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

[TepidT2O]

Hmmmm

Tax on cigarettes had a huge impact on smoking...

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

If the problem is as bad as we are being told,

I don't think it's as bad as we're being told, it's several magnitudes worse.

[clinical]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392

Interesting read, but nothing we didn't already know.

Energy,Short-lived pollutants,Nature,Food,Economy,Population.


Population increasing 200,000 people per day is insane. It's the elephant in the room that isn't discussed enough.

[Gnurglan]

Those who want to drastically reduce the use of fossile fuels need to understand the consequences. We can think whatever we like about CO2, but if we talk energy consumption it's perhaps easier to understand what is proposed. It's just maths then. I refer to page 11 in this link

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

The UK used 192.3 Mtoes of energy in 2018. The first three below, the fossile based ones, represent 79%:
Oil: 77
Natural gas: 67.8
Coal: 7.6
Nuclear: 14.7
Hydro: 1.2
Renewables: 23.9

The 79% is similar to the world's consumption, so it's a good fit for what the world's task looks like. Consider the consequences of cutting the 79% in half. You'd want to replace that energy somehow. You'd basically have to triple your production of renewables or build 5x the existing nuclear power just to stay on the current level. How much would this cost? And who would pay for it? You.

Moving on, you have around 38M registered cars where most would need to be replaced or rebuilt because they run on petrol. So around 20M cars, if we plan to cut all consumption in half.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-january-to-march-2018

We are talking about replacing existing things with something new, to stay at the same level. Your life won't get better, it will stay the same, but comes with a higher cost.  There is no way this will be done in the UK, or anywhere else, within the next 10 or 30 years. It would kill businesses, it would destroy people's standard of living. It's easy to say it has to get done, as long as it's someone else's problem. We are no different where I live. Our society would collapse if this had to happen to 2030.

[BobOnATank]

The UK used 192.3 Mtoes of energy in 2018. The first three below, the fossile based ones, represent 79%:
Oil: 77
Natural gas: 67.8
Coal: 7.6
Nuclear: 14.7
Hydro: 1.2
Renewables: 23.9

So questions are how quickly have renewables grown? and given the level of politised investment in the first three if that was diverted to renewables how quickly would this improve things?

The reality is that the Chinese nuclear plant in the south of England is 3 times the cost to people than offshore renewables and it isn't even built yet so the opposite is happening in terms of impact on living standards. The planet has plenty of offshore shallow waters to allow renewals to power the world and much more if done properly.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/24/offshore-windfarms-can-provide-more-electricity-than-the-world-needs

[TepidT2O]

Wind turbines as big as the Eiffel Tower.. that’s some serious shit...

[vagabond]

We are talking about replacing existing things with something new, to stay at the same level. Your life won't get better, it will stay the same, but comes with a higher cost.  There is no way this will be done in the UK, or anywhere else, within the next 10 or 30 years. It would kill businesses, it would destroy people's standard of living. It's easy to say it has to get done, as long as it's someone else's problem. We are no different where I live. Our society would collapse if this had to happen to 2030.

Society will collapse anyway if nothing is done. It is immoral to put our own standard of living ahead of the very possibility of life for humans 2 or 3 generations down the line. We must be prepared to take a hit to our own standard of living to do the right thing.

[BobOnATank]

Wind turbines as big as the Eiffel Tower.. that’s some serious shit...

Go big or go home

Although the hydrogen production aspect is huge, if you can cheaply produce that from renewables and the world becomes a very different place, vehicle emissions would disappear in a decade (rich countries with the right leaders). We already have the engines to use it but lack the efficient manufacturing process although its not the safest gas...

[TepidT2O]

Nah.  Hydrogen won’t ever be the answer.


It has tremendous energy density, but storage is a huge problem.  Either huge heavy pressured tanks Of exotic materials which either absorb or adsorb the hydrogen.  In either case the materials aren’t stable enough for long term storage.  You can use fuels like methanol or ethanol but you end up having to have a reformer on the vehicle to make hydrogen.  This also makes CO2 and has the downside of using land for food for fuel.

