’s a 99.85% consensus of evidence. Similarly, if we apply the Cook et al. criteria, we get a 99.53% consensus of evidence. 

 

These surveys of the literature are extremely compelling evidence that a consensus has been reached and the topic is “settled.” If there was actually serious debate, if actual evidence existed discrediting anthropogenic global warming, we would see that in the literature. We would see numerous studies publishing evidence against anthropogenic climate change, but we don’t see those studies because that evidence doesn’t exist. All of the available data very clearly shows that we are causing climate change. The scientific consensus on this topic is truly overwhelming."

The wonderfully-named Eunice Newton Foote did some experiments in 1856 which lead her to predict the possibility of global warming even then. So literature on this subject goes back nearly 170 years.