Global Warming

[MakemineVanilla]

59 minutes ago, blandy said:

@MakemineVanilla That video is interesting because it says a few things that aren't always mentioned.

It says Sceptics and the main scientific view agree on the effects if CO2 and that the disagreement is about the feedback effect (only). Main scientific view, it says has feedback multiplying the effects of increased CO2 by x3, whereas sceptics say the multiplication effect is x 0.5.

The whole video, the article it is based on and it's author is debunked pretty comprehensively here as well as giving credit for the part where ha makes some valid comment

That's peer reviewing for ya. 

 

The link does not take you to the scientific article, is just takes you to a blog which is all ad hominem.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

is just takes you to a blog which is all ad hominem

Eh? which link - the one I gave to sceptical science? or one contained in the extract. If it's the former, then you're quite wrong, if it's the latter, then it was specifically put there by a commenter to the main article to address his background and (lack of) qualifications as a climate scientist - he isn't one. He's a mathematician. 

[MrDuck]

[sexbelowsound]

A friend at work says her brothers, who are highly educated, believe that climate change is nonsense.

They do however work for Ford......

[MakemineVanilla]

But the question is, what proportion of the blame should producers, governments and consumers share?

Exxon Mobil had a net margin of 4.51% in 2016, a margin not many businesses would think worthwhile.

What is the margin for the government per litre of fuel? It peaked at 81.5% under New Labour.

As for consumers, if they actually believe that the results of climate change are going to be catastrophic and lead to displacement of populations, famine and mass extinction, should they be expected to act on that belief, or not?

I have no doubt that Noah is a fictional character but at least when he believed in climate change, he did something about it.

So what are latter-day believers in climate-change doing to either prepare for the flood or to prevent it?

[Davkaus]

You can't expect consumers as a whole to do a god damn thing that's in their long-term interest, nevermind what's in the interest of people in decades to come. 

People still buy those shitty cosmetic products with plastic beads in them for **** sake. The smallest possible change, there are tonnes of similar products that use charcoal and other less/non-harmful alternatives, and people keep buying shit that's polluting the oceans instead. Consumers as a whole do what's best for their wallet in the short term, and what they enjoy. It's not fun thinking about the destruction of life on earth.

There are plenty of people out there trying to make a change, if you look hard enough. They mostly get condemned as lunatics and hippies though.

Ultimately, government regulation seems to be the only effective way to get people to think about minimising damage to the environment, but the people who elect their representatives are the same people who fail to vote with their wallets, so it's all a bit hopelesss.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Davkaus

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

But the question is, what proportion of the blame should producers, governments and consumers share?

Exxon Mobil had a net margin of 4.51% in 2016, a margin not many businesses would think worthwhile.

What is the margin for the government per litre of fuel? It peaked at 81.5% under New Labour.

As for consumers, if they actually believe that the results of climate change are going to be catastrophic and lead to displacement of populations, famine and mass extinction, should they be expected to act on that belief, or not?

I have no doubt that Noah is a fictional character but at least when he believed in climate change, he did something about it.

So what are latter-day believers in climate-change doing to either prepare for the flood or to prevent it?

The primary responsibility belongs to government, as they have both the information and the ability to control and coordinate steps. Secondary responsibility lies with industry and then with consumers.

4.5% is a margin many many businesses think worthwhile, that's a good level of return by a distance in today's climate.

uk fuel duty at 80% or whatever is a misnomer, other than being highly taxed as a fossil fuel is ultimately a good thing, though the original intent wasn't about the environment, it was just an easy source of govt revenue.

theres a great deal of ignorance about environmental harm of consumption of products and so on in the uk. People are getting better informed and when they are, they tend to act. Nudges and law helps a great deal with that. The 5p carrier bag charge is a good example. Championed for years by environmentalists and resisted by industry and government for little discernible valid reason, it's been a big success, there should be much more done along similar lines.

 

[villaglint]

MNV I'd be interested to know whether you actually believe in any of this stuff or whether you are just sceptical and looking to promote debate and critical thinking (which is a good thing!)

 

[Xann]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

So what are latter-day believers in climate-change doing to either prepare for the flood or to prevent it?

Last time I had an all in company car, I returned it. It took my boss and the office staff a little while to suss out that I wasn't angling for bigger car.

These days I cycle or catch the train to work.

My other half has a car, but she's a district nurse. I'm not sure if her next car will be electric, but the chances are the one following will be.

If a product arrives in the house without recyclable wrapping, it doesn't get bought again. Wandsworth's recycling is pretty comprehensive. You don't need to separate metals and plastics. Organic matter I put on the compost heap.

We shifted the power to a green tariff a while back.

Have noticed the amount of waste goes down considerably when she's away. Girls do like products. All the guff in the bathroom and the dressing table is her.

 

There's an off grid thread in the offing, monetary contributors to the site will have seen maqroll and I discuss this already.

Still need to shift my accounts away from HSBC though, I've been slack there

[blandy]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

So what are latter-day believers in climate-change doing to either prepare for the flood or to prevent it?

Like Dave, I cycle, try to minimise car miles, try use locally produced stuff as far as poss. Walk to the shops rather than drive, use public transport, support campaigns to get rid of stuff like the microbeads, plastic bags and that, Support environmental charity, re-use, recycle, compost and all the other stuff. None of it is hard, though maybe I'm in a lucky position.

