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

[rob1966]

If I'm reading that Apple document correctly, while the headline figures in reductions of materials, recycling of old phones and how much renewable energy are impressive,over the years they haven't been environmentally responsible and have contributed a hell of a lot to the emissions that cause global warming.
In 2016 they still created 29,500,000 tons of greenhouse gases,  in the 4 years given they quadrupled natural gas usage in the US, their employee commutes create more and more CO2 year on year, they now create just over 4 times more in landfill, 21 million pounds from 4.5 million pounds and gave gone from 123,000 pounds of hazardous waste to just over 2,287,000 pounds of waste. Even though they use recycled packaging, you still have the impact of recycling and transporting the packaging in the first place.

I don't buy into conspiracies about built in short shelf life, but we all know very well, that regardless of the phone owned, at the launch all around the world there will be massive queues of people wanting to buy the newest model and the phone companies will be putting out all the offers to push for upgrades and switches from other phones.

I'm not picking on Apple for personal reasons, it was a recent report on their profits that made me pick them, I could quite as easily have picked Samsung as these two have 40% of the market between them. Between the two companies, they sold 140 million phones in the first quarter of last year. In the final quarter of last year, Android shipped over 354 million phones and Apple 74 million. There are around 2.5 billion mobile users worldwide, it is expected that by the end of this year 1.9 billion smartphones will have been shipped.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/299144/samsung-smartphone-shipments-worldwide/

No matter how green they make themselves, this is still having a massive impact on the environment, to produce goods no-one really needs. My phone is over 6 years old, I can browse, make calls and texts, so that does for me. My previous one survived a smashed screen and stayed that way for about 2 years, it was dropping it down a grid that made me change it - it still worked but had to be left plugged in as it ate the battery/

[Trendisnotdestiny]

https://bios.fi/bios-governance_of_economic_transition.pdf

[Trendisnotdestiny]

Hello folks!  This is one of my last posts in this section as after some advisement (both personal and professional), my energy could be used in a more productive way on this footy site.

Anyhow, this is an article from Chris Hedges that I believe sums of my own personal belief about what is happening in this culture and how it relates to climate change and the consequences of our actions.  It does not differ a lot from many who post here but his language, succinctness and provocation is worthwhile for a final post.

Cheers to all

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/09/fear-loathing-mostly-loathing-chris-hedges-harvard-club.html

Trend

[Red-Soldier]

So nobody has posted in here today...  

I guess it'll be me then:

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears.

“It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Not surprised in the slightest, it's been clear for a long time (to anyone that's been paying attention, except for expert haters) that we are in serious trouble. I really don't expect too much to change, very few are really concerned or interested in significant change.

[FlashGordon]

Forget about Brexit, Trump etc. this is the biggest problem in the world. Getting to critical levels.

[rob1966]

Forget about Brexit, Trump etc. this is the biggest problem in the world. Getting to critical levels.

It is all tied in though. Trump doesn't care about the environment and when we leave the EU, you just know the Govt will basically do what the fuck they want regardless of the damage.

[FlashGordon]

It is all tied in though. Trump doesn't care about the environment and when we leave the EU, you just know the Govt will basically do what the fuck they want regardless of the damage.

I agree with both points but at some stage the political point scoring is going to have to stop and we're all going to have to come to a general consensus to enact and follow the plans set out in the Paris accord or else we're all doomed.

[Red Raw]

The challenge is actually is actually to deliver a 45% reduction (against 2010 baseline) by 2030 which gets us on the right trajectory for net zero by 2050.  Interstingly the IPCC have actally increased the emissions budget a bit so the 12 years thing is a bit of a bonus. 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-ipcc-1-5c-report-expanded-the-carbon-budget

There is also a good piece by Kevin Anderson on where the IPCC report falls short, namely the massive inequality in emissions (50% of all emissions come from the richest 10%) and putting to much emphasis on negative emissions technologies (NETs) most of which have yet to be invented let alone demonstrated at scale.
http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/10/response-to-the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report/

[Red Raw]

'The best time to have reduced emissions was 25 years ago.  The second best time to reduce emissions is now.'

