Author Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)  (Read 368148 times)

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,630
There is a chance, as Stephen Hawking thought, that we’ve already crossed the Rubicon and set in motion a thermal runaway. As a species, we are genetically hardwired for selfishness and limited to thinking about timescales within our life expectancies. I don’t think anything will change significantly. The only thing we can hope for is people everywhere deciding NOT to have children as life gets harder and harder due to climate change. Imagine if the human population plunged some 30-40% in the next 50 years. Fewer people buying stupid unnecessary shit because, well, the earth has a way of setting its own boundary conditions.

Right now, it’s just everyone fighting their way to get into first class and drink their glass of champagne while the aircraft is literally going down in flames.

The majority of the worlds population causes hardly any GHG emissions.

It's the rich, developed countries that need to change their ways!

The environmental impact of that family of 12 in Laos, Bangladesh etc., is nothing!

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,630
Eriel Deranger, executive director of Indigenous Climate Action group said the final agreement left her “sad, angry, empowered and scared”:

This year global Indigenous People represented the second largest civil society delegation in attendance, second only to oil and gas lobbyists. Last night as the final language was adopted I couldn’t help but see both our presence and the presence of oil and gas in the outcomes. The final text left me sad, angry, empowered and scared. While we succeeded in getting references to human rights and rights of Indigenous Peoples, it has fallen flat. These references mean little if they are also creating loopholes for dirty corporations and high polluting nations to “offset” their emissions by buying and trading the air and our lands and territories without our consent or participation.

It’s simply lip service in the name of business as usual if our people do not have power to make decisions for ourselves, participate in the processes or have mechanisms for grievances. It’s clear governments are unwilling to decouple themselves from corporate interests, that dominated negotiations this year, and that the rights of our communities are nothing more than bargaining chips. For our communities the real work begins when we get home and have to tell our people we didn’t succeed, and that the risks and threats to our people and land will continue, and increase, and that our fight for climate justice still wages on.


Tim Crosland, director with environmental charity Plan B which took the government to court over its plans to build a new runway at Heathrow, is pretty scathing about the outcome of Cop26.

“Despite the determined efforts of many to present COP26 as “important progress”, such claims are no more than propaganda and greenwash. In objective terms, COP26 has ended in absolute failure,” he said.

Crosland added that it was important for the media to “call this out” so “public and political attention can be turned to a) the causes of failure and b) what can be done about them.”

It’s not that our politicians are evil. They don’t want us all to die. But they are blinded by ideology to the real cause of the crisis, which is an economic model which depends on short-term profits and compound economic growth, which can only be maintained through the concentrated power of fossil fuels.

Tzeporah Berman
@Tzeporah
Historic. And insufficient. That is the dilemma of climate era. We are so stuck in our current systems & so heavily influenced by incumbents who stand to benefit from status quo that even the qualified acknowledgement in text of #COP26 of one fossil fuel, coal feels historic.

Tzeporah Berman
@Tzeporah
·
5h
Replying to
@Tzeporah
Yet 86% emissions trapped in our atmosphere come from three products coal, oil & gas. Ten years ago 80% of global energy consumption came from those fossil fuels & today? 80%. That’s not because of lack of cheap renewables at scale. It’s because lack of political courage
« Last Edit: November 14, 2021, 05:00:27 pm by Red-Soldier »

Online Riquende

  • Taking one for the team by giving one to a lucky mascot? Pix or stfu!! (Although is PC is from the 90s so you'll have to wait a while...)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,747
  • Μετρήστε με με μανία
Right now, it’s just everyone fighting their way to get into first class and drink their glass of champagne while the aircraft is literally going down in flames.

I do like that analogy.

But it's entirely possible that there's no way to repair the fiery plunging aeroplane, so whilst a bunch of nerds sit around, look at diagrams and keep failing to do anything useful, you might as well just guzzle at the trough and hope you die of liver failure before the impact.

Signed, the world's billionaires etc.
"The nicest thing about quotes is that they give us a nodding acquaintance with the originator which is often socially impressive."

~ Kenneth Williams, with whom I'm noddingly acquainted. Socially impressed?

Offline johnny74

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,713
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Found out the other day about Standard Chartered and their financing of fossil fuels in Asia. Utterly appauled.

Asian fossil fuel use is one of the main stumbling blocks to real progress.

I can't support this team if they wear those shirts.

