This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1221682/trump-set-to-undo-obama-global-warming-plans
Don't tell me to be positive about this, but what are the pluses to be had on a global scale from this decision? ( and please do not joke about the severity of what is a serious subject)
The world hasn't done enough over the last 20 years, simply not enough. Governments have tried and failed to tackle this issue. Now we might as well forget any conservation work altogether. The natural world no longer is important, nor will it be protected or preserved. A real new world order will take over. ( I'm not being melodramatic either)
A really bright future for all isn't it? Thankfully I don't have children.
This aside, observing the pollution in the UK, from roads, and observing smog in cities that is worsening, and already bad, will only get worse. All of our motorways are choked every day. The fact is that No one wants or is willing to change, yet there are actually alternatives to the ever increasing dominant drive for economic growth.
We now have a situation where the world moving forward at a completely unsustainable level.
Its all OK though, we are going to Mars. (a pipe dream that might never work)
Post edited at 22:32
13
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I pretty much agree, why does our right to buy super-cheap useless crap made by those less well off than ourselves overrule the right to clean air, peace etc.
I pretty much agree, why does our right to buy super-cheap useless crap made by those less well off than ourselves overrule the right to clean air, peace etc.
8
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I kind of agree here. By the time the world in general realises it is too late it will be too late. The natural world will win out though because the natural world (and the consequences of natural processes) will f*ck us up. The world has been in worse situations and pulled back (Snowball earth, KT extinctions, etc.) and it will pull back again but we won't be a part of it
I kind of agree here. By the time the world in general realises it is too late it will be too late. The natural world will win out though because the natural world (and the consequences of natural processes) will f*ck us up. The world has been in worse situations and pulled back (Snowball earth, KT extinctions, etc.) and it will pull back again but we won't be a part of it
4
1
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
There are some good news with regards to climate change though. IIRC the last 3-4 years the global emissions have stagnated, no increase. Which means we could be on track for the best case scenario of less than 2 degrees warming if it keeps up.
The US hasn't really done much to help that before the Paris Treaty I think. In short what I'm saying is that the rest of us seem to be able to do this without the loud mouth rich classmate who thinks he's important.
There are some good news with regards to climate change though. IIRC the last 3-4 years the global emissions have stagnated, no increase. Which means we could be on track for the best case scenario of less than 2 degrees warming if it keeps up.
The US hasn't really done much to help that before the Paris Treaty I think. In short what I'm saying is that the rest of us seem to be able to do this without the loud mouth rich classmate who thinks he's important.
2
In reply to Timmd:
Because we are apparently forgetting about everything, except football. (Why that?).
But on Wednesday we will have another opportunity to reflect on the power of collective amnesia.
Because we are apparently forgetting about everything, except football. (Why that?).
But on Wednesday we will have another opportunity to reflect on the power of collective amnesia.
1
In reply to TheFasting:
I may be wrong, but I think you mean the rate of increase of omissions has not increased.
I may be wrong, but I think you mean the rate of increase of omissions has not increased.
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Worldclass surfing in the Yorkshire dales and great a tropical climate?
> ( and please do not joke about the severity of what is a serious subject)
Worldclass surfing in the Yorkshire dales and great a tropical climate?
4
3
In reply to bouldery bits:
Great new British wines?
> Worldclass surfing in the Yorkshire dales and great a tropical climate?
Great new British wines?
1
4
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Aren't you ignoring all the positive work done world wide on this matter, and crying the sky is falling, just because the insane yanks have elected an inane president?
The position isn't permanent you know.
> We now have a situation where the world moving forward at a completely unsustainable level.
Aren't you ignoring all the positive work done world wide on this matter, and crying the sky is falling, just because the insane yanks have elected an inane president?
The position isn't permanent you know.
Post edited at 23:34
2
8
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
My guess is the global warming problem will get fixed, not by politics but by engineering.
Fossil fuels are going to lose to solar in the US because the engineers are pushing solar cell technology so fast that solar will win on the economics. It won't need a subsidy.
Similarly cars will go electric because the battery technology will quickly get to the point where electric cars with self driving electronics will win on functionality and economics. Quite likely cars will be something you send for with your smart phone rather than something you own.
