Climate change policy

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Hi, sorry Chimera, seems to have been a crossover with Jacobs drivel, and you've somehow got caught in the crossfire.
Apologies.

That's cool.
Keep going with your numbers though, let's see where it takes us.

2.5% of Chinese goods exports coming to UK can probably be equated to an amount of CO2 output, don't you think?

 

[Sachakins]

That's cool.
Keep going with your numbers though, let's see where it takes us.

2.5% of Chinese goods exports coming to UK can probably be equated to an amount of CO2 output, don't you think?

I'm sure it can, but the goods tarrif it's spread across such a diverse range from equipment for nuclear power plant down to livestock! So it's not a simple task.
It is one I could have done when working as a statistical and business analyst, and paid reasonable rate for, but not one I fancy doing for fun. Too much time and effort, which I'd rather spend woodworking.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Why?, I have already proven that the UK accounts for just under 2.5% of Chinese exports.
If you know anything about financial and statistical analysis, then these numbers already disprove the claims earlier that ... the majority of Chinese exports are to the UK...

I suggest you try to disprove the facts I've already given you.

So far, all you have have come up with is guesswork, innuendo, intonation and very little else in any factual terms at all.

It is not I that needs to provide further proof, but you, to even come close to any factual evidence of your claims. Rather than the rhetoric, baseless and usual carp that I hear from you, J and others.

I have stated that carbon reduction is necessary, that even we should act unilaterally and inaction is not an option.

I am not a climate sceptic, but neither am I a romanticist.

The United Kingdom’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are typically reported on a territorial basis, accounting for emissions produced within the country’s borders. However, this measure excludes emissions generated abroad during the production of goods and services imported into the UK. When these imported emissions are included, the UK’s total GHG emissions—referred to as the “carbon footprint” or consumption-based emissions—are significantly higher.

In 2021, the UK’s carbon footprint was estimated at 705 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO₂e), a 24% reduction from 922 Mt CO₂e in 1990. In contrast, territorial emissions decreased by 53% over the same period. This disparity suggests that while domestic emissions have declined, the UK’s consumption-based emissions have not decreased as substantially, partly due to the shift from manufacturing to service industries and increased reliance on imported goods.

A significant portion of these imported emissions originates from Europe and China. In 2021, emissions associated with imports from Europe accounted for 34% of the UK’s imported emissions, equivalent to 128 Mt CO₂e—the highest estimate since 1996. Emissions from imports originating in China were 50 Mt CO₂e, more than double the 1996 level of 23 Mt CO₂e.

These figures highlight the importance of considering consumption-based emissions alongside territorial emissions to fully understand the UK’s contribution to global GHG emissions. Addressing emissions embedded in imports is crucial for developing comprehensive strategies to reduce the nation’s overall carbon footprint.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I'm sure it can, but the goods tarrif it's spread across such a diverse range from equipment for nuclear power plant down to livestock! So it's not a simple task.
It is one I could have done when working as a statistical and business analyst, and paid reasonable rate for, but not one I fancy doing for fun. Too much time and effort, which I'd rather spend woodworking.

Let's not allow perfection to be the enemy of the good, eh? It would reflect the situation just as well to do a basic estimate. Since China is a "manufacturing nation", producing a significant proportion of the worlds manufacturing produce (and much of that being very energy intensive) there is very little reason to say that the "exported CO2" is not a linear relationship as follows:

Total goods produced in China => {proportional to} Total territorial CO2 output, minus a bit for domestic consumption.

Domestic consumption will clearly be less than half - since a manufacturing nation - and also as a resource rich nation, with energy required to extract and refine minerals from the earth - and all of those sector workers using their domestic energy to support employment in the industrial/manufacturing sector.

However, to be conservative let's use a high domestic consumption of half.

such that:

Proportion of Chinese goods sent to UK => Same proportion of HALF the territorial CO2 output .


Bearing in mind the following from paul (thanks paul) - let's see how the figures for China stack up.

In 2021, the UK’s carbon footprint was ...[]... a 24% reduction from 1990.
In contrast, territorial emissions decreased by 53% over the same period.
This disparity highlight the importance of considering consumption-based emissions alongside territorial emissions to fully understand the UK’s contribution to global GHG emissions. Addressing emissions embedded in imports is crucial for developing comprehensive strategies to reduce the nation’s overall carbon footprint.

