Climate Change - a poll

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

The Earth goes through cycles. 
 

We’ve undoubtedly contributed to the current wave however and we’re experiencing climate change because of it. 
 

However, if we inevitably wipe out half the planet, what nature always does is rebuild and heal itself. We once lived through a Gazzillion years of ice age. We only need Yellowstone to blow and we’ll be doing that again. 
 

We can however adapt ourselves to counter what we’re doing. However the world has been slow, tried to profiteer and simply not cared. 
 

The painful one in all honesty, is the impact of losing the vast amounts of rainforest and plants which supply vital oxygen production.
 

We can’t continue down this path, if we want to maintain what we currently have. however that’s not to say we can’t adapt to find alternative ways of living.

 

The elephant in the room for me, is how does the amount of carbon dioxide we generate now actually compare to the Industrial Revolution? I sort of feel the information that we are now 50% higher feels incorrect. 

[murphy]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

The elephant in the room for me, is how does the amount of carbon dioxide we generate now actually compare to the Industrial Revolution? I sort of feel the information that we are now 50% higher feels incorrect. 

I don't know the answer to this, but look at it this way, world population has quadrupled in less than a century, so that's a whole lot more carbon footprints and more industry to support them.

 

Also, isn't the affect cumulative?

[Monk]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

 

We can’t continue down this path, if we want to maintain what we currently have. however that’s not to say we can’t adapt to find alternative ways of living.

Try telling that to Bangladesh when their country is underwater. What will their alternative way of living be? Grow fins and gills?

[nnfox]

3 hours ago, Sly said:

 

The elephant in the room for me, is how does the amount of carbon dioxide we generate now actually compare to the Industrial Revolution? I sort of feel the information that we are now 50% higher feels incorrect. 

I'd put it down to scale.  Industrial processes might put out half the CO2 levels that they did during the industrial revolution, but if the volume increases four fold, then CO2 generation increases.

 

These industrial processes now happen in major cities all over the world, not just in a handful of cities in a few countries.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Sly said:

The Earth goes through cycles. 
 

We’ve undoubtedly contributed to the current wave however and we’re experiencing climate change because of it. 
 

However, if we inevitably wipe out half the planet, what nature always does is rebuild and heal itself. We once lived through a Gazzillion years of ice age. We only need Yellowstone to blow and we’ll be doing that again. 
 

We can however adapt ourselves to counter what we’re doing. However the world has been slow, tried to profiteer and simply not cared. 
 

The painful one in all honesty, is the impact of losing the vast amounts of rainforest and plants which supply vital oxygen production.
 

We can’t continue down this path, if we want to maintain what we currently have. however that’s not to say we can’t adapt to find alternative ways of living.

 

The elephant in the room for me, is how does the amount of carbon dioxide we generate now actually compare to the Industrial Revolution? I sort of feel the information that we are now 50% higher feels incorrect. 

Right.

 

Carlin had it correct when he said "the planet is fine, the people are fvcked". We're saving ourselves (and many species we might take with us), not the Earth per se. That doesn't make it any less important, though.

 

4 hours ago, nnfox said:

I'd put it down to scale.  Industrial processes might put out half the CO2 levels that they did during the industrial revolution, but if the volume increases four fold, then CO2 generation increases.

 

These industrial processes now happen in major cities all over the world, not just in a handful of cities in a few countries.

Would agree with this.

 

The only acceptable solution is to make these industries cleaner, not look to phase them out, though.

[Sly]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right.

 

Carlin had it correct when he said "the planet is fine, the people are fvcked". We're saving ourselves (and many species we might take with us), not the Earth per se. That doesn't make it any less important, though.

 

Would agree with this.

 

The only acceptable solution is to make these industries cleaner, not look to phase them out, though.

I do think the world needs to adopt better energy processes and become less reliant on fossil fuels. At some point the balance of cost to do this needs addressing, as for me to even do it within my workplace will cost millions.
 

In the current climate, no local authority is willing to pay for that, never mind private clients as they want cheap, cheap, cheap. 
 

Until the government appreciate that going green will cost us more in the short term and willingly pay for this, then we’re just building toward the inevitable. 

 

Lots of private companies though, will still use this to make further profits when we’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis. It’s almost like the can keeps getting kicked down the road and as a planet, we can’t keep doing that. 
 

