Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Otis said:

At some point in the future maybe but not in the next 10 -20 years and certainly not by 2030.

Well, as a species we'd better get on with it.

 

Time is money. And human lives. Lots of both.

[Robo61]

57 minutes ago, Otis said:

The thing is EVs and the rest of the country cannot currently survive on just renewables. This weekend for example 60% of electric produced came from gas. 

Which also makes a mockery of using ASHP's for environmental reasons., may as well feed the cheaper gas directly into a standard boiler.

There's a long way to go before renewables are the answer and 2030 will never be achieved.

Not sure anyone has suggested net zero would be met by 2030, the goal of this and the last givernment is 2050.

[Robo61]

38 minutes ago, Otis said:

Interesting read. But pie in the sky. 

There is absolutely no way the UK will be running on 100 renewable energy by 2030.

No more petrol, diesel or gas in 5 years time? Was this written whilst under some serious medication?

On that I can agree, even if that was economically & politically possible, which it isn't, the article doesnt address where we would find the manpower to build that vast infrastructure in such a short time span. 

 

Very disappointing this sort of rubbish does no favours to anyone.

Edited 21 January by Robo61

[Otis]

42 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

On that I can agree, even if that was economically & politically possible, which it isn't, the article doesnt address where we would find the manpower to build that vast infrastructure in such a short time span. 

 

Very disappointing this sort of rubbish does no favours to anyone.

And the fact that viable E-HGVs & the infrastructure don't yet exist.

And everyone with an ICE vehicle will put them in the bin and go out and spend 50k on a EV.

The more you read the funnier it gets.

[Otis]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1998723/power-outage-warning-issued-uk-weather?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

Danger of blackouts last weekend. 

 

Doesn't matter how many solar panels or wind turbines you have, when the wind doesnt blow on a cold, overcast January. People will be thankful for gas until nuclear can fill the gap.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Otis said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1998723/power-outage-warning-issued-uk-weather?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

Danger of blackouts last weekend. 

 

Doesn't matter how many solar panels or wind turbines you have, when the wind doesnt blow on a cold, overcast January. People will be thankful for gas until nuclear can fill the gap.

Which is why the aforementioned are part of a suite of solutions. Across the whole world.

 

Unless the UK fancies the idea of more extremes of weather in all directions and, seeing as it isn't the only country in the world, plenty of climate refugees from places where it's gone even more extreme.

 

Of course, the UK and other parties could simply look to sit out out and abandon them to their fate, but I'm not sure how well they'd like that, especially if the nations they're part of that are drawing their last breath are well armed.

[Otis]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, the UK and other parties could simply look to sit out out and abandon them to their fate, but I'm not sure how well they'd like that, especially if the nations they're part of that are drawing their last breath are well armed.

Obviously worse case scenario... Genuinely interested in your opinion/prediction of exactly how that would play out and when?

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1998723/power-outage-warning-issued-uk-weather?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

Danger of blackouts last weekend. 

 

Doesn't matter how many solar panels or wind turbines you have, when the wind doesnt blow on a cold, overcast January. People will be thankful for gas until nuclear can fill the gap.

Nuclear will most certainly be in the mix, but there are other ways of ensuring we have baseload when their is no wind or sun you know.

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1998723/power-outage-warning-issued-uk-weather?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

Danger of blackouts last weekend. 

 

Doesn't matter how many solar panels or wind turbines you have, when the wind doesnt blow on a cold, overcast January. People will be thankful for gas until nuclear can fill the gap.

I'm sorry but quoting the express on a topic like this should result in some kind of mandatory media studies training. 

[SpacedX]

12 hours ago, Otis said:

Interesting read. But pie in the sky. 

There is absolutely no way the UK will be running on 100 renewable energy by 2030.

No more petrol, diesel or gas in 5 years time? Was this written whilst under some serious medication?

So you missed the entire point of the data whilst proceeding to post a link to the Daily Express? Perhaps that explains why several years ago you brazenly proclaimed, contrary to the entire body of epidemiological evidence, that it has been scientifically proven that lockdowns during highly contagious viral epidemics "don't work"? 

Edited 22 January by SpacedX

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, Otis said:

Obviously worse case scenario... Genuinely interested in your opinion/prediction of exactly how that would play out and when?