We can see that although the UK halved its territorial CO2 output, the carbon footprint only fell by a quarter.

In other words, although the UK has cleaned up, we are only doing half as well as is generally reported in the territorial figures.

This would support the following result:

Using figures from elsewhere in this thread... or easily googlable

(UK territorial = 0.88 % of global CO2 output)
Territorial China = 35% of global CO2 output
Proportion of Chinese goods exported to UK = 2.5%

CO2 produced by exports to UK = HALF of 2.5% of 35% global

= 0.4375% global


Not surprisingly, this figure that territorial China produces, at the direct behest of the UK market, is half that of UK territorial. Just using China, the UK carbon footprint rises by 50% from 0.88% to over 1.3%.

Easy calculations on representative assumptions, and which I had already done myself before paul's helpful reference.


The moral of all this is just to support exactly what I've been saying in this thread and another - that the UK can't with any conscience expect to do *nothing* while also telling China to clean itself up - because everything is interconnected - and the UK is "responsible" for a proportion of Chinese territorial CO2 output. Bumping up carbon footprint over and above the territorial numbers - in the case of the UK - we have a carbon footprint DOUBLE that of the territorial production.
Multiply that over all of the "clean developed nations" (post-industrial revolution) that are also small territorial producers but export maybe half of their CO2 output - carbon footprint - to nations such as China and India. Those developed nations, which consume a huge proportion (possibly more than half) of goods produced in China and India have zero credibility to stand and say "were not doing anything because we are already small territorial CO2 producers".

 

[Lons]

Maybe ban all import of the multitude of cheap Chinese EVs as well as putting a tariff on companies like MG owned by them. That would reduce emissions and boost European manufacturers.

 

[Jacob]

Hi, sorry Chimera, seems to have been a crossover with Jacobs drivel, and you've somehow got caught in the crossfire.
Apologies.

Article here about net zero. A neat little summary.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08326-8
It's fairly easy to find out about things you don't understand if you make a little effort e.g. just google "net zero CO2"
Hope that helps.

 

[Sachakins]

Article here about net zero. A neat little summary.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08326-8
It's fairly easy to find out about things you don't understand if you make a little effort e.g. just google "net zero CO2"
Hope that helps.

A statement from that summary...

By including passive CO2 uptake, nominal net zero emissions would not halt global warming, undermining the Paris Agreement.

So as I said, this Net Zero path we are on is garbage.
it then goes on to say what else needs to be done, which is as i said all along.

 

[Jacob]

....

By including passive CO2 uptake, nominal net zero emissions would not halt global warming, undermining the Paris Agreement.

.....
it then goes on to say what else needs to be done, which is as i said all along.

Correct. It goes on to address the issues around the target of net zero, not garbage at all but still a primary objective.
Try the google links too.

 

[mudman]

A statement from that summary...

By including passive CO2 uptake, nominal net zero emissions would not halt global warming, undermining the Paris Agreement.

So as I said, this Net Zero path we are on is garbage.
it then goes on to say what else needs to be done, which is as i said all along.

Thanks Sachakins, Geological Net Zero is something I hadn't heard of before but it does make sense. Interesting presentation on it here: https://www.ief.org/_resources/files/events/2nd-ief-high-level-roundtable-on-carbon-management-technologies/myles-allen.pdf.

 

[Sachakins]

Correct. It goes on to address the issues around the target of net zero, not garbage at all but still a primary objective.
Try the google links too.

It addressing the issues is not the same as things getting done though. Great the point out what to do to further progress, but that's all it does.

 

[Jacob]

It addressing the issues is not the same as things getting done though. Great the point out what to do to further progress, but that's all it does.

Thats all it's supposed to do. An objective to aim at. How to do it is another thing.

 

[Jacob]

There's at least two big catches with the concept of ""geological" net zero.
First, although possible there is no convincing process for storing carbon away "geologically" in sufficient quantities.
Second that there is a real risk of the fossil fuel industry persuading itself that this as the cure-all, worthy of massive investment, research, profits, whist fossil fuel use continues and makes the problem worse and a remedy even more remote.
The reports do emphasise the need for massive fossil fuel reduction:
"The research team stress the importance of protecting and maintaining natural carbon sinks while accepting that doing so cannot compensate for ongoing fossil fuel use."
Note the inclusion of the idea of "ongoing fossil fuel use" and be wary!

