Climate change policy

[Spectric]

OK, anyone else even notice the lack off PPE before it finished ?

You have to give it to them that they are on top of there game when it comes to PPE, how many of us have got something in our eye just by being in the workshop, well if we embraced these then maybe it would not happen, like having some flippers from a pin ball machine to deflect any approaching object.

 

[Superduner]

OK, anyone else even notice the lack off PPE before it finished ?

Hang on, I'll watch it again to check......

 

[Nick c]

Do we all have children and grandchildren.Do we realise what sort of world we are going to bequeath to them when we're six feet under.Do we think we know better than 95% of the world's climate scientists and the warnings they are telling us. Tipping points will be upon us all rich and poor young and old children and grandchildren. Vitriol towards one another will count as nothing if we can't find a way. sacrifices will need to be made but don't we think it worth it for the sake of our children and grandchildren and their children.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Do we all have children and grandchildren.Do we realise what sort of world we are going to bequeath to them when we're six feet under.Do we think we know better than 95% of the world's climate scientists and the warnings they are telling us. Tipping points will be upon us all rich and poor young and old children and grandchildren. Vitriol towards one another will count as nothing if we can't find a way. sacrifices will need to be made but don't we think it worth it for the sake of our children and grandchildren and their children.

For those who remember Corporal Jones in Dad's Army - Don't panic!!

Few civilisations in human history have dominated for more than a few hundred years - why should the industrial age be any different. 100 years is a very long lifetime covering ~4 generations. What may happen 500 or 1000 years from now is of no practical, but entirely academic interest

Tipping points occur when the impact of climate change is of a magnitude that recovery to an earlier state is implausible. This does not mean it happens suddenly. Examples:

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could cause sea level rise of 23ft - catastrophic for a large part of the global population who disproportionately live close to the sea. However complete melt is estimated at several hundred to several thousand years.

Melting of the Antarctic sea ice could cause sea level rise of ~200ft. Timescales are completely uncertain - best estimates of melt over the next 200 years is for a 10ft rise.

For those countries economically and/or topographically vulnerable (eg: Bangladesh, some Pacific islands) changes could impact current inhabitants and/or very direct descendants.

Those fortunate to be economically relatively wealthy (eg: Europe, US) have the capacity to mitigate and adapt (mostly).

Climate changes more than ~100 years into the future will impact none that we will ever know.

If the prognosis for ice melt and sea level rise are correct, they will be as far removed from our current experience as stone age man or (possibly) the Roman empire.

If over the centuries or millennia global **** sapiens are reduced to just 10% of their current number this may be the best outcome for the long term survival of the species - it is our excessive numbers and exploitation of the environment that has caused its degradation anyway.

I write none of this out of complacency or lack of concern for those I leave behind - I support modifying behaviours to limit and slow negative change. There is a moral argument for those unable to help themselves, despite living in one of the wealthier global communities.

There are characteristics in common with the animal kingdom where individual species dominate, consume all local resources, followed by population collapse. For all our intellect we are simply animals who have over-exploited and outgrown our environment. Nature is operating normally!!

 

[TRITON]

Those fortunate to be economically relatively wealthy (eg: Europe, US) have the capacity to mitigate and adapt (mostly).

What is ironic about this is, those are the same group that is most vocal in a negative sense about immigration.

 

[TRITON]

This is a test

Test complete.

 

[Chris152]

For those who remember Corporal Jones in Dad's Army - Don't panic!!

Few civilisations in human history have dominated for more than a few hundred years - why should the industrial age be any different. 100 years is a very long lifetime covering ~4 generations. What may happen 500 or 1000 years from now is of no practical, but entirely academic interest

Tipping points occur when the impact of climate change is of a magnitude that recovery to an earlier state is implausible. This does not mean it happens suddenly. Examples:

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could cause sea level rise of 23ft - catastrophic for a large part of the global population who disproportionately live close to the sea. However complete melt is estimated at several hundred to several thousand years.

Melting of the Antarctic sea ice could cause sea level rise of ~200ft. Timescales are completely uncertain - best estimates of melt over the next 200 years is for a 10ft rise.

For those countries economically and/or topographically vulnerable (eg: Bangladesh, some Pacific islands) changes could impact current inhabitants and/or very direct descendants.

Those fortunate to be economically relatively wealthy (eg: Europe, US) have the capacity to mitigate and adapt (mostly).

Climate changes more than ~100 years into the future will impact none that we will ever know.

If the prognosis for ice melt and sea level rise are correct, they will be as far removed from our current experience as stone age man or (possibly) the Roman empire.

If over the centuries or millennia global **** sapiens are reduced to just 10% of their current number this may be the best outcome for the long term survival of the species - it is our excessive numbers and exploitation of the environment that has caused its degradation anyway.

I write none of this out of complacency or lack of concern for those I leave behind - I support modifying behaviours to limit and slow negative change. There is a moral argument for those unable to help themselves, despite living in one of the wealthier global communities.

