Global Warming

[LondonLax]

16 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

We don't produce those emissions. We can't change how China generates it's electricity. If we significantly reduce our spending on goods and services we will cause a global recession / depression which will reduce energy consumption and co2 emissions. Is making millions and millions unemployed worth the trade off?

The only other solution as stated above is overturn the capitalist system. Which would require revolution and mass bloodshed to achieve. 

Of course we produce them. It was our demand and our choice to use that supplier. 

The buck stops with us. 

[CVByrne]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Of course we produce them. It was our demand and our choice to use that supplier. 

The buck stops with us. 

answer my question then, we reduce our consumption thus people spend less, thus we go into a deep recession and people lose their jobs. Is this a good trade off to lower the co2 emissions? 

[sidcow]

OK. Some of you need to look at this. 

The big data lady is pretty positive about the future.

Also there is a good explanation about exactly why it's really important for countries like us to lead the way. 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by sidcow

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

answer my question then, we reduce our consumption thus people spend less, thus we go into a deep recession and people lose their jobs. Is this a good trade off to lower the co2 emissions? 

It depends in our emissions are creating irreversible damage to our environment that will far out weigh the pain of any recession. 

[CVByrne]

On 10/07/2023 at 15:54, sidcow said:

OK. Some of you need to look at this. 

The big data lady is pretty positive about the future.

Also there is a good explanation about exactly why it's really important for countries like us to lead the way. 

 

This was really good. Got round to finishing it today

[CVByrne]

The part at 31:40 about UK emissions and even when we factor in exporting of manufacturing abroad, so when adjusted for the emissions we import as goods there's still be a massive drop in co2 emissions in UK over last decade. 

Down to cleaner energy and and more efficient processes which use less power. Take modern insulation and improved manufacturing processes etc..

Edited July 11, 2023 by CVByrne

[sidcow]

Another point I would raise is this common statement you see that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesnt always shine so we can't rely on wind and solar. 

A few points. 

There are absolutely tons of locations for Hydro still to be exploited. We've only built one new Hydro Station in 40 years in this country, and there are suitable sites all over the world. 

The UK has been signing deals with loads of European Countries building huge capacity underwater cables to import and export electricity between nations. We've just signed a massive one with Germany.  If wind isn't blowing in The Irish Sea it probably will in The Rhine or The Barents Sea or The Mediterranean. 

And really really importantly Morocco is developing some absolutely mega renewable energy projects specifically aimed at exporting to Europe with the intention of becoming an energy super power.  You can bet other African and beyond nations will develop in a similar way and we'll have an enormous interconnected grid. Wind will be blowing somewhere and the sun will be shining somewhere. 

This isn't pie in the sky future thinking, this is stuff that's happening right now. 

The UK have just invested in a massive cable factory in Scotland because there is going to be enormous demand for these giant high power undersea cables so the UK also benefits from the infrastructure build out as well.   It's first job is to build a 4,000 km cable to connect The UK to the Moroccan super project. 

[desensitized43]

Personally I don’t think the way to make the climate argument is the way some people talk about catastrophe’s and how we’re all going to suffer some serious consequences. It needs to be a more carrot rather than stick approach.

The prospect of keeping global warming and climate change just isn’t compelling. People aren’t built to see a picture as big as that, they just can’t wrap their heads around it, but if you said to people that whole new clean energy industries with high paying jobs, cheaper electricity in the long term (because wind and sun are  **** free so it should be, no?) and energy security so we aren’t vulnerable to the whims of Russian and arab dictators that’s something people can understand.

[CVByrne]

9 hours ago, sidcow said:

Another point I would raise is this common statement you see that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesnt always shine so we can't rely on wind and solar. 

A few points. 

There are absolutely tons of locations for Hydro still to be exploited. We've only built one new Hydro Station in 40 years in this country, and there are suitable sites all over the world. 

The UK has been signing deals with loads of European Countries building huge capacity underwater cables to import and export electricity between nations. We've just signed a massive one with Germany.  If wind isn't blowing in The Irish Sea it probably will in The Rhine or The Barents Sea or The Mediterranean. 