Offline Andy82lfc

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,340
I always shrug at these "commitments to do a thing by 2050, or 2070" and all that nonsense. The country's current government gets to make a nice vote-winning pledge whilst leaving it up to future governments to actually try to implement things. And then if you're lucky enough that the opposition are in power when that year finally rolls around, and the target hasn't been hit, it's free political capital.

This is how we know though that they are in the pockets of the big companies because as you say if they were not why not just say ‘we will abolish coal by 2030’ etc, they can’t because the companies that put them there would pull the rug from under them. Not to mention they’d lose all of the sweet brown envelopes they will be getting by the week.

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,617
Does anyone know which thread I need to be in to post “Elon Musk is a twat”?

Offline Andy82lfc

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,340
Does anyone know which thread I need to be in to post “Elon Musk is a twat”?

If you google ‘forums’, anything posted on that list is entirely welcomed and encouraged.

Offline Garrus

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,838
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Found out the other day about Standard Chartered and their financing of fossil fuels in Asia. Utterly appauled.

Asian fossil fuel use is one of the main stumbling blocks to real progress.

I can't support this team if they wear those shirts.
It's not just Asian countries who are using fossil fuels though. Take a look at a nation like Australia. 93% of their energy mix comes from fossil fuels; 91% for the Netherlands. 81% in the case of the US.
80% in the case of India.

Offline Buggy Eyes Alfredo

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,481
  • ¤Ginger◇Drapes¤

Offline lobsterboy

  • Sworn enemy of crayfishgirl. Likes to draw spunking cocks n balls at sunday school
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,856
Found out the other day about Standard Chartered and their financing of fossil fuels in Asia. Utterly appauled.

Asian fossil fuel use is one of the main stumbling blocks to real progress.

I can't support this team if they wear those shirts.

They were also founded on the proceeds of slavery and have links to Dodgy Dave Cameron's family. Horrible sponsors. And their logo is printed on Nike shirts, another truly horrible company, found using forced labour in chinese concentration camps.

Offline RainbowFlick

  • The Test Ticket Tout. Head of the RAWK Vice Squad.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,403
There is a chance, as Stephen Hawking thought, that we’ve already crossed the Rubicon and set in motion a thermal runaway. As a species, we are genetically hardwired for selfishness and limited to thinking about timescales within our life expectancies. I don’t think anything will change significantly. The only thing we can hope for is people everywhere deciding NOT to have children as life gets harder and harder due to climate change. Imagine if the human population plunged some 30-40% in the next 50 years. Fewer people buying stupid unnecessary shit because, well, the earth has a way of setting its own boundary conditions.

Right now, it’s just everyone fighting their way to get into first class and drink their glass of champagne while the aircraft is literally going down in flames.

This is the eco-fascism David Attenborough has sneaked in to becoming a solution in many peoples' eyes. You ask the world to have less kids and we all know what that means - the global south. We've already seen that from sterilisation drives in India over many, many years. The rich aren't impacted and the poor are cooerced into it.

The solution isn't 'less people', it's stopping all the hugely unnecessary pollution from the military, to billionaires, to businesses cutting corners at any possible moment and aiding countries that are struggling to meet the demands. Overconsumption is a problem, but the drivers of that overconsumption are those businesses and billionaires.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2021, 10:13:35 am by RainbowFlick »
YNWA.

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,617
This is the eco-fascism David Attenborough has sneaked in to becoming a solution in many peoples' eyes. You ask the world to have less kids and we all know what that means - the global south. We've already seen that from sterilisation drives in India over many, many years. The rich aren't impacted and the poor are cooerced into it.

The solution isn't 'less people', it's stopping all the hugely unnecessary pollution from the military, to billionaires, to businesses cutting corners at any possible moment and aiding countries that are struggling to meet the demands. Overconsumption is a problem, but the drivers of that overconsumption are those businesses and billionaires.

I’ll counter with the religious fascism that prohibits birth control and encourages large families. Less people would help, though it’s not entirely to blame.

Offline gazzalfc

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,699
  • Well done boys, Good Process
Nine Insulate Britain protestors have been jailed for between 4-6 months today for their motorway protesting. 

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?

The solution isn't 'less people', it's stopping all the hugely unnecessary pollution


It's both.

Or at least, trying to keep the current population stable. Very high birthrates - for whatever reason - are a problem.
A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,630

It's both.

