UKC

It's fair enough in a democracy, that some people voted Brexit, we can't all agree (even some of the time), but these Clexit folk are (dishonestly) saying that the majority of scientists are wrong, they can't be allowed any chance to mess things up.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/...

( Even if we do 'green up' and it turns out to be untrue about our contribution to climate change, we'll have cleaner air and more efficient ways of doing things, so it's a chance worth taking, and much more so than gambling the other way. )

In reply to Timmd:

Fuxit!

In reply to Timmd:

This is just a lot of trendy hipster stuff isn't it. Now we're on our way back to the good old days there's always going to be a lot of "experts " (so-called) wanting to scare ordinary people who know nothing about science. Why don't they shove off and let England get on with it. Brexit has proved that the People, voting with their guts,can take control and now there will be no stopping them. Come on doomsayers, let's make it work.
No handcart for me. I'm riding in a 4x4!

In reply to ian caton:
Does "troll"mean joke?
Sorry if I've offended anyone, excepting climate denyers and Brexiteers.
I woke up feeling sarcastic.

In reply to ian caton:
I think you will find Petes post is a parody.>

You will also find people who are stupid, and want to be contrary for the heck of it, or, sadly, for personal gain. Both types are mentioned in that article

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Just got my second coffee, I can see more clearly. The climates knackered, nobody gives a toss.

In reply to ian caton:

I wouldn't say nobody........just the conforming masses.

In reply to ian caton:


The climate's not yet knackered, everybody should give more than a few tosses.

In reply to ianstevens:


but in a few hundred years time people will look back and ponder why so little was done, when it was so visible things were heading in the wrong direction. The problem lies in human traits; complacency, selfishness or optimism that things won't be so bad.

In reply to Phil1919:
Actually I think pretty much nobody. Loads of folk are concerned about it, but very few have any sort of plan to get their carbon footprint down significantly year on year.

We are relying on technological breakthrough. I am not hopeful.

In reply to ian caton:

I agree you have to search around but there are people out there doing quite well. But the tide is still going strongly in the wrong direction, yes. Most of us want other people to change, not ourselves!

Another great article by George Monbiot in the Guardian today about going Vegan. He reckons there are 500,000 vegans in the UK now which is quite a few. A good start would be to make him Minister for the Environment.

I couldn't believe it when Theresa May's government took 'Climate Change' out of the title of one of their departments.

In reply to Timmd:

When you say they're dishonestly saying that the majority of scientists are wrong, do you mean they're actually believing that the majority of scientists are right?

In reply to Timmd:
I will confess to being a cynic by nature, but 500,000 vegans in the UK makes not a toss of difference to the world's carbon footprint, nor does turning off our lights or putting the TV on standby or any of these pathetic individual strategies, they are all nonsense. We are a tiny, minuscule country in a world of countries with massive populations, and growing exponentially, who will still be building new coal fired systems a hundred years from now.

Its called p*ssing in the wind!

In reply to cragtaff:
But what if it was 5m, or 50m? Around a 10% of an average meat eater's CO2 footprint comes from eating meat. If half the country were vegan, that would have a 5% reduction for the whole of the UK. I'm not vegan and have no plans to be, but I only eat meat around once or twice a fortnight.

Re: the coal power stations - catch up -- China is the world leader in wind and nuclear and has just shelved plans for a lot of new coal stations - there are already many brand new coal stations that have never turned on because they don't need the power and the plants produce too much pollution which is a pressing problem in China (probably more so, or at least more imminent than global warming)

I agree that turning TVs off, rather than standby pales in comparison to taking a long haul flight; but LED lightbulbs can cut around 1/5th off a typical house's electricity usage.

Doing little things makes little difference, but doing nothing DOES NOTHING. We need to do little things, big things, HUGE things, all of it NOW, not later.

In reply to Timmd:

The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to do so. How we deal with the change is the problem. There are at least 300 years of hydrocarbons available and in any climate model we have to assume they will be used. The world population is increasing exponentially and wants a decent standard of living resulting from cheap high density energy sources.

In reply to IainL:

So what? It is the unprecedentedly rapid change in the past 50 years and next 100 or so that is locked in that is the problem.


That's one problem


Why?


No its not. Even the UN "high" scenario is only a linear increase, others show a decrease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


Of which there are various options other than fossil fuels

In reply to IainL:

How should we deal with the change?

In reply to MG:

What other cheap high density energy sources?
Nuclear is not cheap.
Tidal is not cheap.
Wave is not cheap and medium density.
Wind is very low density.
Biomass is medium density but land space competes for food.
The cheapest energy sources will always be used first if you want to increase living standards.

In reply to Phil1919:

Reduce living standards drastically. This is not going to happen.

In reply to IainL:



If there is much more than a 3 degree increase in mean global temperature, then it very much is going to happen....

In reply to IainL:


Right now all the options you mention are used to varying degrees around the world despite variations in cost. It is clearly false to say the cheapest energy sources are always used first.

How cheap energy supplies are varies rapidly and depends heavily on the costs placed on carbon and other emissions. Currently there is factor of 2-3 difference between the main sources. As greater weight (and cost) is put on carbon emissions, and as technology reduces the costs of sources like wind, they will be used increasingly.

In reply to IainL:


Not so much as how 'we' deal with it so much as those living in countries like Bangladesh which will likely dissapear under water.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Reduced living standards are happening already. Unfortunately (and unfairly!) areas like Bangladesh or subsaharan Africa already suffer much more despite emitting less CO2 per head than industrial states in temperate zones. They do, however, have an issue with the number of heads!

As a rough estimate, 2-3 degrees increase means western Europe becoming like the south of Italy, Italy like Algeria, and the majority of the North African and Persian gulf states like the Death Valley, i.e. essentially uninhabitable. Guess we will have to start drinking Swedish Chardonnay while the world burns....

CB

In reply to IainL:

You could reduce yours then. Thats all you need to do. You can't be responsible for the behaviour of others.

In reply to Timmd:
According to the New Scientist solar panels on satellites are the answer, the energy beamed to earth via microwaves.

Ecosystem s can't adapt fast enough to the rate of change.

Every one of the last 12 months has been the hottest on record.

Basra, in the 1970's had the same climate as southern Europe. Last month the temperature reached 54 Celsius.

As the guy who runs Davos said, "Europe can easily cope with a few million refugees, imagine a 100 million".

I rest my case.