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

[Penfold78]

Some of you are more knowledgeable than me on these matters.   To me every viable house should have solar panels fitted,  heat transfer pumps, wind turbines and rain water recycling.    Cut our reliance with fossil fuels asap.     The technology is there and we must really ramp it up.

It’s a great idea and absolutely spot on. It is feasible for every new house, costly yes, but if mandated there may be economies of scale and think of the jobs it’d create. A really tangible high-skilled green economy. However the retro-fitting of current houses would be a nightmare logistically, politically and financially. I’m still sure it’s the right thing to do but dubious that any government with a realistic chance of getting elected would be brave enough to do it. It would require decentralisation of our energy sector, including suppliers, distributors and power station owners, and where is the governance that would be powerful enough to start that transition? BEIS? Defra? DHLUC? No10? It ain’t there right now.

 I also think reform needs to include permeable driveways and restrictions on hard surfaces so the rainwater doesn’t rush into the sewers and road drains every time we get climate-change induced storms.

[Red Raw]

Solar PV panels are fine but the carbon and £££ savings are modest and will diminish as the national grid decarbonises. By far the greatest savings from homes will come from displacing gas boilers with heat pumps where savings will continue to improve with lower carbon electricity.

Switching to heat pumps will mean upgrading the insulation in many homes and radiators may need to be replaced with larger ones to accommodate lower distribution temperatures. Without these modifications the 300% plus efficiencies promised by heat pumps are less likely to be achieved.

One of the less well understood benefits of the gas network is the ability to pressurise the system to provide additional capacity when demand spikes are predicted. There is no innate storage capability in the electricity grid so as more homes switch to heat pumps capacity could become a problem at peak times. I can see how PV, particularly in conjunction with local storage and smart tariffs and load shifting, could become important in providing additional capacity and flexibility and will enable the switch to electric heating.

District heating is also fine but a good number of things have to fall into place for it to work well. First you need a decent heat load (maybe 1000-1500 homes) because the infrastructure costs and difficulties in financing are considerable. Even though the underground pipes are well insulated line losses can easily fuck up the economics - the best systems will aim to lose less than 5% to the ground but in practice in the UK losses are often much higher.

The other difficulty with DH is you need a low carbon heat source. Most current UK systems are heated by gas CHP which has to change. The main alternatives are biomass (with carbon capture), heat recovery from industrial processes or the combustion of waste. In each case the solutions are potentially unsuited to many sites and can face massive opposition from locals and house builders.

None of this is easy and the government effort at addressing heat has been woeful (especially on energy efficiency and building standards) but the technologies are getting cheaper. Ten years ago a domestic PV installation could have cost  more than £10k while today it is more likely to be £3-4k.

Rainwater harvesting is great for the garden but incorporating it into buildings (even new ones) has been repeatedly shown to be a non-starter. Apart from having two separate water systems (added complexity and expense) a lot of energy is expended in pumping the water which so far has negated much of the carbon saving potential.  Water stress will become an issue but it is likely to be better to focus on minimising waste, fixing the leaking infrastructure and making efficiency savings at the treatment works.

There are lots of things that sound brilliant or innovative but often a few back of the envelope calculations coupled with some half reasonable assumptions are needed to separate the serious options from those that are going to have limited impact. It is not easy and some technology providers can be very persuasive, it is unfortunate that it is often those with the least convincing evidence that have the biggest/best marketing departments.

Sorry - didn't mean to ramble on quite as much as this. I can probably be more specific if folk have particular beefs with any of the above. 

[Indomitable_Carp]

In a sign that the whole depressing and terrifying shit show that is the War in Ukraine, might yet hold some kind of silver lining in terms of waking us up to an even bigger, even more depressing and even more terrifying shit show that is man made climate change, the Conservatives have finally realised what has long been evident - that the transition from Fossil Fuel energy to Renewable energy is an issue of national security:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/13/tories-plan-big-expansion-of-wind-farms-to-protect-national-security

Yet one quote by one of the modern Conservative parties many intellectual giants, Kwasi Kwarteng, shows there is still a way to go :

Kwasi Kwarteng, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, said last week on Twitter: “This is no longer about tackling climate change or reaching net-zero targets. Ensuring the UK’s clean energy independence is a matter of national security. Putin can set the price of gas, but he can’t directly control the price of renewables and nuclear we generate in the UK.”

One day they might realise that Climate Change IS a National Security issue, and indeed perhaps the biggest national security issue of all.