The next step after self driving cars is cars where the computer in the car networks with other cars and the road infrastructure which, combined with a model where cars are summoned with a phone rather than owned will pretty much solve the congestion problems.
And we can go to Mars, cure cancer and significantly extend our lifespans as well. There's no need to choose.
My guess is the global warming problem will get fixed, not by politics but by engineering.
Fossil fuels are going to lose to solar in the US because the engineers are pushing solar cell technology so fast that solar will win on the economics. It won't need a subsidy.
Similarly cars will go electric because the battery technology will quickly get to the point where electric cars with self driving electronics will win on functionality and economics. Quite likely cars will be something you send for with your smart phone rather than something you own.
The next step after self driving cars is cars where the computer in the car networks with other cars and the road infrastructure which, combined with a model where cars are summoned with a phone rather than owned will pretty much solve the congestion problems.
And we can go to Mars, cure cancer and significantly extend our lifespans as well. There's no need to choose.
4
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The acquisitive and some what greedy nature of most people coupled with globalisation raising living standards across the world would suggest things will inevitably get worse.
I've long thought environmentalists were pissing in the wind trying to tackle climate change without a planet wide attempt to reduce population. I know we have declining populations in many developed nations but this is not enough.
However if we are really unlucky an idiot like Trump could inadvertently cause a considerable population reverse in the not too distant future....
The acquisitive and some what greedy nature of most people coupled with globalisation raising living standards across the world would suggest things will inevitably get worse.
I've long thought environmentalists were pissing in the wind trying to tackle climate change without a planet wide attempt to reduce population. I know we have declining populations in many developed nations but this is not enough.
However if we are really unlucky an idiot like Trump could inadvertently cause a considerable population reverse in the not too distant future....
Post edited at 00:14
2
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Just one very minor point from your post but I believe its important.
Governments have not tackled climate change not because they have tried and failed but simply because the will isn't there.
Now obviously there is a balance to be struck but such is the global thirst for oil based products no government is willing to rock the boat with decisions that would have probably been easier to make several years ago. (with the benefit of hind sight of course)
The issue here is that governments need to take brave and bold decisions. They wont unless it involves bombing somewhere.
Just one very minor point from your post but I believe its important.
Governments have not tackled climate change not because they have tried and failed but simply because the will isn't there.
Now obviously there is a balance to be struck but such is the global thirst for oil based products no government is willing to rock the boat with decisions that would have probably been easier to make several years ago. (with the benefit of hind sight of course)
The issue here is that governments need to take brave and bold decisions. They wont unless it involves bombing somewhere.
4
In reply to Big Ger:
Well, the local vineyard in Holmfirth is expanding. Just bought more land to plant with vines, mostly white varieties.
> Great new British wines?
Well, the local vineyard in Holmfirth is expanding. Just bought more land to plant with vines, mostly white varieties.
In reply to Noo Noo:
This is brought home every time there is a protest over energy prices. Basically we all want cheap energy and fuel and sod the consequence.
> Just one very minor point from your post but I believe its important. Governments have not tackled climate change not because they have tried and failed but simply because the will isn't there.
This is brought home every time there is a protest over energy prices. Basically we all want cheap energy and fuel and sod the consequence.
3
In reply to TheFasting:
>The US hasn't really done much to help that before the Paris Treaty I think. In short what I'm saying is that the rest of us seem to be able to do this without the loud mouth rich classmate who thinks he's important.
The US has actually 'done' more than most, just not in the way one would hope.
They have exploited shale gas and stopped burning coal; their CO2 emissions have dropped considerably as a result.
>The US hasn't really done much to help that before the Paris Treaty I think. In short what I'm saying is that the rest of us seem to be able to do this without the loud mouth rich classmate who thinks he's important.
The US has actually 'done' more than most, just not in the way one would hope.
They have exploited shale gas and stopped burning coal; their CO2 emissions have dropped considerably as a result.
2
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
It's freezing up here this morning. Global warming is obviously a lot of hot air.
> ....and please do not joke about the severity of what is a serious subject....
It's freezing up here this morning. Global warming is obviously a lot of hot air.
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
It *might* inspire other populations and nations to redouble their efforts while America obviously and hopefully temporarily shirks its responsibility.
