Climate change policy

[Chris152]

As a thought on climate change. It has always happened and will continue to happen as the cyclic nature of earths climate over time, (hot cold hot cold ice age, flood heat etc)

Yes we are accelerating it, yes we can do something about our contribution to it, yes we need to do it now.

Now for reality check folks, we can only have an affect on our contribution, the effect of nature's cyclic climate will cause our extinction, we can stave it off for a few decades, but nature will win and we will all die. It's a case of when not IF.

Mostly true, but I'd rather our extinction come at a distant point when nature decides, not in the relatively near future as a result of human greed, short-sightedness and utter incompetence.

 

[Jacob]

As a thought on climate change. It has always happened and will continue to happen as the cyclic nature of earths climate over time, (hot cold hot cold ice age, flood heat etc)

Yes we are accelerating it, yes we can do something about our contribution to it, yes we need to do it now.

Now for reality check folks, we can only have an affect on our contribution, the effect of nature's cyclic climate will cause our extinction, we can stave it off for a few decades, but nature will win and we will all die. It's a case of when not IF.

Seems very common, slow move from downright denial, to acceptance but resigned to impossibility of doing anything. One more step! https://www.newscientist.com/sign-up/

 

[Sachakins]

I've never denied it, only pointed out the errors some put on here, and in the msm.

My point was that in Starmers race to his altar of net zero, while the UK populous and business are being hit badly, he is causing further problems.
It's no use UK being net zero if no one around.

Why post links to trash site sign up page, are you one of their editors

PS
Net Zero will not help by the way.
Pumping out same amount of climate changing gases, heat etc and then producing the extra need through green energy and buying green energy certificates to achieve net zero means nothing changes.
But it will make the virtuous feel better.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

As a thought on climate change. It has always happened and will continue to happen as the cyclic nature of earths climate over time, (hot cold hot cold ice age, flood heat etc)

Yes we are accelerating it, yes we can do something about our contribution to it, yes we need to do it now.

Now for reality check folks, we can only have an affect on our contribution, the effect of nature's cyclic climate will cause our extinction, we can stave it off for a few decades, but nature will win and we will all die. It's a case of when not IF.

Second sentence is not really substantiated by the body of scientific evidence.

The simplistic view of cyclical change is a convenient truth to "hide behind". All of the best lies contain just a grain of truth and this is no exception.

For the first time in recorded history the cyclical changes are not occurring in sympathy to the recorded and well documented geological norms. You should look it up.

 

[Chris152]

Net Zero will not help by the way.
Pumping out same amount of climate changing gases, heat etc and then producing the extra need through green energy and buying green energy certificates to achieve net zero means nothing changes.
But it will make the virtuous feel better.

I'm struggling to understand what you've written. The same amount of 'climate changing gases'? I thought the plan was to reduce them.

 

[Sachakins]

I'm struggling to understand what you've written. The same amount of 'climate changing gases'? I thought the plan was to reduce them.

Yes that's the point, net zero is not about reduction. It's about balancing what bad gassess we make with clean energy we make.

Now if the target was for zero harmful emissions that's great, but net zero actuals means nothing.

It's like all these energy companies saying totally renewable energy supplier. What it means is that they buy green energy certificates, meaning they are paying into a fund that is used to plant more trees etc. Their energy is not 100% greener, but their net emission are zero as they are paying for someone else to plant trees etc that absorb it.
So simply, the more non green energy they sell, the more guarantee certificates they buy to make them a net zero contributor.

As I said, net zero means nothing.

 

[Chris152]

Yes that's the point, net zero is not about reduction. It's about balancing what bad gassess we make with clean energy we make.

I think you are mistaken.
'Net zero refers to a state in which the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.'
https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero-2/

 

[Jacob]

.

As I said, net zero means nothing.

"Net zero" means no increase in CO2 levels.
Achieved by reducing emissions until they are balanced by CO2 take-up; basically by reforestation and other organic methods. CO2 capture technology gets mooted but looks like a non starter, in view of the quantities involved.
If we can hit net zero the next objective would be to reduce CO2 levels.
Both possible if the will is there and if we have enough time left.
PS it's nothing to do with Starmer - the problem began years before he was born and no doubt will still be with us after he's popped off. He might chip in some help on the political front however.

 

[Sachakins]

PS it's nothing to do with Starmer - the problem began years before he was born and no

He's committing to it so aggressively, it's as if it is his legacy.
But his legacy will be as a rabbit in the headlights, short with a swift ending. Hopefully.

 

[Krome10]

It's both sad and interesting to hear the defeatist attitude in @Sachakins posts above.

"Sad"... Look at how the world responded to covid in vaccine development. Or to infection generally with antibiotics. To pick just two examples. We have the capacity - and sometimes the proclivity - to develop, adapt, and overcome. If our intellect, energy and resources were put to good, who knows what we might achieve and overcome.

"Interesting"... I've often agreed with Bill Hicks that humanity is a virus with shoes. I've probably even said the same in other threads. I try to fight against the idea, but seems the evidence is quite convincing to back it up. In which case maybe we just need to get the **** on with it and the sooner it's over the better. The shame for me isn't the end of humanity. It's the unnecessary destruction we cause along the way that takes so much down with us

PS I'm not sure those on the greener side of the political spectrum would agree that Starmer is aggressively committed to environmental concerns. I don't see ED and JSO disbanding and celebrating now that it's all under control. Next you'll be saying that Starmer is a communist!