[BarryCrocker]

No idea how to imbed this but its a fascinating visual representation by NASA of what's actually happening to world temperatures.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004900/a004975/GISTEMP_Spiral_2022-03-06_2257.mp4

[Penfold78]

In a sign that the whole depressing and terrifying shit show that is the War in Ukraine, might yet hold some kind of silver lining in terms of waking us up to an even bigger, even more depressing and even more terrifying shit show that is man made climate change, the Conservatives have finally realised what has long been evident - that the transition from Fossil Fuel energy to Renewable energy is an issue of national security:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/13/tories-plan-big-expansion-of-wind-farms-to-protect-national-security

Yet one quote by one of the modern Conservative parties many intellectual giants, Kwasi Kwarteng, shows there is still a way to go :

One day they might realise that Climate Change IS a National Security issue, and indeed perhaps the biggest national security issue of all.

Only when their business donors and sponsors start feeling the pinch. And that’ll be too late.

[Penfold78]

No idea how to imbed this but its a fascinating visual representation by NASA of what's actually happening to world temperatures.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004900/a004975/GISTEMP_Spiral_2022-03-06_2257.mp4

 Nice. I can use that at work. The critics will say yeah but 1oC is that all dude?

[Red Raw]

No idea how to imbed this but its a fascinating visual representation by NASA of what's actually happening to world temperatures.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004900/a004975/GISTEMP_Spiral_2022-03-06_2257.mp4

These were developed by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading based on the Met Office HadCRUT temperature series. He does a lot of work on data visualisation and finding effective ways to communicate climate science. The original dates back to 2016 and even featured in the opening ceremony of the 2016 Olympics in Rio (apparently without asking - not that he seemed too bothered). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_qXm9HY9Ro from about 53:50.

There is a 3D 'tornado' version as well:


_{https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/spirals/}

And you might have seen the 'warming stripes' from the same guy:


_{https://showyourstripes.info/s/globe}

The beauty, as is often the case, is in the simplicity - you don't necessarily need to understand the finer details to understand the main message. Creating these data series is fantastically complicated and there are a few groups that are mapping global temperatures in different ways. The skeptics like to seize on minor differences as an indicator that scientists are 'making it all up' but more often than not they betray their own ignorance (for instance making comparisons using different baselines). Agreement between all the different methods is actually very good.


_{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record}

[Red Raw]

Nice. I can use that at work. The critics will say yeah but 1oC is that all dude?

Worth remebering, or pointing out to such individuals, that when scientists talk about 1.5°C or 2°C of warming that these are average temperature changes across the whole globe - some places will get much hotter.


_{https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/}

Maps like these make it look like things are pretty rosy for us but unfortunately the global systems that drive our weather will also be disrupted so we can expect to experience extreme weather (heatwaves, storms, flooding etc.) on a more frequent basis.

[gazzalfc]

🔥Heat wave in Antarctica, +38 °C (+68 °F) above normal.

That's not an error, or a typo.

The remote research station at Dome C recorded a temperature nearly 40 °C above normal for this time of year, beating the previous March record by a startling 20 °C. https://t.co/HkzydQyQ7A

[Nobby Reserve]

And just to remind people of right-wing cuntery hard at work trying to block efforts to cut GHG emissions (and condemn millions/billions to suffering and catastrophe in the coming years):

Revealed: Brexit donor behind net-zero backlash has $130m in fossil fuels
 

A multimillionaire Brexit donor funding anti-‘net zero’ campaigns is the director of a company with tens of millions of pounds invested in oil and gas, openDemocracy has found.

The revelation comes as chancellor Rishi Sunak is expected to bow to pressure from the motor industry and cut fuel duty in his spring Budget statement on Wednesday.

Investment manager Jeremy Hosking has given millions to political parties including the Conservatives and Nigel Frottage’s Brexit Party/Reform UK, as well as Vote Leave. Recently, he has been bankrolling Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party, which has campaigned against ‘net zero’, and has been linked to a climate denial group.

But an openDemocracy investigation has shown how Hosking’s company, Hosking Partners, has at least $134m invested in the fossil fuel sector according to the most recent data.