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-11-18-redefining-net-zero-will-not-stop-global-warming-new-study-shows#:~:text=Given the cost and challenges,get rid of it permanently.

I had an idle thought on the topic; what about regularly dumping as much carbonaceous material as possible from all sources, into old excavations, quarries, mines etc. Possibly flooded so that decomposition would not happen, like peat deposits. It could be a start to geological net zero storage! There are some massive old quarries around here (limestone removed in the Peak District), maybe start filling them with old plastic, wood waste, books and paper, biological waste (dead bodies?) you name it!
Possibly a silly idea but it would be "geological storage" and extremely low tech. I guess it would remove carbon far faster than the current experiments in geo-capture.
Every little helps!
PS - this featured on Panorama last week. I felt too sceptical to watch the whole prog. https://climeworks.com/plant-orca
A counter view from Greenpeace
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/fossil-fuels/carbon-capture-and-storage/

 

[Jacob]

...

....

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

Mitigating and adapting in practice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg7w7xzrj3t

 

[Sachakins]

Offering $100billion dollars, then raising it to $300 billion dollars,and its the rejected as an abysmal offer.
Beggers belief, why not take it, start their programs, show how it can benefit in actual actions. That proof of outcome is likely to trigger more monies in future.
BUT, if these countries up for the monies can't show benefit. Then why throw money down the drain. It could be spent by the developed nations increasing efforts to reduce their emmisions.

(As I've said before, not matter what we do, it will still be seen as not enough, this refusal reinforces that belief)

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Mitigating and adapting in practice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg7w7xzrj3t

Note "MOSTLY"

This is the truly damaging impact of climate change:

"Bangladesh is among the 10 most disaster-affected countries in the world, highly exposed to severe monsoon flooding and cyclones. In an “average” year, about a quarter of the country is inundated during the monsoon; every four to five years, severe floods may cover two thirds of the country".

Storm Bert

Unusual but not record breaking - extremes of temperature, windspeed, rainfall on Met Office. If you dig a bit you will find plenty of other similar data - records go back 50 years or more.

Four deaths are reported due to the storm - basically a slightly bad day on the roads.

A few hundred homes flooded - not easy to find precise figures. This is from a total housing stock of ~30m - so 1 or 2 in every 100,000.

I don't want to suggest this is unimportant - for those affected it is distressing (at least).

Conclusion

I stand by my original observation - the fortunate wealthy already have relatively robust infrastructures, and with sensible regulation, planning and improvement can mitigate most impacts.

There are some unknowns - tipping points which could materially change climate rapidly. There is also the failure to plan - eg: continue building on flood plains, inadequate building regulations, etc.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Offering $100billion dollars, then raising it to $300 billion dollars,and its the rejected as an abysmal offer.
Beggers belief, why not take it, start their programs, show how it can benefit in actual actions. That proof of outcome is likely to trigger more monies in future.
BUT, if these countries up for the monies can't show benefit. Then why throw money down the drain. It could be spent by the developed nations increasing efforts to reduce their emmisions.

(As I've said before, not matter what we do, it will still be seen as not enough, this refusal reinforces that belief)

$300bn by 2035 - 10 years from now - is a drop in the ocean. It is the GDP of Chile, 10% of the UK, and 1% of the US. And given past performance it is as likely to be an empty promise anyway.

The UK share may be similar to the International Aid budget!

I question whether it is needed anyway - by definition poorer countries who arguably need support have very low emissions anyway.

They may also be in the fortunate position (relatively) to technologically leapfrog. Developed economies have to dismantle and replace infrastructure and behaviour patterns. Poorer countries can avoid the intermediate stage and go straight to greener technologies.

Example - smartphones avoid the need for a wired comms network, solar and wind may avoid need for coal and gas generation..

The proposition that a better global outcome would be forthcoming from using the money to further reduce high emissions is entirely plausible.

 

[Jacob]

..

I stand by my original observation - the fortunate wealthy already have relatively robust infrastructures, and with sensible regulation, planning and improvement can mitigate most impacts.
.........

You've missed the point - which is that even in well-off Wales there was no adaptation or mitigation in place.
Consequences not too severe but even in the UK many places getting repeated flooding are going to be rendered uninhabitable over the coming years.
We also continue building on flood plains, with inadequate building regulations.
Hence we also have several thousand potential Grenfell Tower scenarios on the cards ("bonfires of the regulations") so maybe we are better off with record breaking wet weather rather than the droughts and fires affecting other regions of the globe.
It's happening now, not in 100 years time.