Or at least, trying to keep the current population stable. Very high birthrates - for whatever reason - are a problem.

You are incorrect.

Rising affluence is the biggest problem.  Affluence brings increased land use/land cover change, consumption of global resources and greater meat consumption.  The systems we have built our economies on are not sustainable.

For example, someone like yourself, who says they cannot imagine a meal without meat, has a greater, negative environmental impact, than a poor family of 12 in Bangladesh.  We are not all equal.

That is why the climate crisis is steeped in inequality.  The people who have contributed the least, are being impacted the most!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 02:41:17 pm by Red-Soldier »

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
You are incorrect.

Rising affluence is the biggest problem.  Affluence brings increased land use/land cover change, consumption of global resources and greater meat consumption.  The systems we have built our economies on are not sustainable.

For example, someone like yourself, who says they cannot imagine a meal without meat, has a greater, negative environmental impact, than a poor family of 12 in Bangladesh.  We are not all equal.

That is why the climate crisis is steeped in inequality.  The people who have contributed the least, are being impacted the most!



I acknowledge all that - but rising affluence is not the sole biggest problem, and failing to accept that a global population that is growing by another billion every few years is at least as big a problem, is as damaging as only focusing on western affluence and consumerism.

That family of 12 in Bangladesh. What do think happens when they all have a family of 12, and they all have a family of 12, etc?

Overpopulation sees more natural habitats (like rainforests) destroyed for food production. Sees a greater need for intensive agriculture (and an increasing reliance on fertilisers, the production of which is a big GHG producer)

As a species, we need to start limiting ourselves to 2 or 3 kids per couple max. For the sake of the planet and ourselves.
A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Commie Bobbie

  • Just woke up......Member of the Committee for State Security. More Folkestone Fashionista than Sandon Sandanista......
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,573
  • #WTRWWAW
Nine Insulate Britain protestors have been jailed for between 4-6 months today for their motorway protesting. 

The Prime Minister and former Health secretary remain at liberty for their part in helping 160,000 British men, woman and children die thanks to their incompetence.

But stop a couple of Range Rovers and watch the letter of the law come down quickly and hard.

Hope they up the ante and hope the direct action goes to the heart of the cancerous and corrupted heart of this ill island.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 03:01:25 pm by Commie Bobbie »
Twitter: @atypicalbob

DON'T BUY THE S*N

MacKenzie Is Still A Fucking c*nt

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
The Prime Minister and former Health secretary remain at liberty for their part in helping 160,000 British men, woman and children die thanks to their incompetence.

But stop a couple of Range Rovers and watch the letter of the law come down quickly and hard.

Hope they up the ante and hope the direct action goes to the heart of the cancerous and corrupted heart of this ill island.



55 Tufton Street?


A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Commie Bobbie

  • Just woke up......Member of the Committee for State Security. More Folkestone Fashionista than Sandon Sandanista......
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,573
  • #WTRWWAW
Twitter: @atypicalbob

DON'T BUY THE S*N

MacKenzie Is Still A Fucking c*nt

Offline Garrus

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,838
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Bangladesh is pretty much at replacement level fertility now at 2.01 births per woman. Contrast that to 6.72 in 1960. Economic development and family planning awareness helps.

Offline Sudden Death Draft Loser

  • old and annoying
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,483

As a species, we need to start limiting ourselves to 2 or 3 kids per couple max. For the sake of the planet and ourselves.

Can't understand why anyone would want to have kids at the moment, they've got no future and only increasing suffering to look forward to.
"The greatest argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation  with the average voter. "

Offline Red Raw

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,821
  • Klopptimistic
Population is growing but not as a result of rising birth rate, it is because we are living longer. It sounds counterintuitive but we have alread reached 'peak-child' (around 2 billion) and this will remain the case at least until the end of the century. Without the extra children there can't be extra adults and population will peak at around 10-11 billion.

Here is the data courtesy of Gapminder (it is best to start at about 1962 because that is when the data is considered reliable). The horizontal axis is babies-per-woman and the vertical axis is life expectancy. The size of the bubbles is population.

You can clearly see the migration of the country bubbles from the lower right to the upper left. This is a good thing. It demonstrates the success of programs of education and contraception and the reduction of child mortality, which is devastating whichever country to happen to have to have been born into.



