Climate change policy

[Jacob]

"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?

Thatcher?
She was unusual as a politician in that she had a science education. Didn't do her (or us) much good over economics or politics though!

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

"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?

I believe that might have been research conducted at the behest of the fossil fuel industry - possibly the stuff they buried from public view?

 

[Noel]

"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?

Exxon, as they were known as in the 70s.

 

[Jacob]

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.

Had to revisit this - you are amazingly out of touch. What you have missed is that sea level rise is accelerating. Failure to adapt is happening now, in many places around the globe, even including Wales!
One of the first places in UK which we have already decided we cannot afford to adapt is Fairbourne You may say that this is due to local circumstances but this is true of everywhere else, one way or another. The first of many. London is vulnerable too.

 

[Krome10]

Thatcher?

Nope

I believe that might have been research conducted at the behest of the fossil fuel industry - possibly the stuff they buried from public view?

Yep

Exxon, as they were known as in the 70s.

Exactly

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Had to revisit this - you are amazingly out of touch. What you have missed is that sea level rise is accelerating. Failure to adapt is happening now, in many places around the globe, even including Wales!
One of the first places in UK which we have already decided we cannot afford to be adapted is Fairbourne The first of many. London is vulnerable too.

Oh dear - I've spent some time there myself. There use to be a Forces adventurous training centre based there.
Went into the old Friog mines in the hills nearby and abseiled down the old vertical-faced shafts in the absolute pitch black. Also did some kayak surfing on that beach...

 

[Jacob]

It was a good guess though, but not in the 70s!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-green-hero

 

[Krome10]

It was a good guess though, but not in the 70s!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-green-hero

Interesting stuff that I wasn't aware, thank you.

Seems a good match to the Exxon outlook... Acknowledge the problem, own up to it and explain it clearly, then turn the other way and continue with business as usual. I often wonder what's worse, blissful ignorance, or awareness with non-action.

She missed a trick though... She could have sold her fight against the miners as a green concern!

 

[TRITON]

Failure to adapt is happening now

Thats probably down to the point that what is happening in some countries around the globe is not happening here. Plus in the past there have been some pretty extreme weather events and the detractors that are either unwilling to accept this is happening, or as with exxon are using poor data to push their narrative.
If it were to flood in London due to the increase of water, the party line from the likes of the DM and express would run stories of the great London flood.
It needs to happen more and more and more and on a regular seasonal basis for the population as a whole to start calling for measures to be taken,

Once upon a time, anyone in newspaper comments sections who pushed climates change warnings would receive quite a lot of abuse, with a ratio of say 95% against, 5% pro climes issues.
This has changed pretty radically as far as i can see to a ration of pro 60%, with 40% disagreeing.

So it maybe appears that were on the right track.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Of course it matters - penalising the citizens of India with per capita emissions of 2 tons in the same way as the US emitting 14 tons is so obviously inequitable the chances of agreement and compliance is close to zero.

Most do not buy new cars - there are ~30m cars on the road and ~2m new cars sold each year.

The price of new EVs is now close to ICE - as volumes increase prices are likely to fall further. A s/h market will develop - in 12-20 years time your neighbours may be able to afford them - as they do older ICE!!

I agree public transport is dire.

The rest is nonsense. Just about every house has an electric supply to recharge an EV - beats driving miles to top up an empty ICE fuel tank in a garage miles away.

Comments above on price and cost of cars. Poor pensioners don't have cars now.

Your concern for the poorest is of course worthy. But EV transition is not going to make a material difference to well being as it has limited impact on the cost of motoring:

• currently running costs of EV are less than for ICE making them more accessible. Over time I expect them to increase to replace tax and duty revenues lost
• public transport is rubbish - two possible solutions - subsidise it to make it better, or reduce the cost of motoring. The latter would only be a partial solution - many pensioners are no longer able to drive due to infirmity.
• ICE cars will be available new for up to a decade. They will be in common usage for the next 2+ decades. Not exactly an immediate problem anyway.

Public transport should be free and go places people want to go.

 

[bp122]

Keir Starmer on his climate change the man lives in a bubble. When Russia India China and uncle Sam stop pouring smoke into the sky, not to mention all the wood fires in the world Alaska, all the ski resorts, Air planes, Trains, heavy lorries. Our electric car target of 81% is a drop in the ocean Mean while we all have to suffer.

True, they are the biggest polluters.

But it's easy for countries like UK to blame them when almost every piece of raw material and most finished products we consume are made in (some way, shape or form) from one of these countries.

As someone else pointed out, it's okay for UK to show the world that one can make money by screwing the environment and carry that on for centuries and then grow a conscience when others do it too. And offshore most of the dirty manufacturing to another country and blame the said countries for polluting the world.

It's the same with plastic, we talk a big game but export 1000s of tons of plastic waste to the far east.

People here just want to complain!

 

[Krome10]

@bp122

Ha ha - yes, good point RE the plastic waste! It closes the cycle nicely! And if we don't end up sending it overseas in it's "natural" form we can instead send it over the ether in gases after burning it in one of the many UK incinerator sites.

Better still, with Xmas on the way we can all look forward to a nice seasonal increase.

The idea that the UK is only responsible for 0.x amount of emissions is ludicrous.

PS - you don't work for BP though I hope?

 

[bp122]

PS - you don't work for BP though I hope?

I own it

Not at all. Just my name.