I don't see the problem with space exploration even in a time of severe environmental stress, it is essentially still pure science and who knows what we'll learn.
jk
> ...what are the pluses to be had on a global scale from this decision?
It *might* inspire other populations and nations to redouble their efforts while America obviously and hopefully temporarily shirks its responsibility.
> Its all OK though, we are going to Mars. (a pipe dream that might never work)
I don't see the problem with space exploration even in a time of severe environmental stress, it is essentially still pure science and who knows what we'll learn.
jk
Post edited at 11:11
1
In reply to blurty:
"We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration."
> They have exploited shale gas and stopped burning coal; their CO2 emissions have dropped considerably as a result.
...only now Trump wants to reverse that 'cos it'll 'bring back american jobs' :-/ "We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration."
1
In reply to Timmd:
Because the change in temperature will make the species change.
> Why should we forget about conservation work?
Because the change in temperature will make the species change.
In reply to Big Ger:
Loads of displaced migrants forced towards the poles by desertification in the tropics?
> Great new British wines?
Loads of displaced migrants forced towards the poles by desertification in the tropics?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Effectively it is from our perspective. Once CO2 levels rise that is permanent from the point of view of humanity.
> The position isn't permanent you know.
Effectively it is from our perspective. Once CO2 levels rise that is permanent from the point of view of humanity.
2
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Every politician should be made visit Montenvers and take a look at the Mer de Glace. In 1988 it took just three steps to reach the ice. Today it takes 370 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-09-25/climate-change-on-mont-b... OR visit Peking in winter http://www.futurity.org/climate-change-haze-china-1386192-2/
Every politician should be made visit Montenvers and take a look at the Mer de Glace. In 1988 it took just three steps to reach the ice. Today it takes 370 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-09-25/climate-change-on-mont-b... OR visit Peking in winter http://www.futurity.org/climate-change-haze-china-1386192-2/
1
In reply to Toerag:
Which doesn't mean that doing any kind of conservation work at all isn't worth while.
> Because the change in temperature will make the species change.
Which doesn't mean that doing any kind of conservation work at all isn't worth while.
1
In reply to MG:
Exactly. The UK being warmer and us having homegrown wines, arguably isn't so great when viewed alongside the global instability which climate change is thought to contribute to, or the species lost.
> Effectively it is from our perspective. Once CO2 levels rise that is permanent from the point of view of humanity.
Exactly. The UK being warmer and us having homegrown wines, arguably isn't so great when viewed alongside the global instability which climate change is thought to contribute to, or the species lost.
Post edited at 16:11
In reply to GrahamD:
Very true and that's where governments need to take the lead but they dont. I'm not talking about taxation either because that's just a black hole. There is a whole load of legislation and investment they could look at but wont.
I suppose they would argue that congestion charging is one such example but that's going after the bottom of the food chain. Things need to be addressed higher up.
Very true and that's where governments need to take the lead but they dont. I'm not talking about taxation either because that's just a black hole. There is a whole load of legislation and investment they could look at but wont.
I suppose they would argue that congestion charging is one such example but that's going after the bottom of the food chain. Things need to be addressed higher up.
In reply to John Stainforth:
No, I checked the source. It's the increase itself, the emissions seem to have stalled and have been slowing for a while.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emiss...
No, I checked the source. It's the increase itself, the emissions seem to have stalled and have been slowing for a while.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emiss...
In reply to MG:
How much do you think they will rise due to 4 years of the Trumpanzee in the Whitehouse?
> Once CO2 levels rise that is permanent from the point of view of humanity.
How much do you think they will rise due to 4 years of the Trumpanzee in the Whitehouse?
In reply to Big Ger:
Potentially a significant amount if he successfully goes for a full on abandonment of efforts to reduce it. It would change the behaviour of the US, one of the world's biggest emitters, for many years, not just 4.
> How much do you think they will rise due to 4 years of the Trumpanzee in the Whitehouse?
Potentially a significant amount if he successfully goes for a full on abandonment of efforts to reduce it. It would change the behaviour of the US, one of the world's biggest emitters, for many years, not just 4.