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/jeremy-hosking-brexit-donor-net-zero-invest-fossil-fuels/

[RainbowFlick]

It's a real shame the action that was taken at the Everton game and a few other games is being scoffed at by football fans. There'll be no football matches at all one day unless we (well mainly corporations/governments/billionaires) take things more seriously.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

It’s now the eleventh hour and I feel terrified for my kids, and terrified for humanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/climate-scientists-are-desperate-were-crying-begging-and-getting-arrested?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR01Lwbhj7hJonkpdk_LVbNAC0BEhSCzg9rqyyM6X0BKGbgQ_a2dll886Fs

[Nobby Reserve]

People in the developed world: We'll reduce our GHG emissions slightly, but only in ways that are pain free and don't damage our standards of living. PEople in the developing world need to stop increasing their GHG emissions so much.

People in the developing world: We have a right to develop and industrialise our countries to the levels of those in 'the West'. And it's those rich western countries that need to cut their GHG emissions


It's like people on a boat arguing about who gets to sleep in the cosy cabin, when there's a leak in the hull and the boat is slowly sinking

[Red Raw]

People in the developed world: We'll reduce our GHG emissions slightly, but only in ways that are pain free and don't damage our standards of living. PEople in the developing world need to stop increasing their GHG emissions so much.

People in the developing world: We have a right to develop and industrialise our countries to the levels of those in 'the West'. And it's those rich western countries that need to cut their GHG emissions


It's like people on a boat arguing about who gets to sleep in the cosy cabin, when there's a leak in the hull and the boat is slowly sinking

All the evidence, of course, supports the arguments of those in the developing world...

_{https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions}

[Red-Soldier]

All the evidence, of course, supports the arguments of those in the developing world...

_{https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions}

Yep.

It's absolutely wrong to put any blame on the developing world.

It's the developed world that shoulders all the blame here.

We're still not providing the money we had promised them years ago.

[Red Raw]

I should add that the chart above is annual (per capita) emissions not cummulative emissions which would favour the developing countries even more.

The irony being that many of them are in the regions that will be first/worst affected.

[Corkboy]

Here's a cheery thought.

If you don't have kids now, you're very unlikely to have grandkids.

[ianburns252]

It's a real shame the action that was taken at the Everton game and a few other games is being scoffed at by football fans. There'll be no football matches at all one day unless we (well mainly corporations/governments/billionaires) take things more seriously.

The main reason it has been scoffed at by people I know is the same as the reason people I know don't like the Green Party - the people protesting/representing the Greens often look like "weirdos" or "oddballs".

Football crowds in the main aren't known for their modern/progressive stance to things and so they just see these young people who look a bit strange ruining their game of football (and yes, I know Richarlison looks a bit strange and ruins every game he plays in but the Ev are numb to that by now).

It is bullshit that the message is lost beneath how people look (whilst I didn't always agree with Corbyn I do agree that he suffered from this) but that is how the country is. To get the message out to the majority they want to hear it from "someone like them" - the 50 year old guy in a 3 sizes too small Chelsea kit is likely to struggle to connect with a youngster with floppy hair strapping himself to the post (by the same token, those presenting the message do at times need to understand that they aren't always speaking to people who are already on side and so patience to explain things may be needed).

Not really said anything new there I know - as long as the attitude in society that "these people need a wash, a job, and a steak" pervades we will struggle to get anywhere.

[Red Raw]

I agree that direct action can have negative side effects among some audiences.

There has been some good research into smart, targetted information campaigns. This was a relatively short programme lead by climate communication ace Katharine Hayhoe directed specifically at US Republicans but it showed promising results - up to a 16 point increase in awareness/concern of climate issues in the target groups.


Click to enlarge
_{https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/shifting-republican-views-on-climate-change-through-targeted-advertising/}

Rather than swamping them with data and technical arguments it sought to identify areas of common ground where Republicans could relate to the issues on a personal level (security, religon, hunting/shooting etc.) There ought to be scope to extend this approach to other groups - even football audiences!

The videos can be seen here: https://www.newclimatevoices.org/
Nature CC paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01070-1 (restricted access)

[Nobby Reserve]

All the evidence, of course, supports the arguments of those in the developing world...

_{https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions}

Well the point is that everyone needs to play their part.

It's no good 'the West' cutting emissions, if they're replaced by increased emissions from industrialising powerhouses like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.

I'd also say that you can't miss what you've never had. People in 'the West' do need to make sacrifices, absolutely, but as countries in the developing world develop, consumerist aspiration surges and people there start clamouring for cars and domestic air conditioning and shiny tat/gadgets. I'm not blaming individual people - corporations spend billions every year triggering our primeval urges to acquire 'stuff', and weave a pernicious narrative that you're only a success if you have x, y, z 'stuff'.