I think electric is far more viable

[BobOnATank]

Also the idea that green initiatives will impact living standards is a very "western" focus. North Africa has the potential to be the new middle east which of course is a gift as well as a curse (more curse if you think of the middle east IMO). Solar should be huge and that could infinitely improve the lives of people with that region - so again green initiatives are a net benefit.

https://www.sciencealert.com/is-turning-the-sahara-desert-into-a-giant-solar-farm-a-good-idea

Now I wonder what European community would consider a long term view like this to drive this investment on a massive scale based on terms of mutual benefit, a union of countries for example.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-factsheet-africa-europe_en.pdf

[GreatEx]

Also the idea that green initiatives will impact living standards is a very "western" focus. North Africa has the potential to be the new middle east which of course is a gift as well as a curse (more curse if you think of the middle east IMO). Solar should be huge and that could infinitely improve the lives of people with that region - so again green initiatives are a net benefit.

https://www.sciencealert.com/is-turning-the-sahara-desert-into-a-giant-solar-farm-a-good-idea

Now I wonder what European community would consider a long term view like this to drive this investment on a massive scale based on terms of mutual benefit, a union of countries for example.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-factsheet-africa-europe_en.pdf

Yep, especially with China and India booming, that's 2.5 billion people who want the same materialistic lifestyle westerners have long enjoyed. It's unfair expecting them to stay poor, so it's critical that the "good life" can be attained without wrecking the planet. Hence renewables and electric vehicles or cutting edge mass transit are urgent and critical.

[Alan_X]

Go big or go home

Although the hydrogen production aspect is huge, if you can cheaply produce that from renewables and the world becomes a very different place, vehicle emissions would disappear in a decade (rich countries with the right leaders). We already have the engines to use it but lack the efficient manufacturing process although its not the safest gas...

There was a piece on the Skeptics Guide about hydrogen and the mistake of seeing the hydrogen in water as fuel. Hydrogen is not fuel in that state, it’s part of a battery and the energy required to spilt it out is by definition greater than the energy that would be obtained by burning it.

The hydrogen in water is ‘spent fuel’. It’s already reacted with oxygen and the energy has been released. If you had a clean energy source available to turn water into hydrogen you might as well just use the energy source in the first place and forget about the hydrogen.

As you say, it’s not even a particularly safe gas. It’s bulky as a gas and if you liquify hydrogen it will be at dangerously low temperatures.

[Elmo!]

The hydrogen in water is ‘spent fuel’. It’s already reacted with oxygen and the energy has been released. If you had a clean energy source available to turn water into hydrogen you might as well just use the energy source in the first place and forget about the hydrogen.

Aside from using hydrogen in cars, most of the projects I have seen with Hydrogen have been to use excess electricity when we are overproducing renewables to create Hydrogen from water. That hydrogen can then be burned cleanly when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn't shining to produce elctricity. Otherwise it could potentially just go to waste. Energy storage is going to be huge if we ever want to be able to rely solely on renewables - there are no perfect solutions for it at this stage so I think the hydrogen option is worth researching.

[Red-Soldier]

Those who want to drastically reduce the use of fossile fuels need to understand the consequences. We can think whatever we like about CO2, but if we talk energy consumption it's perhaps easier to understand what is proposed. It's just maths then. I refer to page 11 in this link

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

The UK used 192.3 Mtoes of energy in 2018. The first three below, the fossile based ones, represent 79%:
Oil: 77
Natural gas: 67.8
Coal: 7.6
Nuclear: 14.7
Hydro: 1.2
Renewables: 23.9

Not sure where that oil figure comes from.  Natural gas has been our main source of energy for quite a few years now:

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

[Gnurglan]

Not sure where that oil figure comes from.  Natural gas has been our main source of energy for quite a few years now:

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

It's BP's numbers for the entire consumption, so realistically you include what's used for transportation, not just electricity, heating etc.

[Gnurglan]

Society will collapse anyway if nothing is done. It is immoral to put our own standard of living ahead of the very possibility of life for humans 2 or 3 generations down the line. We must be prepared to take a hit to our own standard of living to do the right thing.

That's your opinion and that's fine. We have all heard the need for immediate action. We hear of little else.

The reason I brought up these numbers is people deserve to know what type of change we are talking about. How big an impact will it be? Those who think we can cut our use of fossile fuels in half to 2030 without serious impact need to know what's required. It sounds so easy, as if we just flip a switch and everything is fine. But if we say 20M cars need to be gone/replaced by 2030 in the UK alone, things change. That's 2M cars/year or about 5000 cars/day for the next decade. If we stick with this one thing, what happens? You can't sell the car as that would just transfer the problem to someone else. So you'd have to rebuild it and stick a battery in it. Or you demolish it. Either way we are talking a massive investment for the consumer. The price of old cars would take a nose dive and the opposite would happen to electric cars. People would never sign up for that. Enter politics and government, elect people to save the planet. Which is basically the same as saying ”Let them tell us what we need to do”. That is, let them force you to do what you wouldn't sign up for freely.