@ClimateofGavin on the IPCC report
https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1049429095707074560

[rob1966]

I agree with both points but at some stage the political point scoring is going to have to stop and we're all going to have to come to a general consensus to enact and follow the plans set out in the Paris accord or else we're all doomed.

Then we had better start electing politicians and Presidents who will actually do stuff, this current shower care of nothing but themselves.

[FlashGordon]

Then we had better start electing politicians and Presidents who will actually do stuff, this current shower care of nothing but themselves.

It's a sad state of affairs when the general public are more clued in than our leaders.

[rob1966]

It's a sad state of affairs when the general public are more clued in than our leaders.

Too true. Brexit is the same, there are people on here who know and understand far more about it than most MP's.

The one thing that is really pissing me off is the amount of plastic wrapping on foods and that nothing appears to be being done to either get a recycling method sorted or ban the stuff. Where we live the local market died and we don't have a green grocers or farms nearby, so everything is either Aldi, Iceland, Asda or Sainsburys and hardly anything, especially veg is sold loose. I would be more than happy to either buy the stuff in paper bags or ideally take my own container. I eat loads of veg, so end up going through far too much plastic.

[Red Raw]

. . .
The one thing that is really pissing me off is the amount of plastic wrapping on foods
. . .

I don't know if this will make you feel any better Rob but plastic in itself is probably not the biggest part of the problem.  There are a whole load of reasons why plastic sucks - most are to do with irresponsible disposal, killing wildlife, entering the food chain, altering our DNA etc.

However from a purely climate/CO2 perspective plastic bags are less carbon intense than paper bags which, like all paper and card, use a lot of energy for drying and are arguably less likely to be reused.  The energy and carbon involved in growing and shipping food is also much larger than that in the plastic wrapper so *if* the packaging does extend shelf life or prevents damage in transit there is a good argument to continue using it rather than wasting the food.  Of course there are ridiculous examples like shrink wrapping swedes but it highlights that these things are never completely straightforward.

We used to get an organic veg box from Riverford until it got a bit pricey for us but I recall how they agonised over the use of plastic in a blog post a while back:
https://www.facebook.com/riverford/posts/10156040841535815

[Red-Soldier]

It's not just about the litter issue with plastic I'm afraid:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801182009.htm

Researchers have found that several greenhouse gases are emitted as common plastics degrade in the environment. Their study reports the unexpected discovery of the universal production of greenhouse gases methane and ethylene by the most common plastics when exposed to sunlight.

[Red Raw]

It's not just about the litter issue with plastic I'm afraid:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801182009.htm

Researchers have found that several greenhouse gases are emitted as common plastics degrade in the environment. Their study reports the unexpected discovery of the universal production of greenhouse gases methane and ethylene by the most common plastics when exposed to sunlight.

Bummer!   

I don't doubt that plastics release chemicals as they biodegrade, indeed I have always had reservations about 'biodegradable' plastics which don't necessarily decompose fully and leave a range of unpleasant residues behind.  To be honest, if I have a plastic bag I want it to last ages so that I can get as much use as possible from it!

I am not a chemist but I know the global warming potential of methane is rather higher than CO2 (GWP100=296), although I am not sure that ethylene is listed as a greenhouse gas, in fact it is used as an indusrial refrigerant becaue of its low GWP and zero ozone depletion potential (ODP).  This is significant when you consider alternatives such as HFCs can have GWPs in the tens of thousands.

My point I guess was that there is often a misconception that being biodegradable (e.g. paper) necesssarily equates to being sustainable or low carbon.  Again, the problem with plastic so often stems from irresponsible disposal.  Sadly this is symtomatic of our general tendancy to over-consume undervalue all manner of resources (clothes, phones, cars, etc, etc).

If anyone is interested the Environment Agency did a big study on supermarket carrier bags a while ago, and while the debate has moved on, the conclusions with respect to paper bags still hold, namely that the chemical and energy related emissions from paper production and the lack of durability made plastic the better option, massively so if the bag is reused and disposed of responsibly at the end of its life.

Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf

[Nobby Reserve]

Emmissions from developed countries have, overall been declining very slowly since around 1990.

The biggest problem we face is from the year on year growth from developing countries that are industrialising - China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and oil-rich ME countries especially.

Of course, they are starting from a hugely lower base than the US, Europe, etc, and there is an argument that these countries should have the right to industrialise and modernise. But, and there's no way to make this not sound selfish & callous, it is this growth in industrialisation & modernisation that will tip the planet over the cliff. What is going to cause most problems? Forcing people in the developed world to make dramatic negative changes to their lifestyles to slash GG emissions? Or those who've never had that level of modernisation and industrialisation never getting it and remaining in a more subsistence existence?

I think of the lifeboat analogy. Say there's 100 people in the sea after a boat sinks, but only one lifeboat. This lifeboat can only accommodate 30 people before it will become overwhelmed and sink. 30 people scramble on board. Do they row away to safety and leave the 70 to drown? Or do they allow the other 70 to also try to climb on board and condemn all 100 to death?

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/eFFvJYpg4xk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/eFFvJYpg4xk</a>

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4882819

"60% of world's wildlife has been wiped out since 1970."

[Red-Soldier]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4882819

"60% of world's wildlife has been wiped out since 1970."

I know.  Shocking, isn't it!!!

We are currently going through the 6th mass extinction event that the Earth has faced during it's history, and we are the cause. 

[Dull Tools]

I know.  Shocking, isn't it!!!

We are currently going through the 6th mass extinction event that the Earth has faced during it's history, and we are the cause. 

Only going to get worse now China has stopped banning Rhino horn and Tiger bones.

[Zeb]

Met Office scientists say that natural variability may be impacting the rainfall situation across the UK - but when it comes to temperatures, the researchers say it is warming driven by humans.

"The temperature indicators are all consistent with the warming of the UK climate that we have observed over the last 50 years or so," said Dr McCarthy.

"Certainly for the temperature-based indices such as the warm spell duration and the cold and high temperature indices, they are consistent with that well known warming, and for the UK it's about the same rate of warming as has been seen globally."

The study finds that on average the hottest day in each year over the recent 10-year period is 0.8C warmer than it was when compared to the earlier decades.

The coldest days and nights have also become warmer, with temperatures on average 1.7C milder in recent years.

To illustrate just how mild temperatures have been between 2008 and 2017, the report says that a significant area inland from the UK coast had, on average, less than one day per year with temperatures below zero.

One intriguing finding has been about what are termed tropical nights, when temperatures stay above 20C.

In the 30 years between 1961 and 1990 there were just eight nights that exceeded that mark. In the 10 years between 2008 and 2017, there were four such nights. In 2018, which is not covered in the study, there were two warm nights that stayed above 20C.

The Met Office expects to see more tropical nights as our climate continues to warm. These can be a big risk for elderly people.

number of warm spells that have been recorded. This is the number of days per year that go well beyond the average long-term temperature for that 24-hour period.

The study says that between 1961 and 1990 there were on average 5.3 days per year that went well beyond the average. In the 10 years to 2017, there were 13.2 days on average every year.

Rainfall has also increased over the period of the report. The maximum five-day precipitation between 1916 and 1990 was 77.8mm - between 2008 and 2017, it averaged 81.4mm.

BBC

[Giono]

Succinct and onnthe money

	Seth Masket (@smotus)
	2018-11-25, 3:10 PM The argument that scientists fabricate findings that are hostile to the interests of the wealthiest corporations in the world *for the money* should be mocked viciously every time it is offered. And it’s offered a lot. twitter.com/mmfa/status/10…

[TepidT2O]

How did you embed that tweet?


Witchcraft!

[Giono]

How did you embed that tweet?


Witchcraft!

Trial and error and error and error really. You can't copy a whole tweet from twitter. So you need to first share it via an email and then from that template 'select all' and copy it. After oasting you gotta delete a couple of lines before hitting 'post'.

[ShakaHislop]

Cars and coal help drive 'strong' CO2 rise in 2018

A booming global market for cars has helped drive CO2 emissions to an all-time high in 2018, say researchers.