There's also the 'smoke & mirrors' aspect to 'the West' reducing its emissions, because have they increasingly outsourced the manufacturing function - and the accompanying emissions produced by manufacture - to developing countries (to take advantage of sweatshop labour costs).


My point is that the bickering and pointing fingers from each side over the 'moral' question of which peoples should shoulder the most burden, in terms of cutting GHG emissions globally, only serves to create inaction and a perpetuation of emissions levels that are driving climate change ever faster.

[Red-Soldier]

Well the point is that everyone needs to play their part.

It's no good 'the West' cutting emissions, if they're replaced by increased emissions from industrialising powerhouses like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.

I'd also say that you can't miss what you've never had. People in 'the West' do need to make sacrifices, absolutely, but as countries in the developing world develop, consumerist aspiration surges and people there start clamouring for cars and domestic air conditioning and shiny tat/gadgets. I'm not blaming individual people - corporations spend billions every year triggering our primeval urges to acquire 'stuff', and weave a pernicious narrative that you're only a success if you have x, y, z 'stuff'.

There's also the 'smoke & mirrors' aspect to 'the West' reducing its emissions, because have they increasingly outsourced the manufacturing function - and the accompanying emissions produced by manufacture - to developing countries (to take advantage of sweatshop labour costs).


My point is that the bickering and pointing fingers from each side over the 'moral' question of which peoples should shoulder the most burden, in terms of cutting GHG emissions globally, only serves to create inaction and a perpetuation of emissions levels that are driving climate change ever faster.

1.  It's hard to "play your part" when worrying about your house disappearing under the sea.

2.  Rubbish - all emissions reductions count, and the global North should be leading by example!

3.  I'm not sure how much you know about people living in the global South - not much it seems...... I suggest that the majority of people just want a home that they know will be there for more than a few years and an ability to provide for their families.

The global North promised to deliver 100 billion dollars a year of finance to the South to help address climate change impacts.  This was agreed in 2009, yet it is still lacking!


I suggest you watch this video of the Prime Minister of Barbados at COP26: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6THYZ4ngM

[Nobby Reserve]

1.  It's hard to "play your part" when worrying about your house disappearing under the sea.

2.  Rubbish - all emissions reductions count, and the global North should be leading by example!

3.  I'm not sure how much you know about people living in the global South - not much it seems...... I suggest that the majority of people just want a home that they know will be there for more than a few years and an ability to provide for their families.

The global North promised to deliver 100 billion dollars a year of finance to the South to help address climate change impacts.  This was agreed in 2009, yet it is still lacking!


I suggest you watch this video of the Prime Minister of Barbados at COP26: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6THYZ4ngM

I don't dispute all that. People should be able to have secure homes. And those living in absolute poverty are indeed likely to be amongst those worst affected.

But my point was that as soon as populations reach a certain level of income, they turn to 'western' consumerism. We've seen it across the globe - from installing ultra-high energy use air conditioning to buying cars to changing diets to eat more red meat.

I'm not criticising them for that at all. I'm making the point that in doing so, they increasingly counteract GHG reductions made in 'the west'.

Fucked if I know the answer to this conundrum. But just saying "people in the developing world have a right to the same luxuries that those in the west enjoy" is only going to lead us further down the path of climate armageddon.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I don't dispute all that. People should be able to have secure homes. And those living in absolute poverty are indeed likely to be amongst those worst affected.

But my point was that as soon as populations reach a certain level of income, they turn to 'western' consumerism. We've seen it across the globe - from installing ultra-high energy use air conditioning to buying cars to changing diets to eat more red meat.

I'm not criticising them for that at all. I'm making the point that in doing so, they increasingly counteract GHG reductions made in 'the west'.

Fucked if I know the answer to this conundrum. But just saying "people in the developing world have a right to the same luxuries that those in the west enjoy" is only going to lead us further down the path of climate armageddon.

Correct on both points.

When I first went to India in 1991 the only people who had cars were government officials, army, police (even then very few) and taxi drivers. This was still largely true until the mid late 90's.  On my last visit about 4 years ago the country was full of them.

[Red-Soldier]

Tory MP Steve Baker shares paper denying climate crisis

Green Alliance says ‘mask has slipped’ as member of Net Zero Scrutiny Group shares scientist’s paper on Twitter

A Conservative MP has shared a scientific paper that says the climate emergency is not happening.

Steve Baker, the MP for Wycombe and a leading member of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, shared the report, produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), on his Twitter feed.