And really really importantly Morocco is developing some absolutely mega renewable energy projects specifically aimed at exporting to Europe with the intention of becoming an energy super power.  You can bet other African and beyond nations will develop in a similar way and we'll have an enormous interconnected grid. Wind will be blowing somewhere and the sun will be shining somewhere. 

This isn't pie in the sky future thinking, this is stuff that's happening right now. 

The UK have just invested in a massive cable factory in Scotland because there is going to be enormous demand for these giant high power undersea cables so the UK also benefits from the infrastructure build out as well.   It's first job is to build a 4,000 km cable to connect The UK to the Moroccan super project. 

She says in the video though there's not really that much more Hydro to be exploited. Also that we need Nuclear power as part of a system of clean energy. That Nuclear, Wind, Solar and Batteries combination can work. The key for us and this is the positive message we seem to fail to give young people and the population of the west is we are the cutting edge of the technology advancements and we show the way for others. Making more efficient and cheaper solar panels, more advanced battery technology etc. On top of more efficient use of energy, cars with better range per kwh means every mile traveled costs less in co2 from electricity. 

We should show the data to people more and more. The stupid headlines aren't working in bringing people on the journey. We show the giant graphs of energy use but ignore efficiency (for example around two thirds of fossil fuel energy is wasted as heat and only one third is actually harnessed). So we need less more efficient clean energy than inefficient dirty energy. 

It's just sad to see young students protesting like helpless victims instead of championing the things we can do more of in terms of technology advancements we make here that benefit the entire world.

[OutByEaster?]

10 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

Personally I don’t think the way to make the climate argument is the way some people talk about catastrophe’s and how we’re all going to suffer some serious consequences. It needs to be a more carrot rather than stick approach.

The prospect of keeping global warming and climate change just isn’t compelling. People aren’t built to see a picture as big as that, they just can’t wrap their heads around it, but if you said to people that whole new clean energy industries with high paying jobs, cheaper electricity in the long term (because wind and sun are  **** free so it should be, no?) and energy security so we aren’t vulnerable to the whims of Russian and arab dictators that’s something people can understand.

Surely if you're not already motivated by the imminent floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and arrival of 100 million Bangladeshi refugees, the idea of a decent profit for Eon isn't going to be the thing that tips you over the edge?

 

 

[CVByrne]

9 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

Personally I don’t think the way to make the climate argument is the way some people talk about catastrophe’s and how we’re all going to suffer some serious consequences. It needs to be a more carrot rather than stick approach.

The prospect of keeping global warming and climate change just isn’t compelling. People aren’t built to see a picture as big as that, they just can’t wrap their heads around it, but if you said to people that whole new clean energy industries with high paying jobs, cheaper electricity in the long term (because wind and sun are  **** free so it should be, no?) and energy security so we aren’t vulnerable to the whims of Russian and arab dictators that’s something people can understand.

100% agree. This is a big way to do it, to sell the energy independence from Russia, from Saudi's etc.. While also talking about the environment as a whole. I think people who live in cities care a lot about air pollution and noise of cars and trucks. If we focus a lot of the message on better air quality for your kids, how many people die of the pollution like we do for smoking and obesity. That's something people can understand directly in their lives. If we burn less oil we have less smoke and pollution. If we move to all electric cars etc.. 

The problem lies with the goals of extinction rebellion or just stop oil. They want the end of economic growth and move to a form of marxist system so we can have a central communist government control the distribution of wealth and control our energy use to save the world. That's an extreme view that is not going to capture more than the fringe of a western society to their cause. Yet they make the majority of the noise in the media, it undermines the actual goals transitioning to clean renewable energy in a way that we can sensibly do.

[CVByrne]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Surely if you're not already motivated by the imminent floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and arrival of 100 million Bangladeshi refugees, the idea of a decent profit for Eon isn't going to be the thing that tips you over the edge?

People just don't believe the stories about the "imminent consequences" it's all predictions about the future which are always wrong. Trying to frighten people is stupid and fails. The remain campaign tried that tactic for staying in the EU and they lost. The people who voted leave caused us all the pain of the stupid decision and they realise now the stupidity of their decision. 