The world has changed, it is no longer divided simply into to poor countries who have lots of babies and die young, and rich countries who have few babies and live long and healthy lives. Unfortunately the '1962 narrative' has remained persistent because of a lazy media and a lack of engagement with the data.

If you want to see more about how the dynamics work and how we can accomodate the global popultion in a equitable and resonable manner I urge everyone to spend an hour with the excellent and engaging Hans Rosling. I post this link everytime a conversation arises about population which is too often used as an excuse for those in the west to pass the emissions buck onto developing countries.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/FACK2knC08E" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/FACK2knC08E</a>

Offline Indomitable_Carp

  • Asterixophile
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,743
  • From the depths of Sevvy Park lake
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/03/shell-u-turn-cambo-could-mean-end-big-north-sea-oil-projects?fbclid=IwAR26sWSXXG1BkGuDgokFGkrq69JTwTKtFjOcsHJuBt2TU7XAZaRC23lzmn0

Some good news.

A combination of activist pressure and the UK government waking up to its own climate committments, has led to Shell pulling out of a planned new oil field in the North Sea - with it no longer considered economically viable when accounting for government enforced "climate concessions"

They are saying that with a giant like Shell unable to make large future North Sea projects viable, it is unlikely that any other fossil fuel companies will try.

Offline Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,333
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/03/shell-u-turn-cambo-could-mean-end-big-north-sea-oil-projects?fbclid=IwAR26sWSXXG1BkGuDgokFGkrq69JTwTKtFjOcsHJuBt2TU7XAZaRC23lzmn0

Some good news.

A combination of activist pressure and the UK government waking up to its own climate committments, has led to Shell pulling out of a planned new oil field in the North Sea - with it no longer considered economically viable when accounting for government enforced "climate concessions"

They are saying that with a giant like Shell unable to make large future North Sea projects viable, it is unlikely that any other fossil fuel companies will try.

This is an issue I struggle with. Full disclosure that I live in NE Scotland and work indirectly in the oil industry (my employer is not an oil firm but the client of my employer that I work full time with is an oil services company). I genuinely have spent a long time asking myself if I have just been brainwashed by the oil industry, but the logic in this just doesn't add up for me.

The price of crude oil is set globally. Reducing production here will have absolutely no impact on oil prices, it's such a small amount of oil in the grand scheme of things, and even if it wasn't, countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia can open the taps to produce more (they don't want too high a price as that incentivises moves away from oil). So stopping this field won't increase the price of oil, so it isn't going to reduce demand. All it will do is make us more reliant on imports, and globally make the whole world just a little bit more reliant on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia for oil (and then we simultaneously complain about countries like SA getting favourable arms deals, which they have the leverage to get because of the world's reliance on their oil).

The move away from fossil fuels needs to be demand, rather than supply led.

Offline Indomitable_Carp

  • Asterixophile
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,743
  • From the depths of Sevvy Park lake
This is an issue I struggle with. Full disclosure that I live in NE Scotland and work indirectly in the oil industry (my employer is not an oil firm but the client of my employer that I work full time with is an oil services company). I genuinely have spent a long time asking myself if I have just been brainwashed by the oil industry, but the logic in this just doesn't add up for me.

The price of crude oil is set globally. Reducing production here will have absolutely no impact on oil prices, it's such a small amount of oil in the grand scheme of things, and even if it wasn't, countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia can open the taps to produce more (they don't want too high a price as that incentivises moves away from oil). So stopping this field won't increase the price of oil, so it isn't going to reduce demand. All it will do is make us more reliant on imports, and globally make the whole world just a little bit more reliant on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia for oil (and then we simultaneously complain about countries like SA getting favourable arms deals, which they have the leverage to get because of the world's reliance on their oil).

The move away from fossil fuels needs to be demand, rather than supply led.

I understand your points, but regarding your final point in bold, surely it needs to be both? And not just in relation to Fossil Fuels, but in relation to every single aspect of fighting and adapting to climate change?

Simply waiting for demand to drop is simply never going to work in the timescale needed. In fact demand for fossil fuels has only gone up since the full severity of climate change has become apparent. Waiitng for demand to take its ´natural´ course is a no-hoper - the change in demand needs to be simultaneously forced upon us.