There are characteristics in common with the animal kingdom where individual species dominate, consume all local resources, followed by population collapse. For all our intellect we are simply animals who have over-exploited and outgrown our environment. Nature is operating normally!!

As I understand it, the problem with focus on rising sea levels as the ice caps melt is that it doesn't attend to the knock-on effects, such as impact on global sea currents, which in themselves can cause far greater damage to the lands we currently occupy.

 

[Nick c]

Tipping points by their nature are largely unknown quantities. And as you say are not immediate but are irreversible. Panic is probably what we need more of if it spurs us into meaningful action.no previous human civilisations have had the capacity to change the natural environment in the way that is currently happening.
Our descendents whether one two or more generations into the future will be suffering untold difficulties becos we have failed to act. I disagree that this will be one hundred or more years into the future.
If only we had the wisdom of the Iroquois and
"The Seventh Generation Principle"

 

[Jacob]

For those who remember Corporal Jones in Dad's Army - Don't panic!!

Few civilisations in human history have dominated for more than a few hundred years - why should the industrial age be any different. 100 years is a very long lifetime covering ~4 generations. What may happen 500 or 1000 years from now is of no practical, but entirely academic interest

Tipping points occur when the impact of climate change is of a magnitude that recovery to an earlier state is implausible. This does not mean it happens suddenly. Examples:

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could cause sea level rise of 23ft - catastrophic for a large part of the global population who disproportionately live close to the sea. However complete melt is estimated at several hundred to several thousand years.

Melting of the Antarctic sea ice could cause sea level rise of ~200ft. Timescales are completely uncertain - best estimates of melt over the next 200 years is for a 10ft rise.

Other changes are happening now. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...dozens-of-impossible-heatwaves-studies-reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/climate-crisis-world-temperature-target

For those countries economically and/or topographically vulnerable (eg: Bangladesh, some Pacific islands) changes could impact current inhabitants and/or very direct descendants.

Those fortunate to be economically relatively wealthy (eg: Europe, US) have the capacity to mitigate and adapt (mostly).

Utterly mistaken. We are all vulnerable in different ways.
Hurricanes, fires, floods seem to affecting wealthy nations and we don't seem to have mitigated or adapted in the slightest.
We are highly dependant on technology and also food imports. These could be disrupted very quickly. Takes a small scare to empty supermarket shelves in days, even in normal times.

Climate changes more than ~100 years into the future will impact none that we will ever know.

We are talking about the climate changes happening now.

If the prognosis for ice melt and sea level rise are correct, they will be as far removed from our current experience as stone age man or (possibly) the Roman empire.

Those are not the only issues, but you are wrong anyway - sea level changes are affecting parts of the globe already.

If over the centuries or millennia global **** sapiens are reduced to just 10% of their current number this may be the best outcome for the long term survival of the species - it is our excessive numbers and exploitation of the environment that has caused its degradation anyway.

that's OK then!

I write none of this out of complacency or lack of concern for those I leave behind - I support modifying behaviours to limit and slow negative change. There is a moral argument for those unable to help themselves, despite living in one of the wealthier global communities.

There are characteristics in common with the animal kingdom where individual species dominate, consume all local resources, followed by population collapse. For all our intellect we are simply animals who have over-exploited and outgrown our environment. Nature is operating normally!!

You have missed the point completely, which is that these things are within our control, just as we are the cause.
Interesting noting the changes in attitudes; no more sceptics saying no it's not happening, now they say yes it is happening but we can't do anything about it. They just need to make the next step!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

As I understand it, the problem with focus on rising sea levels as the ice caps melt is that it doesn't attend to the knock-on effects, such as impact on global sea currents, which in themselves can cause far greater damage to the lands we currently occupy.

True - there is a risk, in particular, of a change to the intensity of the Atlantic circulation which very directly impacts the climate in the UK and northern Europe.

It is also the case that a significant sea level rise could come from expansion due to increasing sea temperatures.

Just an opinion - genuine, concerted, intense, action to limit that which causes climate change awaits very clear unambiguous evidence of massively severe events before the general public will see it as a problem. Perceptions are that it will be very costly and reduce living standards.

Sadly it will by then be far too late to change the outcome!!

 

[Jacob]

True - there is a risk, in particular, of a change to the intensity of the Atlantic circulation which very directly impacts the climate in the UK and northern Europe.

AMOC is treated as a North Atlantic phenomenon but is inevitably linked to global currents. Worst forecasts say it could change in decades, not centuries.

It is also the case that a significant sea level rise could come from expansion due to increasing sea temperatures.

Just an opinion - genuine, concerted, intense, action to limit that which causes climate change awaits very clear unambiguous evidence of massively severe events

Massively severe events are happening already. See link already referred to.
The main obstacles to reform seems to be the fossil fuel industry and the right-wing media
I don't see the point of trying to talk it all down and ignoring the science.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Other changes are happening now. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...dozens-of-impossible-heatwaves-studies-reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/climate-crisis-world-temperature-target

Utterly mistaken. We are all vulnerable in different ways.
Hurricanes, fires, floods seem to affecting wealthy nations and we don't seem to have mitigated or adapted in the slightest.
We are highly dependant on technology and also food imports. These could be disrupted very quickly. Takes a small scare to empty supermarket shelves in days, even in normal times.