He and the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, comprising about 20 Tory MPs, have previously said they do not deny the science around climate change but merely disagree with the costs involved in some of the methods proposed to reach net zero.

When asked if he agreed with the report, Baker said: “I am clear that questions of climate science should be handled scientifically. The last thing we need is politicians and activists twisting the science to their particular ends.”

Baker is a trustee of the GWPF, and the group of Tories have used its research to make their arguments previously.

Joe Tetlow, a senior political adviser for the Green Alliance, a charity and thinktank, said: “The mask has slipped. Promoting climate denial from GWPF is not scrutiny of policies but denying the basis for action. Dangerous and wrong.”

The non-peer-reviewed paper is authored by a retired scientist, Ole Humlum, a former professor at the University of Oslo.

He has repeatedly claimed that rather than human impact, it is the sun and moon’s influence on Earth that explains most of the historical and current climate change. In 2013 he predicted that the climate would most likely become colder in the next 10 to 15 years.

In the new report he claims that only “gentle warming” has happened and that there is not a climate crisis.

Humlum said: “A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.”

The GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser, said: “It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.”

By contrast, a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that human activity was “unequivocally” the cause of rapid changes to the climate, including sea level rises, melting polar ice and glaciers, heatwaves, floods and droughts. It said some effects of climate breakdown were now inevitable.

Hundreds of scientists contributed to the IPCC report, with 234 in the first working group, 270 in the second and 278 in the third. It was signed off by the governments of all 195 member countries.

Dr Ken Rice, an astrophysics professor at the University of Edinburgh, said of the GWPF report: “One of the most bizarre things about this is that they still can’t acknowledge that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely anthropogenic. I had thought we’d moved beyond that. Clearly not.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/15/tory-mp-steve-baker-shares-paper-denying-climate-crisis

[lobsterboy]

we'll be eating soylent green in a decade

[Nobby Reserve]

Tory MP Steve Baker shares paper denying climate crisis

Green Alliance says ‘mask has slipped’ as member of Net Zero Scrutiny Group shares scientist’s paper on Twitter

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/15/tory-mp-steve-baker-shares-paper-denying-climate-crisis

He co-founded the economically far-right Cobden Group think tank, linked to several similarly batshit [economically] far-right libertarian militant organisations.

And he sits on Nigel 'slug' Lawson's climate change denialist group Global Warming Policy Foundation - which is based, like the Cobden Centre, at [surprise, surprise...] 55 Tufton Street, which is the hub of malevolent, hard-right, anti-regulation activity in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55_Tufton_Street)

[Nobby Reserve]

As if we didn't have enough on our plates:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61221666


The rate of population growth continues to be startling. This only adds growing pressures on a planet and its natural resources that are increasingly stressed to breaking point.

At the start of the 20th Century, global population was around 1.5bn

By 2050, the UN projects this to have risen to almost 10bn

61% of the world's population lives in Asia.

[Red-Soldier]

As if we didn't have enough on our plates:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61221666


The rate of population growth continues to be startling. This only adds growing pressures on a planet and its natural resources that are increasingly stressed to breaking point.

At the start of the 20th Century, global population was around 1.5bn

By 2050, the UN projects this to have risen to almost 10bn

61% of the world's population lives in Asia.

You seem to blame most environmental issues on Asia and developing countries.  Not once does it mention population growth in the article.  It's all about the way we manage land and it's resources.  The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe, for example.


Key points from the article:

Just 1% of farms control 70% of the world's agricultural land

Around $700bn is paid in agricultural subsidies each year but only around 15% has a positive impact on natural capital or biodiversity.

The UNCCD point out that around $700bn are given in what they term "perverse subsidies" to the fossil fuel and agriculture industries each year.
   
At least 70% of the clearing of forested areas for agriculture between 2013 and 2019 was done in violation of national laws.

Food systems have been the single biggest cause of damage - being responsible for 80% of the deforestation and 70% of freshwater use.

[Nobby Reserve]

You seem to blame most environmental issues on Asia and developing countries. Not once does it mention population growth in the article.  It's all about the way we manage land and it's resources.  The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe, for example.

 

I don't. It's just your skewed take on it.

I mentioned population growth because it's population growth that is driving the ever-increasing spread of agricultural land, destroying forests and drying-up water sources.

Please tell me you can see the link.

I agree with the points the article makes, and that the developed world has the most degraded land.

What is your point?