Thank you for asking.

 

There are multiple possibilities on that front, but I've chosen two as examples - one that affects the UK mostly indirectly, and is extremely horrible but not catastrophic, and one that does affect the UK (and everywhere else) very directly, and is.. well, read on. The former is more likely than the latter, but that doesn't mean the latter could never happen.

 

Both are based on projections on temperature increase given present trends and action, and are set 25ish years into the future (so in the lifetimes of most of the users here), so an increase of roughly 2 degrees C average globally on 1850 levels.

 

Scenario 1:

 

After temperatures have increased by the amount stated above, equatorial and tropical regions around the world suffer consecutive failed harvests due to increased flooding and drought. Massive humanitarian crises develop in those areas as people simply run out of food and potable water and are unable to sustain themselves - the scale of the matter means that even the greatest charitable donations by other nations do little.

 

Sub-Saharan Africa descends into border conflict and then outright and civil wars as nations battle for control over the few water sources and viable growing areas left. But another key flashpoint is South Asia, where India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, southern China and others - fully a third to a half of the world's population - are also at risk.

 

A three way conflict develops for control of the glaciers of Kashmir. Nuclear war between India, Pakistan and China is narrowly avoided through skilled diplomacy, but the conventional conflict soon escalates beyond the local and hundreds of millions are caught up in it.

 

The other nations, though not touched directly, face a refugee crisis like never before as those hundreds of millions flee their countries. Alarmed, those others mostly close their borders, abandoning them to their fate. The response is quick. Multiple terrorist organisations arise, seeking to change the immigration policy to a more lenient one by means of force. Bankrolled by both the nations originally in trouble (under the table) and by those looking to forment discord in the West, they inflict damage to lives, infrastructure and morale. And all this time, the UK and the West is dealing with increased crop pressure of their own due to increased flooding and drought (though not as bad as equatorial regions), at vast economic cost.

 

End result: hundreds of millions likely die or are displaced over the course of a decade, and though survivable, the cost in lives, money and infrastructure is felt by everyone.

 

Scenario 2:

 

This one begins much like the one above, but this time the various powers of the world are more active more quickly. China allies with Russia, allowing access to the fresh water of the Kashmir glaciers in return for access to the breadbasket of Ukraine. Of course, this requires the Ukrainians to be out of the way... and the Russians are only too happy to oblige there.

 

Similar situations begin to crop up as bigger nations simply roll in and take possession of arable land and fresh water wherever they can find it from the smaller ones. A new Cold War begins as blocs arise, East and West.

 

And at some point in the next few years, either power wants the Arctic (or some other area rich with natural resources) for itself. Military spending increases rapidly, which only makes the resource economic issue more stark.

 

One side stakes a claim, putting armed troops in a previously neutral area. The other responds. There is a misunderstanding. Things escalate. Conventional war. One side begins to lose.

 

The nuclear suitcase is opened.

 

End result: Mad Max.

 

Now, these are only two possible scenarios, there are many more. And climate change isn't shown to be a driver of war in of itself, but it does create situations, through threatening basic human needs, that make war far more likely to occur.

 

The threat here isn't just posed by the natural world, as damaging as floods and drought and other extreme weather will be. It's also from our own, very human, response to it.

 

Edit: just to be clear, while these scenarios are hypothetical, the crop failures and water shortages due to extreme weather from which they begin are practically inevitable unless action is taken. The only hypothetical element is the global response to those crop failures.

Edited 22 January by leicsmac

[Otis]

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

So you missed the entire point of the data whilst proceeding to post a link to the Daily Express? Perhaps that explains why several years ago you brazenly proclaimed, contrary to the entire body of epidemiological evidence, that it has been scientifically proven that lockdowns during highly contagious viral epidemics "don't work"? 

So what was the point?

[Otis]

11 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I'm sorry but quoting the express on a topic like this should result in some kind of mandatory media studies training. 

I didn't realise there are rules. Would you kindly like to provide a list of preferred sources.

[Otis]

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

So you missed the entire point of the data whilst proceeding to post a link to the Daily Express? Perhaps that explains why several years ago you brazenly proclaimed, contrary to the entire body of epidemiological evidence, that it has been scientifically proven that lockdowns during highly contagious viral epidemics "don't work"? 