The main factor in the near 3% rise has been coal use in China, driven by government efforts to boost a flagging economy.

But emissions from cars, truck and planes using fossil fuels continue to rise in all parts of the world

Renewables have also grown this year, but are not keeping pace with the CO2 rise.

The research, carried out by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), says that this year's "strong" rise is projected to be 2.7%.

That's much bigger than 2017's 1.6%. This will worry scientists as they had seen CO2 emissions relatively flat for the three years before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46447459

[Giono]

Cars and coal help drive 'strong' CO2 rise in 2018

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46447459

The world can't accomodate billions of Americans.

[Giono]

https://www.ft.com/content/e9fd0472-19de-11e9-9e64-d150b3105d21


4 past Fed Chairmen (including Greenspan and Volker) and a swath of economists call for a carbon tax in the US.

[Gnurglan]

Anyone up for global cooling?

Not sure if anyone has posted this, but I came across it a few weeks ago after a climate debate with a former colleague. He's said global warming is nonsense for the last ten years and claims it's all about getting the chance to tax people for something else. And he said it's not as clear cut as we are made to believe. Everyone is not in agreement. Didn't think much of it, but then the French started to protest against higher fuel taxes... I decided to search a little and found something. If you are prepared to listen to sun spot science and global cooling, here's a link:

http://www.iceagefarmer.com/2018/11/08/dr-valentina-zharkova-warning-of-global-cooling-food-scarcity-in-grand-solar-minimum-2018/

[TepidT2O]

I think you will find that they are fucking lunatics.

Here is a fairly devastating destruction of the sun being the cause of anything to do with it..

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

[Gnurglan]

I think you will find that they are fucking lunatics.

Ha ha! Maybe. It's the first one from the other side I have seen. But I have seen the sun spots thing in other places.

[The Gulleysucker]

Ha ha! Maybe. It's the first one from the other side I have seen. But I have seen the sun spots thing in other places.

This man believes in that sort of stuff (as well as World Jewish Conspiracy nonsense)

He's undoubtedly well qualifed (as is his brother)...

[Gnurglan]

This man believes in that sort of stuff (as well as World Jewish Conspiracy nonsense)

He's undoubtedly well qualifed (as is his brother)...

I don't know who he is.

[Red-Soldier]

The current trends could well result in a global cooling, but there's warming first. If enough freshwater floods into the sea (eg. melting ice caps) the Thermohaline conveyor (the main vector for global heat distribution) could partially shutdown, or at least slow down.  This will result in a global cooling.

It has happened in the Earth's past.

[Gnurglan]

The current trends could well result in a global cooling, but there's warming first. If enough freshwater floods into the sea (eg. melting ice caps) the Thermohaline conveyor (the main vector for global heat distribution) could partially shutdown, or at least slow down.  This will result in a global cooling.

It has happened in the Earth's past.

Something else for the debate. Watched a Ted talk with Bjorn Lomborg. His take is that while we have climate change, it is not the problem we should focus on. The cost is too high and the likelyhood of us achieving anything is small. We should for example fight HIV, malaria and ensure access to pure dinking water instead. Those are problems we could solve and it would cost less.

[thejbs]

Something else for the debate. Watched a Ted talk with Bjorn Lomborg. His take is that while we have climate change, it is not the problem we should focus on. The cost is too high and the likelyhood of us achieving anything is small. We should for example fight HIV, malaria and ensure access to pure dinking water instead. Those are problems we could solve and it would cost less.

We could do all those things and focus on climate change if we weren't such a shitehawk species...

[Bioluminescence]

I think it's worth pointing out that Bjorn Lomborg's analysis has been criticised by many people over the years for being deeply flawed. This is an article that highlights some of the problems with Lomborg's work. It's worth remembering that climate change is a threat multiplier - it's likely to make many existing problems worse, including malaria and freshwater access.

We need to listen to the climate scientists here. They're increasingly worried, and looking at some of the extreme weather events we've had in recent years, we should all be.