Until It starts to impact everyone’s daily lives, 50% of the population have little to no interest beyond next week, never mind 2 generations time. 

 

What we really need is some form of a carbon tax, however calculating that for each individual would be massive and no government would win an election bringing it in, would they? 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Sly said:

I do think the world needs to adopt better energy processes and become less reliant on fossil fuels. At some point the balance of cost to do this needs addressing, as for me to even do it within my workplace will cost millions.
 

In the current climate, no local authority is willing to pay for that, never mind private clients as they want cheap, cheap, cheap. 
 

Until the government appreciate that going green will cost us more in the short term and willingly pay for this, then we’re just building toward the inevitable. 

 

Lots of private companies though, will still use this to make further profits when we’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis. It’s almost like the can keeps getting kicked down the road and as a planet, we can’t keep doing that. 
 

Until It starts to impact everyone’s daily lives, 50% of the population have little to no interest beyond next week, never mind 2 generations time. 

 

What we really need is some form of a carbon tax, however calculating that for each individual would be massive and no government would win an election bringing it in, would they? 

This is (regrettably) spot on, or at least I can offer no compelling evidence to the contrary. We are taking steps, but nothing either big enough or fast enough.

 

I've made the point repeatedly about people not thinking about things beyond their own social group and next week and how much of a flaw that is. Thing is, we simply can't afford to entertain that flaw and expect to survive for any length of time, which would be sad because as a species we have so much potential. We desperately need farsighted people setting policy decisions and farsighted people backing them up.

 

I've got no idea how such solutions can be implemented at the present time though - well, actually, I do, but it's an unacceptable idea because it involves abandoning democracy entirely.

[leicsmac]

On topic:

 

 

I would add "cost-effective at the present time", but yeah.

[ozleicester]

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Yeah, that's the thing about the laws of physics. They tend to hold true despite denial and con artistry.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On topic:

 

 

I would add "cost-effective at the present time", but yeah.

Yeah, but what did saving yourself ever do for me?  

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yeah, but what did saving yourself ever do for me?  

 

.... and this is where you really need the option to choose two reactions at once.

 

Namely the and ones.

[SpacedX]

Remember some giving this fool the time of day in the Covid thread? Sad to say that Neil Oliver and GB News are at it again - 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66314338

[st albans fox]

17 hours ago, ozleicester said:

To clarify these are heat index temps, not actual temperatures 

 

I’ve no idea how unusual these are in the Deep South and Texas. I would suspect they definitely are further north though. 

[ozleicester]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

To clarify these are heat index temps, not actual temperatures 

 

I’ve no idea how unusual these are in the Deep South and Texas. I would suspect they definitely are further north though. 

I think this is pretty clear...

https://www.foxnews.com/weather/scientist-predict-july-hottest-month-record-globally

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/27/world/july-hottest-month-record-climate/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66322608

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Line-X said:

Remember some giving this fool the time of day in the Covid thread? Sad to say that Neil Oliver and GB News are at it again - 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66314338

"The end of human civilisation will be heralded by five words. 'This is for my country', or 'But what will it cost?'" - someone somewhere, probably.

[ozleicester]

[Jon the Hat]

On 28/07/2023 at 12:42, WigstonWanderer said:

Agee regarding apathy and readiness to go along with unscientific narratives.

 

This has resulted in more progressive parties campaigning on environmental issues getting their arses kicked in elections.

 

We then end up with timid, half hearted governments, for example here in Australia, who claim the green higher ground but in practice pretty much carry on with business as usual.

 

Likely the UK will get the same with Starmer.

What would you have Australia do that would make a difference?  IMO Albo is taking a pragmatic approach.  No point turning off Australian Coal when the alternative is the Chinese bunring lower quality coal emitting higher emissions and mined in more dangerous conditions elsewhere.  Admitedly it is insane that while most of the world is moving towards more efficient cars Australia sees Ford start importing the F150, but numbers are tiny really.