All of this is fine for people to accept if they choose to. But people should have a chance to make an educated choice. It shouldn't just be made out of fear for what may happen to the next generation. Cutting fossile fuels consumption will have quite important consequences too. It's just that nobody dares to say that.

[GreatEx]

In the case of cars, say your target is for all new vehicles to be electric by 2030 (the most ambitious target, as most countries seem to be aiming at 40-50% from what I've read), wouldn't that be a fairly organic transition? Most people seem to change cars every 15 years at a maximum, and cars of that age aren't worth dick, regardless of legislation. One reason is that old cars don't come close to meeting present day safety standards. So they all have built-in redundancy, even moreso now that they're specced like an iPhone. It's not like cars are an investment, people buy them knowing it's money down the drain.

[TepidT2O]

That's your opinion and that's fine. We have all heard the need for immediate action. We hear of little else.

The reason I brought up these numbers is people deserve to know what type of change we are talking about. How big an impact will it be? Those who think we can cut our use of fossile fuels in half to 2030 without serious impact need to know what's required. It sounds so easy, as if we just flip a switch and everything is fine. But if we say 20M cars need to be gone/replaced by 2030 in the UK alone, things change. That's 2M cars/year or about 5000 cars/day for the next decade. If we stick with this one thing, what happens? You can't sell the car as that would just transfer the problem to someone else. So you'd have to rebuild it and stick a battery in it. Or you demolish it. Either way we are talking a massive investment for the consumer. The price of old cars would take a nose dive and the opposite would happen to electric cars. People would never sign up for that. Enter politics and government, elect people to save the planet. Which is basically the same as saying ”Let them tell us what we need to do”. That is, let them force you to do what you wouldn't sign up for freely.

All of this is fine for people to accept if they choose to. But people should have a chance to make an educated choice. It shouldn't just be made out of fear for what may happen to the next generation. Cutting fossile fuels consumption will have quite important consequences too. It's just that nobody dares to say that.

Given that the UK sells about 2.4m cars a year, and most get recycled after 8-10 years, it’s a perfectly reasonable expectation to reach those figures.

[Gnurglan]

Given that the UK sells about 2.4m cars a year, and most get recycled after 8-10 years, it’s a perfectly reasonable expectation to reach those figures.

Fair enough. But they'd have to be electric, those 2.4M cars.

[TepidT2O]

Fair enough. But they'd have to be electric, those 2.4M cars.

True.

But the swap itself isn’t much if a problem

[Gnurglan]

In the case of cars, say your target is for all new vehicles to be electric by 2030 (the most ambitious target, as most countries seem to be aiming at 40-50% from what I've read), wouldn't that be a fairly organic transition? Most people seem to change cars every 15 years at a maximum, and cars of that age aren't worth dick, regardless of legislation. One reason is that old cars don't come close to meeting present day safety standards. So they all have built-in redundancy, even moreso now that they're specced like an iPhone. It's not like cars are an investment, people buy them knowing it's money down the drain.

I am for a natural transition since I think a drastic change would cause enormous problems. There are so many things that need to follow. You need to produce the batteries, you need to set up a network to recharge, you need to produce the energy etc.
If the target is to cut fossile fuels in half, then we are talking a need to replace those 20M cars in 10 years (UK alone) and setting up the energy production etc pretty fast. It's bound to fail.

Realistically, the best way forward is to go hybrid. A gradual switch. But we are led to helieve there's need to panic. We have no time, we have to go extreme, give up our current way of life etc, or we are all toast. Panic will result in bad decisions.

[Gnurglan]

True.

But the swap itself isn’t much if a problem

That's a good point. In isolation it's possible.

We'd still need to source minerals for the batteries. The outcome if we stress things will be spikes in demand, extreme price levels and it will be normal people who suffer the most. The faster people want it done, the more extreme things need to be. A disaster scenario only benefits the rich and the people in power. The rich can afford the change and the people in power get a free route to tax, regulate and monitor the people.

[Red Raw]

Whenever population growth is cited as a driver of climate change I always defer the the late, great statistician Prof Hans Rosling.  With the population argument here is a tendancy to suggest that the problem of climate change lies with 'other' countries rather than our own.

Rosling explains how positive changes in managing population growth are already occuring and how global population will level out at around 10-11 billion by the end of the century (we can't change this because the babies are already born).  The key to maintaining population at this level is the elimination of poverty, reducing child mortality and improving access to education for women.