The messaging we should be giving is not the end of the world is coming and WW3 awaits if you don't act now. Few people will believe that nonsense. We were supposed to have no ice in summer in north pole in 2010 13 years later we've still ice. Predictions of the future are a stupid way to motivate people and really just arm real climate deniers when they are proven wrong.

We need to win the war via the positive message. 

[desensitized43]

32 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Surely if you're not already motivated by the imminent floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and arrival of 100 million Bangladeshi refugees, the idea of a decent profit for Eon isn't going to be the thing that tips you over the edge?

 

 

In the nicest possible way, I don't think the vast majority of people feel remotely guilty when they see floods, crop failure and suffering in those parts of the world because there's a big stretch between them driving their gas guzzling range rover and something happening to people they don't know (or dare say couldn't give 2 **** about) on the other side of the world. It's not going to motivate people to change their lives in any signifcant way. When things happen here, floods, storms etc, I think most of us just accept our weather is just getting a little wild but at certain times of year it always has anyway.

I don't disagree it's a problem. I don't disagree that something needs to be done about it. I just think the message of a lot of the climate groups isn't going to resonate with alot of people because they're inherently short sighted, selfish, sometimes lacking in empathy for people from certain parts of the world, and the best way to motivate them is not to tell them what they can't do and just make their lives worse. The way to get people to change is to sell the benefits to them, not the people of bangladesh.

[CVByrne]

50 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

In the nicest possible way, I don't think the vast majority of people feel remotely guilty when they see floods, crop failure and suffering in those parts of the world because there's a big stretch between them driving their gas guzzling range rover and something happening to people they don't know (or dare say couldn't give 2 **** about) on the other side of the world. It's not going to motivate people to change their lives in any signifcant way. When things happen here, floods, storms etc, I think most of us just accept our weather is just getting a little wild but at certain times of year it always has anyway.

 

Exactly, people see wars in Syria, Ukraine and they are due to Dictators and millions displaced & refugee crisis is a consequence. IS terrorism. Big energy and food price spikes. When we have flooding here people impacted want flood defences. People are short term, reactionary and recency bias. 

If you take someone from London and as how as a Londoner climate change has directly impacted their day to day lives in a negative way other than economically. I think the best you'd get is the heat waves and 40 degrees. So because the impacts aren't felt we resort to fearmongering with doomsday prediction of the future. It's a stupid approach and is doomed to fail. 

Positive optimistic messaging and framed as real world tangible benefits to people. Cleaner air and less noise in your city. Energy independence from Russia and Saudis. New jobs in a growing sector. These will work

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

People just don't believe the stories about the "imminent consequences" it's all predictions about the future which are always wrong. Trying to frighten people is stupid and fails. The remain campaign tried that tactic for staying in the EU and they lost. The people who voted leave caused us all the pain of the stupid decision and they realise now the stupidity of their decision. 

The messaging we should be giving is not the end of the world is coming and WW3 awaits if you don't act now. Few people will believe that nonsense. We were supposed to have no ice in summer in north pole in 2010 13 years later we've still ice. Predictions of the future are a stupid way to motivate people and really just arm real climate deniers when they are proven wrong.

We need to win the war via the positive message. 

I appreciate where you are going with positivity, and you are right to an extent, but it really has to be both carrot and stick. It does no-one any favours by ignoring the severity of the problem. 

If someone is in the middle of the road with a car barrelling towards them, you don't get them to jump on the footpath by telling them that they can admire the shape of the wing mirrors better from the verge. 

 

 

[CVByrne]

59 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I don't disagree it's a problem. I don't disagree that something needs to be done about it. I just think the message of a lot of the climate groups isn't going to resonate with alot of people because they're inherently short sighted, selfish, sometimes lacking in empathy for people from certain parts of the world, and the best way to motivate them is not to tell them what they can't do and just make their lives worse. The way to get people to change is to sell the benefits to them, not the people of bangladesh.

It makes sense when you see what the "climate groups" really want. To use the climate crisis as a tool to reshape the current capitalist system. 

Extinction Rebellion from their site

Quote

The third world war — of profit versus life — is already underway.

They're just a a group of Anarchists. 

[CVByrne]

7 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I appreciate where you are going with positivity, and you are right to an extent, but it really has to be both carrot and stick. It does no-one any favours by ignoring the severity of the problem. 