We are talking about the climate changes happening now.

Those are not the only issues, but you are wrong anyway - sea level changes are affecting parts of the globe already.

that's OK then!

You have missed the point completely, which is that these things are within our control, just as we are the cause.
Interesting noting the changes in attitudes; no more sceptics saying no it's not happening, now they say yes it is happening but we can't do anything about it. They just need to make the next step!

However worthy your observation - and there is an element of truth in all you say - the blunt reality is that too little is actually being done to materially change the outcome.

Nor do I expect the rate to change materially until there is utterly unambiguous evidence that material degradation is happening and actually impacting folk in well endowed bits of the world who are responsible for the significant greenhouse gas emissions.

For instance - sea level is rising by 1-3mm a year - an inconsequential amount. Taken over 100 years it may have a material impact on those communities who cannot afford to adapt.

Mr & Mrs Average living in Birmingham (UK or US) worry about heating, job, car, family holiday - climate change is utterly inconsequential.

Just get real - politicians of all persuasions will do little until the general public upon who they rely for a vote to get into office implore them to do something about climate change.

The COP shambles evidences this - the first meeting was in 1995 30 years ago. This year the UK is sending 470 delegates. A testament to the hot air expended in both sending and discussing the issue evidenced by limited actions emanating from the meetings.

 

[Krome10]

I'm no expert, but from some of the reading I've done it's not just global warming and/or climate change. The decimation of the sea and sea life, acidification of sea water, soil degradation, declining and extinctions of animals/insects and the knock on effect to the eco systems they are part of... Etc and sadly etc again. That's why many other the term earth systems collapse.

I think it's also worth remembering that we're talking about complex systems. As mentioned above, tipping points are inherently unpredictable. If the scientists currently hitting the alarm buttons have it right, once tipping points are reached the future becomes unpredictable, as today the scope, severity and timescales of the repercussions. So I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to look at the consequences as some kind of linear and orderly unfolding.

As for the above points regarding when the majority of people will stand up and take notice - or even give the slightest sh!t - I'm reminded of the Bill Hicks joke... In his stand up shows he'd imitate smokers who can't quit and end up smoking through a tracheostomy (and when that's no longer possible, through their bum holes!).

 

[Sachakins]

Do we all have children and grandchildren.

No.

 

[Jacob]

.......

Just get real - politicians of all persuasions will do little until the general public upon who they rely for a vote to get into office implore them to do something about climate change.
......

That should include yourself. Your casual dismissal of the issue amounts to climate change scepticism. You should get real and join the many who do "implore them to do something about climate change".
I do think your notion that that we have the capacity to mitigate and adapt is very dubious. We are dependent on very intricate connections in terms of energy, technology, essential supplies and imports. Breakdowns could be much more sudden and disruptive than they would be in some 3rd world regions where people are already closer to the basics of life. Having a potato clamp and knitted underwear could be much more important than having an EV or heat-pump.
Chap coming on Wednesday to start fitting our woodstove!

 

[woodieallen]

Do we all have children and grandchildren.

I don't. But I accept the concern that others have. As much as I realise that it is all too late. That the UK contribution towards climate change is peanuts compared to the US and China, for example. That what we are doing is going to affect climate change by SFA. So Milliband should shove his ideas where it doesn't shine and let us enjoy what we have left.

 

[RobinBHM]

I don't. But I accept the concern that others have. As much as I realise that it is all too late. That the UK contribution towards climate change is peanuts compared to the US and China, for example. That what we are doing is going to affect climate change by SFA. So Milliband should shove his ideas where it doesn't shine and let us enjoy what we have left.

If the U.K. doesn’t push forwards on net zero technology we will be left behind.

So the “U.K. won’t make any difference” isn’t the only argument in town

 

[Krome10]

the “U.K. won’t make any difference” isn’t the only argument in town

And the oft repeated arguments that it's what we consume not what we produce.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I don't. But I accept the concern that others have. As much as I realise that it is all too late. That the UK contribution towards climate change is peanuts compared to the US and China, for example. That what we are doing is going to affect climate change by SFA. So Milliband should shove his ideas where it doesn't shine and let us enjoy what we have left.

"Should" he?

Or is that just an opinion which sits contrary to the mountain of credible evidence already gathered over decades (where the alternative view is not backed up by any credible source)?

When considering this - use this phrase as a handrail to guide your view:

"To do the right thing - you must do as you ought to, not as you want to."

 

[Krome10]

Or is that just an opinion which sits contrary to the mountain of credible evidence already gathered over decades

"There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels. There are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert. Some countries would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed. Man has a time window of 5 to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical. Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."

Words written in the 1970s.

Guess who wrote them?