Short video about birth rate and religon (13 mins):

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ezVk1ahRF78" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ezVk1ahRF78</a>

Reducing child mortality to reduce the birth rate (15 mins):

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/N-x7eHuUhNM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/N-x7eHuUhNM</a>

The problem then becomes one of managing resources under this growth scenario which he argues is about more equitable ways of sharing and 'Western' countries (who have already gobbled up most of the fossil fuels and shat out most of the CO2) taking some responsibilty by managing consumption and emissions.

Longer video looking at population, income and resources (very entertaining 1 hour):

<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>

[thejbs]

I grew up in the 80s and have 5 siblings. Back then, for an Irish Catholic family, 4-6 kids was normal. A few families had over 10 kids.  Now it’s 2 on average with 6 being a rare outlier.  Secularism, whose benefits extend to many areas of society,  is definitely playing its part.

[Chakan]

That Greta kid was in Charlotte Friday holding a protest, reading the comments online it’s incredible how many White males are absolutely triggered about it. The bulk of them seemed to be very concerned that she’s not in school.

[Red-Soldier]

That Greta kid was in Charlotte Friday holding a protest, reading the comments online it’s incredible how many White males are absolutely triggered about it. The bulk of them seemed to be very concerned that she’s not in school.

 

It's my hope that the enviornmental crises that we've created will become such a powerful geopolitical force that it just steamrollers all before it (namely the right).

[Chakan]

It's my hope that the enviornmental crises that we've created will become such a powerful geopolitical force that it just steamrollers all before it (namely the right).

It’s baffling to me how people can be so triggered about her. Then it just descends into politics and name calling and the term “snowflake” seems to pop up a lot

You know I always wondered at the beginning of Superman how people could be so willfully ignorant and their planet is being ripped apart and how they let it get to that stage, and then I read a simple climate change discussion on Facebook and I’m like “oh right...”

[wampa1]

The bulk of them seemed to be very concerned that she’s not in school.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/greta-thunberg-busted-after-teacher-sees-her-on-tv-20191001189409

[The Gulleysucker]

It's my hope that the enviornmental crises that we've created will become such a powerful geopolitical force that it just steamrollers all before it (namely the right).

The Left has its share of denialist nutjobs too.

Edit...corrected embarrassingly incorrect apostrophe. The shame...

[Red-Soldier]

The Left has it's share of denialist nutjobs too.

 

Yeah the left are notorious for their climate denial 

Shall we compare the Tories, BxP, Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, GOP and Dems, climate and enviornmental policies.....?

[Gnurglan]

It’s baffling to me how people can be so triggered about her. Then it just descends into politics and name calling and the term “snowflake” seems to pop up a lot

You know I always wondered at the beginning of Superman how people could be so willfully ignorant and their planet is being ripped apart and how they let it get to that stage, and then I read a simple climate change discussion on Facebook and I’m like “oh right...”

She is just a symbol for the issue. The real reason we get all the anger is a different thing. I admire Greta, but disagree with her views. What I admire is she stands up for what she believes in. She has been brave enough to tell France, Germany and a few more countries that they are not doing their part. Macron has responded that the focus should be on other countries. This shows two things. First that all those countries who are supposedly behind Greta's ideas are silent when Macron speaks up against her. It's nice to have your picture taken with her, but when it comes to real action it's more difficult. Second that the issue is huge and I don't think people fully understand what kind of change in society they are proposing. An immediate transition is not realistic. Macron surely knows that. Societies would collapse. The Yellow Vests in France began protesting against higher taxes on fuel. If we were to meet their anger with ”they are all climate deniers”, then we are closing in on why people are so divided on Greta.

Another thing is ”the worse the prophecy, the more trustworthy you are” seems to be the accepted way. It's what the media love and they are becoming more about attention seeking than news reporting. Some people over here recently claimed we may get a 1-2.5 m rise of sea levels by 2100. 2.5m would mean ~3cm/year. Which should be compared to the fastest warming period ever, which had a rate of ~1cm/year. The normal rate is 1-3mm/year depending on who you believe. So clearly the 1-2.5m is highly questionable. If you mention this, then you are labled a climate denier. You can't question the 1-2.5m, yet any kid in school could spot the mathematical problem. What it means is we can no longer have a reasonable debate. It's becoming a lot like the talks around Trump or Brexit or refugees/immigrants. For or against and no middle ground. Accusations and point scoring, but no sensible discussions. Greta is a symbol for it, but it's not about her.

[Chakan]

While that may be true, the people on Facebook are directly insulting and being trigger by her.

[Gnurglan]

While that may be true, the people on Facebook are directly insulting and being trigger by her.