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

 

COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.

 

https://econofact.org/how-effective-were-pandemic-lockdowns

 

The research based on a variety of models suggests that the adoption of lockdowns in the face of the initial COVID surge was effective in containing transmission and deaths, albeit at high economic and social costs

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/05/revised-report-on-impact-of-covid-lockdowns-leaves-unanswered-questions

 

 

So, not exactly black and white, so it depends on what you define as a success.

*Really don't want to turn this into a COVID thread. 

[SpacedX]

51 minutes ago, Otis said:

So what was the point?

That the emphasis and reliance upon fossil fuels is likely to significantly change within the next few years and as pointed out to you, the cherry picked snapshot is not indicative of the big picture. There are already many months in which zero-carbon sources produced more energy than fossil-fuels. It simply tells you that the UK’s energy could be 100% green by the end of 2030, because we actually do have the capability and technology to replace the 1,297 TWh of non-renewable energy the UK uses. Do I think that this is realistic? no, of course not, it would require huge investment, political will, private sector investment and the assurance that the UK’s 28 million households are availed with the necessary technology  to harness this green energy, partially by stopping high costs from preventing people from getting on board. However, the UK will continue to make significant inroads towards the realisation of a net zero strategy, which I am confident will be achievable by 2050 and in the meantime this will spell a growing decreased dependence upon carbon sources. 

 

I also want to emphasis that 2050 is likely too late. We don't have that much time. 

 

30 minutes ago, Otis said:

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

 

COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.

 

https://econofact.org/how-effective-were-pandemic-lockdowns

 

The research based on a variety of models suggests that the adoption of lockdowns in the face of the initial COVID surge was effective in containing transmission and deaths, albeit at high economic and social costs

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/05/revised-report-on-impact-of-covid-lockdowns-leaves-unanswered-questions

 

 

So, not exactly black and white, so it depends on what you define as a success.

*Really don't want to turn this into a COVID thread. 

No one is claiming that it is "black and white". Remember, the purpose of a lockdown is to contain spread. Your claim that "lockdowns" don't work was absolutely incorrect. What you have also demonstrated however is that you still, years later, fail to understand cherry picking and confirmation bias in addition to opinion pieces masquerading as fact."Peer reviewed academic study"? Let me help you here - the IEA is the diametric opposite of the "think tank" that it purports to be and recently lost a lost a two-year legal battle over allegations that it is a “hard-right lobby group”. It is nothing more than an alt right lobbying machine. 

 

Given that you are clearly still easily bamboozled and susceptible such sources, I would as you sensibly suggested, be more than happy for you to take this over to the Covid thread and address each of the links that you have provided. You are absolutely correct that we shouldn't derail this thread. 

Edited 22 January by SpacedX

[leicsmac]

Michael Bloomberg on US climate policy:

 

"From 2017 to 2020, during a period of federal inaction, cities, states, businesses and the public rose to the challenge to uphold our nation’s commitments - and now, we are ready to do it again."

 

Promising, but it is a hope rather than an expectation that it will be any more than damage limitation.

[splinterdream]

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/21/mps-to-consider-bill-likely-to-cause-mass-starvation-death-disease-and-societal-collapse-in-near-future/?s=04&fbclid=IwY2xjawH_YC9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQQIizbBHIiIvHkqG309ik0a-WH2mj-lw0xqUdG56IMyhelYEwt8bmih3g_aem_MBXm3MQyOsvVFRPzYqjHRw

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/21/mps-to-consider-bill-likely-to-cause-mass-starvation-death-disease-and-societal-collapse-in-near-future/?s=04&fbclid=IwY2xjawH_YC9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQQIizbBHIiIvHkqG309ik0a-WH2mj-lw0xqUdG56IMyhelYEwt8bmih3g_aem_MBXm3MQyOsvVFRPzYqjHRw

Ah, welcome back.

 

Can the erudite author of this article actually prove anything that he's saying here about the global climate science corps to a scientific standard, or is it all just pretty much libelous?

