171–180 of 352 posts
This perfectly epitomises the uk (and the rest of the worlds) attitude to global warming: * it's a non binding commitment to do something but not for at least a decade * it's not enough even if it does happen * it will be too late by then (it probably already is for anything but drastic action) * it's totally at the whim of future governments who will be no more willing to spend the money/time/popularity than the cur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does China get a free pass? It's the worlds largest miner of coal and is building many new coal fired power stations. For instance. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/riozim-se... and https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-will-china-build-hundre...
China has levelled of since 2011 while still maintaining their incredible economic growth. Quite remarkable actually. On the other hand it's quite easy to spot the outliers. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
Where is the climate emergency? Can someone show me something I can see? Sea levels haven't risen. There are more small birds around where I live than when I was younger. Things seem to be doing ok. I am a skeptic and I'm very far from trusting experts. I don't want to be in a state of belief, I want to know. But I am put in a position that I must take it on trust that it is real. Is carbon dioxide bad? Surely, it wo…
As you've said this I hardly think anything I'm going to show you will change your mind. However you have asked for some evidence so here is some.
> Sea levels
From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993)
Source: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-be....
> Bird population
In 2018, the all-species index in the UK, based on the aggregated population trends of 130 breeding species, was 11% below its 1970 value.
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
>Is carbon dioxide bad?
From the IPCC 2014: Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINA...
If you really want to learn I cannot recommend the IPCC's reports enough, whether you 'trust experts' or not, they lay out the problems we face as a species. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, caused in large part by human activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment perfectly epitomises the 'climate crisis' extinction rebellion Greta Thunberg school of response to climate issues. Firstly - any response to climate change that does not include China and really India and other emerging economies too is more or less useless. Why should we deny such countries the benefits of full industrialisation? Secondly - while in some respects you are correct, looking at CO2 numbers…
>> Firstly - any response to climate change that does not include China and really India Are these not mostly proxy emissions for western countries? E.g. is it the case that people in these countries are emitting pollution due to their lifestyles, or is the pollution mostly from energy, transport and manufacturing in the pursuit of selling products to western countries? >> During the covid19 situation we've seen the…
Last time I checked exports were around 14% of Chinese emissions. Significant but domestic emissions are the majority. Repeating the proxy emission meme is quite disrespectful if you consider this context. i.e. you are saying that although the other 86% are domestic, their primary purpose is to support the export industry and therefore should be counted as export emissions as well. It's almost the same as saying Chinese citizens only exist for the sake of first world countries.
Where is the climate emergency? Can someone show me something I can see? Sea levels haven't risen. There are more small birds around where I live than when I was younger. Things seem to be doing ok. I am a skeptic and I'm very far from trusting experts. I don't want to be in a state of belief, I want to know. But I am put in a position that I must take it on trust that it is real. Is carbon dioxide bad? Surely, it wo…
You can't see your cells, smell or see carbon monoxide, or touch the other planets - yet you trust that you have red blood cells, CO gas kills you in your sleep, and that mars is made from rock. You've been told this as well by scientists and experts, what's the difference?
Over years, PR companies employed by the big oil companies have sown doubt in climate science, this is not an accident. They did the same with cigarettes & the link to cancer - it took decades to correct the public health message that tobacco causes cancer.
I prescribe this podcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/player
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first time a government announced they would take action but not for a decade, it signalled action would be taken. This is the 1000th time a government has said "no action today but maybe in a decade". That signals no action. That's the same signal markets have been given for several decades now. I am happy to admit this is a complex issue, one that needs a global solution, an expensive one, maybe an unsolvable o…
1990: do you want to fix global warming, it'll take 1% of gdp. -- nah 2000: It's now 3% -- nah 2010: It's now 5% -- nah 2020: It's now 7% -- it's too expensive to fix now We need to tax pollution the amount it costs to clean up that pollution, that's all. You can fly as much as you want if you pay the costs. I suggest a £1 tax on non EV cars, that doubles each month
If new personal cars are EV only by 2030 then by 2025 most manufacturers will have changed most of their product line, by 2029 virtually all will have changed virtually all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’ve completely missed the point of what is a very reasonable and forward-thinking signalling exercise. You cannot have sudden cliff-edges in policies (like banning the sale of new ICE vehicles) that would put thousands, if not millions of people out of jobs. You need to send signals like this to the market well in advance so they can invest and plan ahead.
There are many things that can be done, in this very same moment. The problem is the high cost in political resources that no one is willing to pay. Some examples: - Start by implementing a odd/even rule for license plates in big cities, even full bans on weekends. - Tax and/or de-subsidize the meat industry. - Incentivize the installation of wind or other renewable energies. Energies with no CO2 emissions, like nucl…
Most people have no alternative at the moment so hitting cars can only lead to unrest.
An example is France's attempt to heavily tax diesel, which partly led to the yellow vest protests because people have no choice at the moment.
Put a good, viable alternative in place then you can make the move against ICE/cars in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many things that can be done, in this very same moment. The problem is the high cost in political resources that no one is willing to pay. Some examples: - Start by implementing a odd/even rule for license plates in big cities, even full bans on weekends. - Tax and/or de-subsidize the meat industry. - Incentivize the installation of wind or other renewable energies. Energies with no CO2 emissions, like nucl…
Most people get a measly 2 days of leisure time per week and you want to ban them from being able to use cars/leave the city on their 2 free days? Good luck I guess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’ve completely missed the point of what is a very reasonable and forward-thinking signalling exercise. You cannot have sudden cliff-edges in policies (like banning the sale of new ICE vehicles) that would put thousands, if not millions of people out of jobs. You need to send signals like this to the market well in advance so they can invest and plan ahead.
The signals that the ban is coming have been there for decades. Professor David King, former chief scientific advisor to the UK government, suggested a ban on petrol cars in 2002 ( http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art33.html ). That would have been a bit early for a ban in my opinion, but had the government heeded his advice and put in a legally binding ban to come in from, say, 2015, then the UK would be well…
from that article: "Britain should follow the example of Lombardy, a heavily-industrialised region in northern Italy, which is to ban the sale of fossil-fuel powered cars from 1 January 2005"
Q: Did Lombardy really enact that ban in 2005? What happened as a result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I suggest not addressing it? It's entirely this dismissive attitude that harms the cause. This 'all or nothing' attitude that reminds me of the gun control issue in the US. Since you've ignored most of what I said there, let me reduce the surface area of the discussion and ask 1 thing: Let's assume the UK does everything the climate 'activists' request of them, and this results in an economic depression and unpre…
> Did I suggest not addressing it? Yes, you said: >> The correct approach is a practical middle ground where we try to do what we can Then provided no examples of what we can do, in your opinion. This isn’t a problem that can be solved by right leaning politics, this is the right’s blind spot. You’ll need some creative lefty types to sort this out and then you’ll need some efficient righty types to come in a clean up…
You are also glossing over the consequences of an extreme response to climate change - an honest discussion talks about the cost as well as the benefits of any action taken.
The "all or nothing" approach is likely to get you nothing because in democratic countries when you take actions that result in severe economic consequences, people will just vote in a govt that reverses it. It also sends a signal to all other countries who were considering such action not to do it.
It's not an easy problem this, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but to me doing SOMETHING that is likely to be acceptable to democratic countries is better than doing nothing and souring the whole thing for ordinary people.