2
In reply to MG:
So you believe that the only thing holding US firms in check is Presidential decree, and not public lobbying and campaigning?
So you believe that the only thing holding US firms in check is Presidential decree, and not public lobbying and campaigning?
In reply to Big Ger:
I don't think what happens in Europe or the US over the next 20 years matters as much as what happens in countries like India. It's population is set to overtake China's by 2022 and it is rapidly industrialising. The smog issues in Delhi last summer made Beijing's look trifling.
Until fairly recently half the people in the worlds possessions amounted to a couple of cooking pots and maybe a change of clothes. This is all changing as more and more nations are able to embrace western consumerism.
I don't think technology is going to save the day. Either we convince people to adopt the sort of agrarian society most of the world is trying to escape ( fat chance) or convince families globally to stick below replacement levels at 2 children per ( very slim chance).
I don't think what happens in Europe or the US over the next 20 years matters as much as what happens in countries like India. It's population is set to overtake China's by 2022 and it is rapidly industrialising. The smog issues in Delhi last summer made Beijing's look trifling.
Until fairly recently half the people in the worlds possessions amounted to a couple of cooking pots and maybe a change of clothes. This is all changing as more and more nations are able to embrace western consumerism.
I don't think technology is going to save the day. Either we convince people to adopt the sort of agrarian society most of the world is trying to escape ( fat chance) or convince families globally to stick below replacement levels at 2 children per ( very slim chance).
2
1
4
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It comes down to who has the power to shape and change the behaviour, it seems to me?
Trump is hand in glove with fossil fuel companies.
> So you believe that the only thing holding US firms in check is Presidential decree, and not public lobbying and campaigning?
It comes down to who has the power to shape and change the behaviour, it seems to me?
Trump is hand in glove with fossil fuel companies.
In reply to Timmd:
He's also hand in hand with big pharma, and look what happened to his healthcare bill.
He's also hand in hand with big pharma, and look what happened to his healthcare bill.
1
In reply to Timmd:
Here we go my friend;
Opponents of President Donald Trump's decision to scrap his predecessor's climate change policies say they will organise a public campaign and pursue legal avenues to challenge it.
California and New York issued a joint statement saying they would continue the fight against climate change.
Environmental groups have hired a host of lawyers to challenge Mr Trump's move that boosts fossil fuel production.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39428442
Here we go my friend;
Opponents of President Donald Trump's decision to scrap his predecessor's climate change policies say they will organise a public campaign and pursue legal avenues to challenge it.
California and New York issued a joint statement saying they would continue the fight against climate change.
Environmental groups have hired a host of lawyers to challenge Mr Trump's move that boosts fossil fuel production.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39428442
Post edited at 23:51
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Govts will continue to fail on this. But if you look in the USA most businesses or States are driving a green agenda,Trump is just out of date and playing to a lost cause.
Even the miners bosses recognise that natural gas is alot cheaper so jobs will not come back.
Govts will continue to fail on this. But if you look in the USA most businesses or States are driving a green agenda,Trump is just out of date and playing to a lost cause.
Even the miners bosses recognise that natural gas is alot cheaper so jobs will not come back.
1
In reply to neilh:
When coal mining in the UK became uneconomic most pits shut down The lasting damage to those communities dependent upon mining was, in many cases, devastating and lasts even today.
Keeping those pits open would have been a good thing to do community wise and would probably have made more economic sense than allowing large numbers of working age men to spend many years unemployed.
Sometimes things need doing and they cost.
When coal mining in the UK became uneconomic most pits shut down The lasting damage to those communities dependent upon mining was, in many cases, devastating and lasts even today.
Keeping those pits open would have been a good thing to do community wise and would probably have made more economic sense than allowing large numbers of working age men to spend many years unemployed.
Sometimes things need doing and they cost.
1
1
In reply to baron:
Having lived in one of those communities for a decade, high unemployment in the younger generation seems far less destructive to me than the health effects having been a miner was taking on the older men.
> Keeping those pits open would have been a good thing to do community wise and would probably have made more economic sense than allowing large numbers of working age men to spend many years unemployed
Having lived in one of those communities for a decade, high unemployment in the younger generation seems far less destructive to me than the health effects having been a miner was taking on the older men.
6
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...