[Zear0]

29 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/21/mps-to-consider-bill-likely-to-cause-mass-starvation-death-disease-and-societal-collapse-in-near-future/?s=04&fbclid=IwY2xjawH_YC9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQQIizbBHIiIvHkqG309ik0a-WH2mj-lw0xqUdG56IMyhelYEwt8bmih3g_aem_MBXm3MQyOsvVFRPzYqjHRw

77 open tabs?  Animal.

[splinterdream]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, welcome back.

 

Can the erudite author of this article actually prove anything that he's saying here about the global climate science corps to a scientific standard, or is it all just pretty much libelous?

I read the bill, it's very ambiguous, but with that quite sinister imo.

The author was on the radio this morning, and said the headline was designed to create attention, but the bill states to implement to get rid of 90% of hydro carbons (fossil fuel use) in 6-10 years.

This would mean societal collapse, I'm not sure how Caroline Lucy's, Ed Dave, hugh whitingstall etc think we achieve that so fast. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

I read the bill, it's very ambiguous, but with that quite sinister imo.

The author was on the radio this morning, and said the headline was designed to create attention, but the bill states to implement to get rid of 90% of hydro carbons (fossil fuel use) in 6-10 years.

This would mean societal collapse, I'm not sure how Caroline Lucy's, Ed Dave, hugh whitingstall etc think we achieve that so fast. 

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that no matter what bills get proposed, the overall target to get to net zero by 2050 will remain unless there is a major policy departure, so it's rather pie in the sky.

 

Secondly, a polite reminder that unless the UK and other places do phase out hydrocarbons for energy generation ASAP, there will be consequences up to and including societal collapse anyway. See above.

[splinterdream]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that no matter what bills get proposed, the overall target to get to net zero by 2050 will remain unless there is a major policy departure, so it's rather pie in the sky.

 

Secondly, a polite reminder that unless the UK and other places do phase out hydrocarbons for energy generation ASAP, there will be consequences up to and including societal collapse anyway. See above.

What sacrifices do you think will have to be made for net zero? 

 

Are you not the slightest bit worried that we have people pretending that renewable will service our needs?

 

I don't think 99.9% of us have the foggiest what net zero means in reality, not sure I know how it'll be, it's very worrying.

Edited 23 January by splinterdream

[Dahnsouff]

Renewables are not and have never been the problem nor solution, as they themselves are a source and then one that is extremely transitory at that.

Therefore without suitable storage solutions renewables are ethically pleasing but not a credible solution on their own.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, splinterdream said:

What sacrifices do you think will have to be made for net zero? 

 

Are you not the slightest bit worried that we have people pretending that renewable will service our needs?

 

I don't think 99.9% of us have the foggiest what net zero means in reality, not sure I know how it'll be, it's very worrying.

In order:

 

- provided the transition is made according to current plans, there should really be next to no sacrifices in terms of reduction of quality of life. Energy generation and transportation infrastructures will remain in principle the same; they'll just be powered differently.

- The neo-Luddites amuse me more than worry me, but as long as they or those who think renewables are the entire solution are nowhere near control of the political process I think that's logical. Perhaps more worry might be spent on those who think there isn't a problem at all and are willing to ignore it in favour of short term profit, who do have control of the political process in many places.

- Net zero is exactly as it sounds; a country or location emitting exactly the same or less carbon emissions into the air as it captures. Not sure how that's a worrying concept either.

[splinterdream]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

In order:

 

- provided the transition is made according to current plans, there should really be next to no sacrifices in terms of reduction of quality of life. Energy generation and transportation infrastructures will remain in principle the same; they'll just be powered differently.

- The neo-Luddites amuse me more than worry me, but as long as they or those who think renewables are the entire solution are nowhere near control of the political process I think that's logical. Perhaps more worry might be spent on those who think there isn't a problem at all and are willing to ignore it in favour of short term profit, who do have control of the political process in many places.

- Net zero is exactly as it sounds; a country or location emitting exactly the same or less carbon emissions into the air as it captures. Not sure how that's a worrying concept either.

How do you think they're going to generate our power needs, because renewables aren't going to get anywhere near, you might know more than I do on the subject 

Personally, I worry more about policies taken by British politicians, than I do.about climate change, isn't it this that's shut down the steel industry? We'd rather buy from China.

This bill if passed would mean that we wouldn't allow ourselves to buy steel from China, as their carbon output would be out carbon output, that would apply to everything.