If someone is in the middle of the road with a car barrelling towards them, you don't get them to jump on the footpath by telling them that they can admire the shape of the wing mirrors better from the verge. 

Yes but in this instance you need to prove to people there is actually a car barreling towards them. 

The issue with climate change is lots of people will probably agree Co2 emissions are rising and the earth is warming. The issue comes when trying to project what that means for people into the future. Made even worse by fact that grave predictions (with the best intentions of scaring people into action) which turn out to be false undermine any attempt to convince people of the consequences of climate change.

Especially because in the West it will really just mean economic problems really. You'll need air con, things might cost more. You'll have more extreme weather. Things people would just adapt to. It's in the poorer countries where the bulk of the pain will hit. 

[HKP90]

14 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes but in this instance you need to prove to people there is actually a car barreling towards them. 

The issue with climate change is lots of people will probably agree Co2 emissions are rising and the earth is warming. The issue comes when trying to project what that means for people into the future. Made even worse by fact that grave predictions (with the best intentions of scaring people into action) which turn out to be false undermine any attempt to convince people of the consequences of climate change.

Especially because in the West it will really just mean economic problems really. You'll need air con, things might cost more. You'll have more extreme weather. Things people would just adapt to. It's in the poorer countries where the bulk of the pain will hit. 

If you are talking about predictions in the media that's one thing, and I'm not sure any scientists will have said categorically that x or y event will occur. That's not how science works. They work in terms of risk potential, and there is significant potential risk. 

The models have been pretty accurate in terms of predicting temperature rise. This is from the NASA website on climate change. It basically takes climate predictions from aggregated model runs done in 2004, and measures performance against observations. 

I do, however, based on the potential outcomes both to us and the environment from ecosystem collapses, think you have drastically underestimated the effects of climate change. Sustainability of forests, sea ecosystems, crops, pollinators, etc etc are all a threat to us and the environment. If we get widespread ecosystem collapse, aircon ain't gonna save ya. 

I would urge you to watch the attenborough documentary 'Climate Change- the facts', which whilst a little glib, was a reasonable entry level investigation into the potential systemic effects of climate change, and our current status against indicators in those systems.  

[Xann]

We're heading for the greatest mugging off in known human history.

Ooh, but the system.

The hole's been dug by the system.

We've got a generation of silly old c***s that got mugged off by Tory Brexit.

Learn some lessons.

Time to replace some of the conditioning with critical thinking.

[CVByrne]

2 hours ago, HKP90 said:

If you are talking about predictions in the media that's one thing, and I'm not sure any scientists will have said categorically that x or y event will occur. That's not how science works. They work in terms of risk potential, and there is significant potential risk. 

The models have been pretty accurate in terms of predicting temperature rise. This is from the NASA website on climate change. It basically takes climate predictions from aggregated model runs done in 2004, and measures performance against observations. 

I do, however, based on the potential outcomes both to us and the environment from ecosystem collapses, think you have drastically underestimated the effects of climate change. Sustainability of forests, sea ecosystems, crops, pollinators, etc etc are all a threat to us and the environment. If we get widespread ecosystem collapse, aircon ain't gonna save ya. 

I would urge you to watch the attenborough documentary 'Climate Change- the facts', which whilst a little glib, was a reasonable entry level investigation into the potential systemic effects of climate change, and our current status against indicators in those systems.  

Yes agree 100% as these are complicated mathematical models which predict things within a range with a certain probability of error. They're very good at predicting the temperature rising more or less. So the news where latest estimates predict xx temperature rise etc.. is pretty accurate.

The issue is really the headlines. The ice cap predictions through the 2000s all being wrong doesn't help convince those who don't get it. People know the temperature has been rising for decades the problem is the communication of the "so what" to get more people on our side. 

I think the so what part has been the failure to date. Predicting catastrophe doesn't work for a large portion of people. 

I personally don't care what people want to predict. I just know that a) it'll be manageable problems in the West and b) there is no reason what-so-ever for us not to transition completely to green renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions to slightly net negative. 

So predictions for me are irrelevant. What matters is how we get to net zero and net negative globally and how long it takes. Without sacrificing raising prosperity of the population over that time also. 

We need a new message to convince more people.