........smartphones avoid the need for a wired comms network,

Except for charging them, and the power behind the infrastructure at so many points in the very complex chain of communication. Wire communications are lower tech and hence probably more sustainable.
Bring back hand-cranked generators and crystal sets!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-to-continue-as-uk-counts-cost-of-storm-bert

 

[Croolis]

Note "MOSTLY"

This is the truly damaging impact of climate change:

"Bangladesh is among the 10 most disaster-affected countries in the world, highly exposed to severe monsoon flooding and cyclones. In an “average” year, about a quarter of the country is inundated during the monsoon; every four to five years, severe floods may cover two thirds of the country".

Storm Bert

Unusual but not record breaking - extremes of temperature, windspeed, rainfall on Met Office. If you dig a bit you will find plenty of other similar data - records go back 50 years or more.

Four deaths are reported due to the storm - basically a slightly bad day on the roads.

A few hundred homes flooded - not easy to find precise figures. This is from a total housing stock of ~30m - so 1 or 2 in every 100,000.

I don't want to suggest this is unimportant - for those affected it is distressing (at least).

Conclusion

I stand by my original observation - the fortunate wealthy already have relatively robust infrastructures, and with sensible regulation, planning and improvement can mitigate most impacts.

There are some unknowns - tipping points which could materially change climate rapidly. There is also the failure to plan - eg: continue building on flood plains, inadequate building regulations, etc.

I'm at work so I'm not digging into it (and TBH even if I wasn't I probably still wouldn't dig into it because I'm a lazy debater), but this sort of thing needs to be stacked up against historical data. We're trying to establish a model as to what's going to come. Tipping points can be a sort of distraction. Death by a thousand cuts, as I've said before. The wealthy being better placed to deal with, and lack of planning are both good points.

 

[Sachakins]

$300bn by 2035 - 10 years from now - is a drop in the ocean.

Sorry, but your wrong. The 2035 target was and is $1.3 trillion.
The $300 billion is to replace to $100 billion funding agreement that expires end of 2025

 

[Terry - Somerset]

You've missed the point - which is that even in well-off Wales there was no adaptation or mitigation in place.

The authorities - local and/or national have clearly done to little in the light of earlier floods. They are quite capable (one would hope) of getting the work done - they clearly gave it a lower priority than perhaps they should.

Largely missing in Bangladesh, but available in Wales (I assume) are pumps, power supplies, food stocks, drinking water, medical care, building materials, de-humidifiers etc etc etc.

Consequences not too severe but even in the UK many places getting repeated flooding are going to be rendered uninhabitable over the coming years.

When are the "coming years" - 2025, 2050 sometime when we are all long forgotten. It makes a difference to the response.

We also continue building on flood plains, with inadequate building regulations.

Agree

Hence we also have several thousand potential Grenfell Tower scenarios on the cards ("bonfires of the regulations") so maybe we are better off with record breaking wet weather rather than the droughts and fires affecting other regions of the globe.

"Thousands" - I prefer rational analysis to catastrophising.

It's happening now, not in 100 years time.

Some things are happening now - not everything. Sea level rise by 2100 is 20-50cm. Over the last 100 years 16-20cm. Not as much but illustrates the capacity to adapt over time.

Except for charging them, and the power behind the infrastructure at so many points in the very complex chain of communication. Wire communications are lower tech and hence probably more sustainable.
Bring back hand-cranked generators and crystal sets!

Each cell phone mast serves many hundreds (possibly thousands) of users. It clearly needs power and comms infrastructure. Landlines have multiple points of failure - arguably one for each connection. Cell phones could be kept charged by a £10-20 PV so no big deal.

Probably worth a critical appraisal - is the extra cost of a hard wired network justified - would the extra cost be better spent on increasing cell phone resilience.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-to-continue-as-uk-counts-cost-of-storm-bert

Precisely the same type of article written when we get a more than minor snowfall - why can't we be more like Sweden that keeps going with a 100mm dusting when the UK grinds to a halt.

Answer - we should spend whatever funds we have on that which best benefits all of society, not the extreme and infrequent. An objective review of whether priorities should change in favour of response to extreme weather would be sensible.