While your points about wanting to limit dependence on places like Saudi Arabia and Russia is of course relevant in geopolitical terms, in wider terms I don´t think it holds much weight. This new oil field is not just a matter of tapping into the seabed - it is all of the associated infrastructure that goes with it (which I´m sure you know far more about then myself!!). It is pouring time, money and resources into extracting something that, if we do get our act together, will be reduntant in 10 years time. That is time, energy and resources that could be put into renewable energy projects.

Ultimately, all building a new oil field in the North Sea does is allow us to further delay our transition to green energy sources. Having to rely on the likes of Russia and Saudi Arabia only increases the urgency with which we need to transition away, by adding another reason why we should stop using fossil fuels ASAP

It exactly the same reasons as to why building a new coal mine in Cumbria is madness. Oil doesn´t get a free pass either.

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
This is an issue I struggle with. Full disclosure that I live in NE Scotland and work indirectly in the oil industry (my employer is not an oil firm but the client of my employer that I work full time with is an oil services company). I genuinely have spent a long time asking myself if I have just been brainwashed by the oil industry, but the logic in this just doesn't add up for me.

The price of crude oil is set globally. Reducing production here will have absolutely no impact on oil prices, it's such a small amount of oil in the grand scheme of things, and even if it wasn't, countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia can open the taps to produce more (they don't want too high a price as that incentivises moves away from oil). So stopping this field won't increase the price of oil, so it isn't going to reduce demand. All it will do is make us more reliant on imports, and globally make the whole world just a little bit more reliant on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia for oil (and then we simultaneously complain about countries like SA getting favourable arms deals, which they have the leverage to get because of the world's reliance on their oil).

The move away from fossil fuels needs to be demand, rather than supply led.


I don't live in NE Scotland and still agree with you. The demand will still be there, just filled by other countries. The UK loses income, worsens our BoP deficit, and reduces our energy security.
A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,333
I understand your points, but regarding your final point in bold, surely it needs to be both? And not just in relation to Fossil Fuels, but in relation to every single aspect of fighting and adapting to climate change?

Simply waiting for demand to drop is simply never going to work in the timescale needed. In fact demand for fossil fuels has only gone up since the full severity of climate change has become apparent. Waiitng for demand to take its ´natural´ course is a no-hoper - the change in demand needs to be simultaneously forced upon us.

While your points about wanting to limit dependence on places like Saudi Arabia and Russia is of course relevant in geopolitical terms, in wider terms I don´t think it holds much weight. This new oil field is not just a matter of tapping into the seabed - it is all of the associated infrastructure that goes with it (which I´m sure you know far more about then myself!!). It is pouring time, money and resources into extracting something that, if we do get our act together, will be reduntant in 10 years time. That is time, energy and resources that could be put into renewable energy projects.

Ultimately, all building a new oil field in the North Sea does is allow us to further delay our transition to green energy sources. Having to rely on the likes of Russia and Saudi Arabia only increases the urgency with which we need to transition away, by adding another reason why we should stop using fossil fuels ASAP

It exactly the same reasons as to why building a new coal mine in Cumbria is madness. Oil doesn´t get a free pass either.

The difference between oil and coal is that oil has loads of vital uses which do not involve burning it, and do not have current alternatives. You say simply waiting for deman to drop is never going to work, but reducing domestic supply isn't going to do anything to global supply (we produce tiny amoutns of oil in the UK these days), so isn't really going to have an effect.

It just seems like a very reductionist argument that ignores the reality of the way the oil industry works, and is effectively "offshoring" (excuse the pun) our domestic CO2 production to other countries (like we have offshored a lot of our CO2 emissions to places like China because they manufacture all of our goods).

What I think should be done for fields like Cambo - and this is just an off the cuff idea not thought through fully - is that the license should only be granted on the provision that the oil company makes an equal investments in renewables in the UK. The likes of Shell and BP make a big deal out of how they are transitioning to renewables but make them put their money where their mouth is.

In terms of infrastructure for the field, their will be very little needed - they would be using an FPSO (Floating production storage and offloading) so no new platforms need built and all the other infrastructure on shore is already there.

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
It is pouring time, money and resources into extracting something that, if we do get our act together, will be reduntant in 10 years time.


The world will still need oil to produce a whole range of products, from lubricants to plastics, even if hugely reduce the amount required for fuel.
A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Indomitable_Carp

  • Asterixophile
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,743
  • From the depths of Sevvy Park lake
The difference between oil and coal is that oil has loads of vital uses which do not involve burning it, and do not have current alternatives. You say simply waiting for deman to drop is never going to work, but reducing domestic supply isn't going to do anything to global supply (we produce tiny amoutns of oil in the UK these days), so isn't really going to have an effect.