[Gnurglan]

I think it's worth pointing out that Bjorn Lomborg's analysis has been criticised by many people over the years for being deeply flawed. This is an article that highlights some of the problems with Lomborg's work. It's worth remembering that climate change is a threat multiplier - it's likely to make many existing problems worse, including malaria and freshwater access.

We need to listen to the climate scientists here. They're increasingly worried, and looking at some of the extreme weather events we've had in recent years, we should all be.

I think the Paris agreement was positive. For once everyone managed to agree on something. If nothing else it was an important symbolic achievement. Something to start with.

We're wise to utilize our resources better. That's sound and it has been the basic idea for everyone at least in previous generations. I really like the initiatives with solar power replacing coal for instance. So we are taking steps in the right direction. We should talk more about those kinds of things than all the potential dangers. Because if all we do is paint a terrible future, we will no longer listen.

The reason I posted the stuff about sun spots and Lomborg is I have tried to understand what ’the other side’ is saying. And this links to the negative stuff we hear all the time. Everything is a result of global warming, we hear. If it's record heat or record cold, normal temperatures, flooding, rain or no rain, hurricanes etc, it's always because of CO2. Everything is lumped together as proof and can't be questioned. The one message is we're heading for disaster and all you see is evidence of it. Basically there is no hope. Then it won't be long before people say fuck it, we can't do anything about it anyway. And it becomes more appealing to listen to something else. Because it doesn't matter anyway. It would be a lot better if we could get to hear about progress being made.

[Bioluminescence]

I think the Paris agreement was positive. For once everyone managed to agree on something. If nothing else it was an important symbolic achievement. Something to start with.

We're wise to utilize our resources better. That's sound and it has been the basic idea for everyone at least in previous generations. I really like the initiatives with solar power replacing coal for instance. So we are taking steps in the right direction. We should talk more about those kinds of things than all the potential dangers. Because if all we do is paint a terrible future, we will no longer listen.

The reason I posted the stuff about sun spots and Lomborg is I have tried to understand what ’the other side’ is saying. And this links to the negative stuff we hear all the time. Everything is a result of global warming, we hear. If it's record heat or record cold, normal temperatures, flooding, rain or no rain, hurricanes etc, it's always because of CO2. Everything is lumped together as proof and can't be questioned. The one message is we're heading for disaster and all you see is evidence of it. Basically there is no hope. Then it won't be long before people say fuck it, we can't do anything about it anyway. And it becomes more appealing to listen to something else. Because it doesn't matter anyway. It would be a lot better if we could get to hear about progress being made.

I don't think the message is that there's no hope - otherwise we wouldn't be told that we still have time to prevent catastrophic climate change. The reason we've reached this point is because we haven't done enough, and we haven't done enough because climate change deniers have stopped us from making progress. Bjorn Lomborg is part of the problem really.

I agree with having more emphasis on what's already being done. Have you heard of Project Drawdown? A large number of researchers looked at various options that are already available and ranked them in terms of effectiveness. For example, reducing food waste is number 3, while educating girls is number 6. You can browse solutions by sector on their website and they provide a lot of information. You might find it useful. Also there's a move towards framing it as a climate justice movement, rather than a purely environmental movement. This matters because we can then incorporate issues of air and water quality for example, and how they tend to impact marginalised groups the most. Wendell Holmes Stephenson's book "What We're Fighting For Now Is Each Other" is a good book that gives plenty of examples of what's going on in the US. And Mary Robinson's "Climate Justice" also looks like a book that might provide a bit of hope. Stephenson's book helped me, though I'm researching the impacts of climate change on human health and, well, bummer. But there are things we can do there, so there's that.

[Alan_X]

I think it's worth pointing out that Bjorn Lomborg's analysis has been criticised by many people over the years for being deeply flawed. This is an article that highlights some of the problems with Lomborg's work. It's worth remembering that climate change is a threat multiplier - it's likely to make many existing problems worse, including malaria and freshwater access.

We need to listen to the climate scientists here. They're increasingly worried, and looking at some of the extreme weather events we've had in recent years, we should all be.

Another article here from the LSE:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-misinformation-about-climate-change-and-poverty/

He's a climate change denier essentially because he says it doesn't need to be addressed.