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

So what are latter-day believers in climate-change doing to either prepare for the flood or to prevent it?

I cycle to work any possible time I can and I'll cycle to the shops etc rather than make small journeys in the car

I changed my family car to a hybrid that does 65 MPG, 85g/KM CO2 and no smog producing, asthma and lung cancer causing NOx. My next car will be a plugin hybrid or full EV.

As soon as the kids can take themselves to school I'll cycle to work and back 100% and get rid of one car in the family.

I have the nest down as low as I can stand. I recycle everything I can from waste.

I've become almost vegetarian due to the environmental impact of livestock rather than moral implications. 

[chrisp65]

I have an old petrol car. Cannot do my job without the car, you'll have to take my word for that.

Should I be keeping that old car that runs n runs and gets me 48mpg on the motorway?

Or should I get someone to build me a new one, with batteries I guess? It'll need plugging in too I guess, so that's probably just shifting the pollution from where you can see it to some nice nuclear plant far away.

Interested to see what the answers are. My hunch is, I keep the car until it isn't economical to repair it.

 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I have an old petrol car. Cannot do my job without the car, you'll have to take my word for that.

Should I be keeping that old car that runs n runs and gets me 48mpg on the motorway?

Or should I get someone to build me a new one, with batteries I guess? It'll need plugging in too I guess, so that's probably just shifting the pollution from where you can see it to some nice nuclear plant far away.

Interested to see what the answers are. My hunch is, I keep the car until it isn't economical to repair it.

 

Debatable. If it was a diesel I'd say it would be far better for everyone's health to get it off the road as quickly as possible. As it's a petrol it's better but depends on the age for how clean it is. Therefore you're probably right to keep it until it's uneconomical to repair but then replace with a hybrid/PHEV/EV.

Batteries are very recyclable once they come to the end of their very long lifetime. And things like hybrids have half the mechanical components of traditional ICE and drivetrain cars so far less that can fail and need replacing or will end up having to be recycled when they need to be scrapped.

The shifting of the CO2 thing with plugging in is a bit of misrepresentation. With more cars becoming EV, cars are becoming energy shifting pools and can be (and are being) used to transport electricity from cities to rural areas and back. Producing electricity in the first place can be 100% from renewable sources and the cars act as storage for the reserve for any gaps. There's load of really cool things happening around this right now. Germany recently produced 100% of its electricity requirement from renewable sources: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/did-germany-just-surpass-100-renewable-power/150/537/95390/ and went into negative wholesale electricity pricing, so they pay people to take power off them. What better place than mobile batteries?

Lots explained here:

 

[Xann]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

It'll need plugging in too I guess, so that's probably just shifting the pollution from where you can see it to some nice nuclear plant far away.

This is the point. A billion is being spent running a cable down from Scottish wind generators and a Chinese nuclear power station looks like it'll be built in Hinkley for more billions.

Cor blimey - Can anyone see another answer to this conundrum?

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, Xann said:

Cor blimey - Can anyone see another answer to this conundrum?

It's frustrating because local micro-generation, heat pumps, solar, wind etc. on every factory / estate / street and so on together with better insulation and energy conservation is a way, way better option than building nuclear, coal and gas stations. But the energy generating companies would hate it. So it doesn't happen.

[darrenm]

I've had a few discussions recently about how all new build houses should automatically have solar roofs and possibly other communal heat systems etc but as always, there's one big barrier; Capitalism and the intrinsic 'who's going to pay for it?'

No house builder is going to spend money on something they don't need to. No home buyer will spend extra on something they don't need to. This government won't give subsidies on something they don't need to, so as always, the environment suffers.

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's frustrating because local micro-generation, heat pumps, solar, wind etc. on every factory / estate / street and so on together with better insulation and energy conservation is a way, way better option than building nuclear, coal and gas stations. But the energy generating companies would hate it. So it doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, it's not just the energy companies that don't like it.

Several local schemes for small scale power stations and wind farms have been rejected due to local resident campaigns against actually being able to see how the energy is provided to leave the sky box on standby all night.

I was involved in trying to get planning permission for a renewable energy power station on part of the old British Steel site just up the coast, on land currently poisoned with heavy metals. The planning authority rejected it as it wouldn't help 'future tourism plans' for the area.

On Anglesey at the moment there's the potential for a new power station to provide energy, jobs and industry on the island. The locals are campaigning against unsightly pylons across the fields.

Unfortunately, we need some lights and heating to start going off before your average punter will take this seriously.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

This government won't give subsidies on something they don't need to

Apart from Hinkley Point and so on.... 

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Apart from Hinkley Point and so on.... 

Oh but they need to with those. How else will they get their consultant jobs after their political careers are over?

[blandy]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Unfortunately, it's not just the energy companies that don't like it.

Several local schemes for small scale power stations and wind farms have been rejected due to local resident campaigns ..Unfortunately, we need some lights and heating to start going off before your average punter will take this seriously.

The way to persuade people is to give them some benefit. At the moment people complain about wind turbines or basically anything getting built near them, or in their sight. In Denmark for example, where a wind turbine is put up, the local folk get cash money benefits. Partly as a consequence, Denmark will soon be 50% renewable energy and not long after 100%, mostly through wind. Loads of jobs created, an industry built up, and for a cost of about 0.5% of GDP. We could do the same, though the Danish publican all parties agree on Climate change and the need to do their bit, whereas here, you've still got deniers and big business trying to stifle adaptation.