It just seems like a very reductionist argument that ignores the reality of the way the oil industry works, and is effectively "offshoring" (excuse the pun) our domestic CO2 production to other countries (like we have offshored a lot of our CO2 emissions to places like China because they manufacture all of our goods).

It is true we have outsourced many of our CO2 ammisions. And the amount of oil produced in the North Sea in global terms is miniscule. Oil will continue to be produced abroad, and imported here.

But there is two sides to this.

We are also currently engaged in the biggest worldwide diplomatic effort ever undertaken, in a last ditch attempt to reverse the direction which is leading us to global catastrophy. As a developed country, we have a leading role to play in this diplomatic effort.

How is the United Kingdom, or any other developed nation, supposed to tell developing nations to cut out their reliance on fossil fuels and find alternative ways of developing, if we ourselves are not only continuing to tap into our fossil fuel reserves, but actually increase our exploitation of our fossil fuel resources?

The IPCC 2021 Report on Climate Change was pretty conclusive. Not only do we need to stop our extraction of new fossil fuel resources with almost immediate effect, we need to rapdily cut back on the existing extraction of fossil fuels within a matter of years.

If we continue to view it in simple economic cost-benefit ratio terms, we might as well just give up now. The only way the world stands a chance is if countries start leading by example, and that is especially true of developed countries.


Quote
What I think should be done for fields like Cambo - and this is just an off the cuff idea not thought through fully - is that the license should only be granted on the provision that the oil company makes an equal investments in renewables in the UK. The likes of Shell and BP make a big deal out of how they are transitioning to renewables but make them put their money where their mouth is.

In terms of infrastructure for the field, their will be very little needed - they would be using an FPSO (Floating production storage and offloading) so no new platforms need built and all the other infrastructure on shore is already there.

Unfortunately equal investments just isn´t good enough at this stage. Further, it seems it was the governments attempts to enforce some "climate concessions" that has helped lead to Shell pulling out. Would forcing them to make equal investments in other renewable energy projects have led to a different outcome?

It is only a good sign that continuing to invest in fossil fuels is increasingly economically unviable.

Offline Sudden Death Draft Loser

  • old and annoying
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,483
The difference between oil and coal is that oil has loads of vital uses which do not involve burning it, and do not have current alternatives.

There is a current alternative for most if not all those uses.

Hemp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
"The greatest argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation  with the average voter. "

Offline Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,333
It is true we have outsourced many of our CO2 ammisions. And the amount of oil produced in the North Sea in global terms is miniscule. Oil will continue to be produced abroad, and imported here.

But there is two sides to this.

We are also currently engaged in the biggest worldwide diplomatic effort ever undertaken, in a last ditch attempt to reverse the direction which is leading us to global catastrophy. As a developed country, we have a leading role to play in this diplomatic effort.

How is the United Kingdom, or any other developed nation, supposed to tell developing nations to cut out their reliance on fossil fuels and find alternative ways of developing, if we ourselves are not only continuing to tap into our fossil fuel reserves, but actually increase our exploitation of our fossil fuel resources?

The IPCC 2021 Report on Climate Change was pretty conclusive. Not only do we need to stop our extraction of new fossil fuel resources with almost immediate effect, we need to rapdily cut back on the existing extraction of fossil fuels within a matter of years.

If we continue to view it in simple economic cost-benefit ratio terms, we might as well just give up now. The only way the world stands a chance is if countries start leading by example, and that is especially true of developed countries.


Unfortunately equal investments just isn´t good enough at this stage. Further, it seems it was the governments attempts to enforce some "climate concessions" that has helped lead to Shell pulling out. Would forcing them to make equal investments in other renewable energy projects have led to a different outcome?

It is only a good sign that continuing to invest in fossil fuels is increasingly economically unviable.

I don't think making a token effort - that potentially is just making things worse - will have any impact on global diplomatic efforts to push other countries towardds going greener sooner. If anything it will just mean - if other countries do the same - that Russia and SA etc just have even more control over global supply - with the West having no influence over them whatsoever. As has been noted, oil is not like coal. Other countries know that and know that offshoring it doesn't help either. It's a simple argument that will get green supporters onside but it doesn't make any sense.