 

[Sachakins]

I think you are mistaken.
'Net zero refers to a state in which the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.'
https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero-2/

That's the narrative promoted, but that's not the same as a reduction.

 

[woodieallen]

"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."

You remind me of an old git down our local pub. Stands at the bar. Loves the sound of his own voice. Can't stand him.

 

[Chris152]

That's the narrative promoted, but that's not the same as a reduction.

Well, not really. It's a definition. And I'm not sure why people keep calling things narratives, when they're not.

 

[Krome10]

And I'm not sure why people keep calling things narratives, when they're not.

Because everyone else is.

It's unprecedented.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Mostly true, but I'd rather our extinction come at a distant point when nature decides, not in the relatively near future as a result of human greed, short-sightedness and utter incompetence.

What is the relatively near future - say 2100 - 75 years from now. Most links between those alive today and those in 2100 will be broken - I will be history buried in a family tree researched by my grandchildren who will by then be in their late 70's and 80's.

• sea levels are predicted to have risen by 0.4 - 1.0m causing significant stress to some
• sea temperature increase varying between 0.2 - 2.5C with possible impacts on coral reefs and some fish stocks
• more frequent incidence of extreme weather events - rainfall, heatwaves

These are not remotely extinction level events. There are 8bn alive today. There may be 10bn or more by 2100. The journey will be uncomfortable, possibly terminal, for some. For most of the global population, adaptation will solve the key issues.

Look forward to 2200 and things are more uncertain - inevitable as the science and modelling produces a wide range of outcomes, partly influenced by the actions taken in the interim. However evidence and forecast precision should improve hopefully reinforce actions required.

This is not an argument for complacency - the science is broadly correct. But Climate Alarmism has the capacity to push populations into denial, not stir focussed action. The world will not come to an end anytime soon due to climate change - there are other far more immediate risks.

It is possible the world 200+ years from now could look very different - a much smaller population occupying a smaller land area, possibly with the learned wisdom to live in greater harmony with the new environment. An altogether more stable, nicer place perhaps??

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Second sentence is not really substantiated by the body of scientific evidence.

The simplistic view of cyclical change is a convenient truth to "hide behind". All of the best lies contain just a grain of truth and this is no exception.

For the first time in recorded history the cyclical changes are not occurring in sympathy to the recorded and well documented geological norms. You should look it up.

I agree.

Cyclical changes typically occur on millennial or geological timescales. Human cycles are measured in decades or a century or two.

That cyclical changes have always happened in a complete irrelevancy to any discussion of the human impacts of climate change.

 

[Sachakins]

Narrative is the choice of which story events to relate and in what order to relate them. Narrative implies causality;

Definition should not involve interoperability.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

You remind me of an old git down our local pub. Stands at the bar. Loves the sound of his own voice. Can't stand him.

Oh goodie, a word association game!

Inadequacy?

Maybe the old git down your local is an wise oracle that deserves better. Maybe not, maybe he just does like the sound of his own voice. Or maybe he's an opinionated a'hole?
Wait, it isn't Faraj, is it? Loves his, own voice and is an opinionated a'hole.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I agree.

Cyclical changes typically occur on millennial or geological timescales. Human cycles are measured in decades or a century or two.

That cyclical changes have always happened in a complete irrelevancy to any discussion of the human impacts of climate change.

You misunderstand.
The mechanisms shown by graphs that depict global average temperature and concentrations of atmospheric gases (CO2 amongst the) and solid particulate (ash particulate in the main), during those geological cyclical changes the graph traces have always followed a consistent pattern. Geological timescale events of periods of rising average global temperatures have always shown that the temperature rise is followed by higher atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The current trend is different and that's the reason that it is accepted amongst climate scientists that the currently active rise in average global temperature is man made.
The tell is that this time the atmosoheric CO2 concentrations precede and are leading the temperature rise, not lagging and following behind as per previous cyclical events.
So while there is a nugget of truth in the "past cyclical events happened" camouflage story, the detail that emerges when proper scientific scrutiny is performed, clearly shows that the camouflage story is largely one of misinformation. Laymen often pick this misinformation up and propagate it, either deliberately or unwittingly.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

"Net zero" means no increase in CO2 levels.
Achieved by reducing emissions until they are balanced by CO2 take-up; basically by reforestation and other organic methods. CO2 capture technology gets mooted but looks like a non starter, in view of the quantities involved.
If we can hit net zero the next objective would be to reduce CO2 levels.
Both possible if the will is there and if we have enough time left.
PS it's nothing to do with Starmer - the problem began years before he was born and no doubt will still be with us after he's popped off. He might chip in some help on the political front however.

For once I largely agree with Jacob - net zero is about the balance.

It is however rather more complex that just CO2. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour, fluorinated gas to name but a few. Some are man made, some are naturally occurring but influenced by human activity.
Their characteristics and concentrations can be very different - eg: methane is in relatively low concentrations, can trap 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than CO2, but remains in the atmosphere for around 12 years compared to over a century for carbon dioxide.

"Natural" gas emissions are substantially cyclical and balance over time. Carbon in its different forms (plants, trees, animals etc) all have life cycles which absorb gases during life, die, rot and release gases to restart the cycle.

Long term equilibrium is disrupted by the burning of fossil fuels which were sequestered over millions of years and are being released over only a few centuries. Thus replacement of fossil fuels with green alternatives rightly takes a high priority.