I know. It's not pretty and I think it's a sign of our times. Attack her, not what she's saying. Put lables on people, don't debate.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard&fbclid=IwAR2t3cvlv5T47tVQrBOq1Dr9d7WLAZUqDC2YwtK3doQA5NQKfNAxr5M8iOQ

[OneTouchFooty]

I'm quite suspicious of the UKs supposed "good" carbon footprint, an argument trotted out everytime we have protests as if we believe we are noble fighters of the cause.

Does it factor in overall consumption? As we seem to continue to import more and more, deceptively on the "books" it must be looking good as we make less things here.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I'm quite suspicious of the UKs supposed "good" carbon footprint, an argument trotted out everytime we have protests as if we believe we are noble fighters of the cause.

Does it factor in overall consumption? As we seem to continue to import more and more, deceptively on the "books" it must be looking good as we make less things here.

I'm not sure if it includes "exported carbon emissions", i.e. emissions from goods produced overseas and imported into the UK. 

[Indomitable_Carp]

I'm not sure if it includes "exported carbon emissions", i.e. emissions from goods produced overseas and imported into the UK.

It doesn't.

This is the argument that regularly gets pulled out by detractors of the idea the UK should be leading the way on curbing emissions. "But China...". Without factoring that China produces so many emissions because the West has effectively outsourced its emissions to China.

[Max_powers]

Its a common tactic by people who don't want any action taken to just blame it all on China and India and say that they represent such a small percentage of the world population that they cannot make any impact on this problem at all.

Funnily enough, I have seen similar arguments from the other side. They claim that how can developing nations be expected to take climate action with their meager resources when developed nations just keep on consuming.

It's just a way of pointing fingers while continuing to ignore the problem.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

She is just a symbol for the issue. The real reason we get all the anger is a different thing. I admire Greta, but disagree with her views. What I admire is she stands up for what she believes in. She has been brave enough to tell France, Germany and a few more countries that they are not doing their part. Macron has responded that the focus should be on other countries. This shows two things. First that all those countries who are supposedly behind Greta's ideas are silent when Macron speaks up against her. It's nice to have your picture taken with her, but when it comes to real action it's more difficult. Second that the issue is huge and I don't think people fully understand what kind of change in society they are proposing. An immediate transition is not realistic. Macron surely knows that. Societies would collapse. The Yellow Vests in France began protesting against higher taxes on fuel. If we were to meet their anger with ”they are all climate deniers”, then we are closing in on why people are so divided on Greta.

Another thing is ”the worse the prophecy, the more trustworthy you are” seems to be the accepted way. It's what the media love and they are becoming more about attention seeking than news reporting. Some people over here recently claimed we may get a 1-2.5 m rise of sea levels by 2100. 2.5m would mean ~3cm/year. Which should be compared to the fastest warming period ever, which had a rate of ~1cm/year. The normal rate is 1-3mm/year depending on who you believe. So clearly the 1-2.5m is highly questionable. If you mention this, then you are labled a climate denier. You can't question the 1-2.5m, yet any kid in school could spot the mathematical problem. What it means is we can no longer have a reasonable debate. It's becoming a lot like the talks around Trump or Brexit or refugees/immigrants. For or against and no middle ground. Accusations and point scoring, but no sensible discussions. Greta is a symbol for it, but it's not about her.

Just two things: you disagree with her "views"? Which ones? Why? That's a genuine question, since you made a rather vague statement.

Secondly, the 3cm/yr rise is "highly questionable". Why? You don't think that man-made climate change in addition to normal global heating patterns could lead to unprecedented sea-rise? That data is far from ridiculous. I've seen more terrifying forecasts based on good interpretations of sound data.

There is no "reasonable" debate. We can quibble about the scale of what's coming, but to suggest that it's not going to be extremely bad without colossal levels of change in how we do things is denying overwhelming scientific consensus.

If you are simply trying to point out that there is no way that "advanced" industrialized societies are going to make the political choices necessary to avert the worst of this, because no politician serious about having power would propose them, I agree, sadly. The collapse of those societies is only postponed (and the chaos eventually exacerbated) as a result of pretending to be "reasonable" about what is "realistic" though. Where Greta Thunberg and many others are right is in arguing that people are not prepared to tell the truth about the scale of change needed, because it isn't a very sellable proposition, is it?

[OneTouchFooty]

She's not undertaking the research, she's reiterating the scientific consensus of circa 98% of climate experts and relevant academic research, which she has consistently said.

And I'd trust their judgement and expertise of these academics in field rather than unqualified youtubers in their bedrooms and people googling selective information they dont have the knowledge to interpret or analyse correctly.