As a side note, this isn't really an expansion of our oil production - fields open and close all the time and the trend in production will still be down. This particular field has hit the news and caught the attention of campaigners probably due to the timing with COP26 but it happens fairly regularly. The remaining oil in the UK North Sea is in smaller fields that don't last decades like Brent.

It is all too late, but unfortunately there isn't really any alternative. We need oil - for other uses than just as fuel, and we need it for fuel for things that have no alternatives. If you could get OPEC onside to drive global oil prices up in order to incentivise the move towards green energy then I would view what we do here differently but that just isn't going to happen.

On the note about oil becoming less and less economical to extract, that is true in the UK - and generally for offshore oil production - but I don't think it is the case in Saudi Arabia or other land based oil wells.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,630


Our whole economy is based on fossil fuel extraction and usage - it'd be crazy to allow demand to be the main driver of change.

Although demand is slowing, it is still significant.

Maybe you might be interested in watching this:

Black Black Oil


Quote
North Sea oil has been an invisible machine at the core of the UK. It now faces an uncertain future as activists and investors demand change. Is the era of North Sea oil over?

This documentary draws on the voices of young activists, oil company executives, economists and pension fund managers to explore the vital questions that affect all our lives. We have 5-10 years to control our oil addiction, and yet the licensing of new oil fields such as the Cambo oil field off Shetland is seen to be in direct contradiction to the government’s alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement and hosting of COP.

There is also a look at how the drama of global climate action is playing out in the fight over North Sea oil. Oil companies are convinced that they can continue to keep drilling while keeping to net zero ambitions through adopting new technologies, such as carbon capture. But climate scientists are deeply sceptical of the net zero concept and the time it would take for these technologies to be effective.

The film reveals the hidden infrastructure of oil from the offshore rigs and the buried pipelines, to its flow through the stock markets of London. As the North Sea industry struggles to meet the need to cut carbon emissions, oil workers see their livelihoods under threat, and investors seek to protect their assets. Meanwhile, a younger generation of climate activists are catalysed by the signs of impending chaos and the threat of global sea level rises.

Black Black Oil explores the complexities of transitioning away from oil and gas as a society and considers how quickly we can do it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00118sk/black-black-oil
« Last Edit: December 26, 2021, 08:52:41 am by Red-Soldier »

Offline Sudden Death Draft Loser

  • old and annoying
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,483
Our whole economy is based on fossil fuel extraction and usage - it'd be crazy to allow demand to be the driver of change.

It's been a great driver so far, hasn't it?

Maybe you might be interested in watching this:

Black Black Oil


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00118sk/black-black-oil

Net zero is a cop out
"The greatest argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation  with the average voter. "

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
Germany to close 3 of its 6 remaining nuclear power stations, following pressure from Greenpeace and the inclusion of the Green Party in the new coalition government.

This is madness.

I'm no lover of nuclear power, but it's actually a green power source.

Any moves to seriously curb power usage will be met with stiff resistance from populations in the west who don't want to diminish their standards of living, so clean power generation is a must. Renewables are the ideal, but they have limitations. Until we find alternative renewables solutions, those countries with the capability should be utilising nuclear.

A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,630
Climate crisis: last seven years the hottest on record, 2021 data shows

Quote
The last seven years were the world’s hottest on record, with the first analysis of global temperature in 2021 showing it was 1.2C above pre-industrial levels.

The assessment of the year, by the European climate agency Copernicus, also found carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached record levels and that the potent greenhouse gas methane surged “very substantially”, also to a new record.

The rise in greenhouse gas concentration means more heat is being trapped than ever before but 2021 ranked as the fifth hottest year on record. This is because a natural and cyclic climate phenomenon called La Niña exerted a cooling influence by bringing cold Pacific waters to the surface.

The climate crisis continued unabated with extreme weather striking across the world. Europe suffered its hottest summer on record and broke its maximum temperature record in Sicily with 48.8C, while intense wildfires raged in Italy, Greece and Turkey. Severe floods made up to nine times more likely by global heating also wreaked havoc in Germany and Belgium

Extreme heat also caused the “mother of all heatwaves” in the west of the US and Canada. Temperature records were smashed by 5C and scientists calculated the event was made at least 150 times more likely by global heating. In California, the Dixie wildfire was the second largest in history.