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

I think this is pretty clear...

https://www.foxnews.com/weather/scientist-predict-july-hottest-month-record-globally

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/27/world/july-hottest-month-record-climate/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66322608

It's clear statements like this make people switch off: UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling"

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's clear statements like this make people switch off: UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling"

 

I'm curious to know what he could have said to help get the requisite amount of players onside to avoid very bad outcomes, given that both reasonable projections of fact from the scientific community and (somewhat) hyperbolic rhetoric like he has said appear not to have worked thus far.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm curious to know what he could have said to help get the requisite amount of players onside to avoid very bad outcomes, given that both reasonable projections of fact from the scientific community and (somewhat) hyperbolic rhetoric like he has said appear not to have worked thus far.

You can't project fact, that make no sense.  The Hyperbole is exaggerated, everyone knows it, they quote the forecast worst outcomes all the time.  Even in this thread the doom mongering is mad.

[ozleicester]

yup... and right there is the reason!

it was hyperbole in 1978
hyperbole in 2000
hyperbole in 2012
its hyperbole in 2023

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You can't project fact, that make no sense.  The Hyperbole is exaggerated, everyone knows it, they quote the forecast worst outcomes all the time.  Even in this thread the doom mongering is mad.

Sorry, reasonable projections based on fact, eg. data we have at the present time. Should have been clearer there.

 

And with respect, "everyone" knows nothing of the sort, we have events of wildfire and flooding and drought practically unprecedented in recorded human history, and we're not even at 1.5 degrees C average temperature change compared to 1850 yet. Imagine what it would be like with a rise to 2 to 3 degrees C increase within the next few decades, or even more. And that's to say nothing of how humans themselves will react when those drought events result in critical shortages of food and potable water in places with many people (viz. blood on the floor).

 

Downplaying this problem and as a result not taking necessary action on it is not only showing an appreciable lack of respect for the damage natural events can do, but also, frankly, condemning a great many people to suffering and death needlessly.

[nnfox]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You can't project fact, that make no sense.  The Hyperbole is exaggerated, everyone knows it, they quote the forecast worst outcomes all the time.  Even in this thread the doom mongering is mad.

The "Global Boiling" quote was said in order to make catchy headlines, which it did.  Obviously the planet isn't going to literally boil, but that's not to say that urgent action isn't required.  It is.  Using the media to grab people's attention is an important part of having any hope to solve the problem.

 

I do agree though, that continued use of hyperbole doesn't really help in the long term.  Generally people like to deal with facts, which can't be provided when predicting the future, so we get a lot of "in 10, 20, 30 years, X Y Z might happen if we don't do something now".  Statements like that give people too many outs...  "Well it only might happen, some of it probably won't"... "30 years is a long way away" and so on.

 

It's very difficult to bring small planetary scale changes to the here and now, but I'm sure that if we could all magically wake up 30 years in the future and show people the facts, then taking action now would be far more likely.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, nnfox said:

The "Global Boiling" quote was said in order to make catchy headlines, which it did.  Obviously the planet isn't going to literally boil, but that's not to say that urgent action isn't required.  It is.  Using the media to grab people's attention is an important part of having any hope to solve the problem.

 

I do agree though, that continued use of hyperbole doesn't really help in the long term.  Generally people like to deal with facts, which can't be provided when predicting the future, so we get a lot of "in 10, 20, 30 years, X Y Z might happen if we don't do something now".  Statements like that give people too many outs...  "Well it only might happen, some of it probably won't"... "30 years is a long way away" and so on.

 

It's very difficult to bring small planetary scale changes to the here and now, but I'm sure that if we could all magically wake up 30 years in the future and show people the facts, then taking action now would be far more likely.

It is asking people to do two difficult things when it comes to cognitive dissonance:

 

- take advice based on (reasoned predictions) rather than hard evidence in the here and now (though we're getting some of that hard evidence through current events already) and

- actually make decisions based on long term planning rather than immediate gratification and based on guaranteeing the welfare of people they will likely never meet

 

Thing is though, as has been mentioned before, by the time things do become apparent enough that the first one of those conditions is satisfied in the minds of many, the changes will not be preventable and damage limitation will be the only strategy, and it will cost a great many lives and a lot of material wealth. I'm not sure how that can be circumvented, but I do think it can be and has to be, or the blood of those people will be on the hands of everyone who failed to act when there was a chance of saving them. At least, that's the way the folks in the future will likely see it - and I would agree.