China’s meteorological agency recently announced that 2021 was the country’s hottest year on record and that its northern region had its wettest year, with extreme weather widespread. Floods in July in Henan province caused hundreds of deaths.

Mauro Facchini, the head of Earth observation for the European Commission, said: “The 2021 analysis is a reminder of the continued increase in global temperatures and the urgent necessity to act.” The Copernicus data shows 21 of the 22 hottest years have come since the year 2000.

“The [extreme weather] events in 2021 are a stark reminder of the need to change our ways, take decisive and effective steps toward a sustainable society,” said Carlo Buontempo, director of the Copernicus climate service.

The average CO2 levels in 2021 reached a new record of 414 parts per million in 2021 – before the Industrial Revolution and large scale burning of fossil fuels the level was 280ppm. The rate of CO2 rise remained the same as it had since 2010, despite Covid-related lockdowns.

Methane levels are accelerating with the growth rate in 2021 approximately three times the rate of a decade ago. Methane is emitted through fossil fuel exploitation, cattle and other livestock, and natural wetland processes and scientists are uncertain about the cause of the rapid rises.

Vincent-Henri Peuch, at Copernicus, said: “CO2 and methane concentrations are continuing to increase year-on-year and without signs of slowing down.

Prof Rowan Sutton, at the University of Reading, UK, said: “At a global level the warming may appear gradual but it is the impact on extreme events in many different parts of the world that is dramatic. We should see the record breaking 2021 events, such as the heatwave in Canada and floods in Germany, as a punch in the face to make politicians and public alike wake up to the urgency of the climate emergency.”

Other temperature datasets for 2021 will be published in coming weeks by the UK and Japanese Met Offices and Nasa and Noaa in the US, with similar results expected.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/10/climate-crisis-last-seven-years-the-hottest-on-record-2021-data-shows

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59915690

Offline Sudden Death Draft Loser

  • old and annoying
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,483
Cracked homes, buckled roads and ruptured pipelines are likely to become common in and near the Arctic as warming temperatures cause frozen ground to thaw, new findings say.
Five million people live on Arctic permafrost including in Russia, North America and Scandinavia.
Climate change is causing the Arctic to warm two-to-four times faster than the rest of the planet.
"The land changes right before us," one Alaska resident told BBC News.
Scientists studying the Arctic say that 70% of infrastructure and 30-50% of critical infrastructure is at high risk of damage by 2050, with projected cost of tens of billions of dollars.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59915697
"The greatest argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation  with the average voter. "

Offline jonnypb

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,418
  • JFT97
This has been said before, but there's only so much that you can do with older homes, we just end up causing more harm than good at times.

Quote
Getting Britain's homes insulated is the cornerstone of the Government's green energy policy and an obsession for road-blocking eco-protesters.

But the scale of damp-related problems linked to cavity wall insulation is so serious that an MP is calling for an independent inquiry to improve protection for householders.

One expert has estimated that up to two million homes may have problems as a result of insulation being pumped into the cavity between outside and inside walls.

In some extreme cases, the resulting problems of damp and mould inside the house have rendered properties worthless and unsellable.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-10390579/Botched-cavity-wall-insulation-ruining-homes-causing-damp-mould.html

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,322
I guess this belongs in here. A major volcanic explosion that certainly seems to have potential to impact the climate in the short term.

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/zoMRwyNhqJ4&amp;t=338s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/zoMRwyNhqJ4&amp;t=338s</a>
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,630
I guess this belongs in here. A major volcanic explosion that certainly seems to have potential to impact the climate in the short term.

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/zoMRwyNhqJ4&amp;t=338s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/zoMRwyNhqJ4&amp;t=338s</a>

Volcanic activity / plate tektonics drive the climate over very long periods of time - absolutely nothing to do with human induced climate change!

Offline Red Beret

  • Yellow Beret. Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King. Bed-Exiting / Grunting / Bending Down / Cum Face Champion 2023.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 51,322
Volcanic activity / plate tektonics drive the climate over very long periods of time - absolutely nothing to do with human induced climate change!

I know. It seemed important enough to share, but not important enough to warrant its own thread. And eruptions like this can cause wide scale climactic disruption on short timescales. As Scott recalls in the video, the year without a summer, that resulted in widespread crop failures.

Something with the potential to cause that, in an age of high population and political instability, is attention worthy.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art