[Red-Soldier]

 

I don't. It's just your skewed take on it.

I mentioned population growth because it's population growth that is driving the ever-increasing spread of agricultural land, destroying forests and drying-up water sources.

Please tell me you can see the link.

I agree with the points the article makes, and that the developed world has the most degraded land.

What is your point?

Wasn't having a go at you.

It's better to focus on what they eat, and how people live, rather than just looking at the basic numbers.

For example, eating a high meat diet, is linked to increased affluence.

Of course, it's a huge question 'How do you feed 10 billion people?'

[Jiminy Cricket]

This is a promising development in fusion technology. If, if it pans out, it surely will kill all the efforts going into magnetic confinement systems which are - as Tepid rightfully keeps reminding us - fraught with horrendous technical and engineering difficulties.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/8Q5aZl9QMXo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/8Q5aZl9QMXo</a>

[dutchkop]

When are governments and companies going to wake up.

This is way beyond doing your recycling and using your car less.

I would like to add citizens - we are probably the most powerful.. this is a great podcast to get informed on all topics and actions.
a recent one on fossil fuels.
https://www.outrageandoptimism.org/episodes/conflict-fueling-outrage-its-time-to-quit-fossil-fuels?


I am volunteering for a Dutch group that is promoting, harvesting, collection, disributing FREE trees. MORETREESNOW


Please can I ask you to review the short videos of World  Economic Forum and Frans Timmermans that explain the benefits for all Europeans and global tree planting (Ecosystem Regeneration, Circular, Biodiversity, Carbon Absorption/Drawdown/Sequestration and other ecological benefits)
 
Article in The Guardian - (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/26/every-tree-counts-amsterdam-forest-leads-way-with-sapling-donation-plan)
#WorldEconomicForum Video (1.30 Mins)   - https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-dutch-initiative-aims-to-speed-up-forest-planting
This Dutch Initiative Aims To Speed Up Forest Planting Article
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/tree-climate-change-replanting-forest/
English text on Meerbomen.nu - - https://meerbomen.nu/over-ons/in-english/
 
Some local Belgian Press - MeerBomen in Belgium with Frans Timmermans - Vlaamse Minister of Nature Ms Zuhal Demir - some local TV - @MeerBomenNu @TimmermansEU in het VRT journaal:   =https://www.instagram.com/p/CXWGYNgIvF1/

[Red Raw]

This is a promising development in fusion technology. If, if it pans out, it surely will kill all the efforts going into magnetic confinement systems which are - as Tepid rightfully keeps reminding us - fraught with horrendous technical and engineering difficulties.
...

From a scientific perspective it is of course interesting and the university spin-off company has attracted some investment, and who knows maybe in the distant future commercial scale fusion will become a thing.

Until then, as has been said elsewhere, breakthroughs are relative, especially in a complex field like fusion. This is a new method but faces the same problem as others in that it uses more energy than it creates. The team won't be developing a demonstration scale reactor until sometime in the 2030s by which time the UK grid is expected to be close to zero carbon anyway using existing technologies. It is unlikely therefore to contribute in a meaningful way to our energy system over the critical period which is the next 10 to 15 years.

[Red Raw]

As if we didn't have enough on our plates:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61221666


The rate of population growth continues to be startling. This only adds growing pressures on a planet and its natural resources that are increasingly stressed to breaking point.

At the start of the 20th Century, global population was around 1.5bn

By 2050, the UN projects this to have risen to almost 10bn

61% of the world's population lives in Asia.

Agree that loss of habitat remains a concern but population changes shouldn't be startling as it has been accurately monitored and measured since the 1960s although the reporting has been sub-standard and often alarmist. Better health and education means birth rates are falling and people are living longer. The net result of the system dynamics means that things are expected to level off at around 10-11 billion by the end of the century. This is not some post-Mathusian nightmare, if we don't fuck up the climate and are prepared to adapt some of our behaviours there is time for us to adjust to accommodate the extra billions.

The population stats and dynamics are laid out brilliantly in the 7 minutes between 19:15 and 26:12 (the rest is all fascinating and encouraging too).

<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>

The equitable split of available resources is covered later but suffice to say the onus is on the main polluters (the richest billion - us)  to develop the technologies and means to low carbon consumption so that the next richest (2 billion - in India and Asia) don't have to follow directly in our footsteps.

Responsible organisations are increasingly considering the true carbon cost of their activities and including upstream Scope 3 emissions as part of their procurement processes, and are forcing others that want to be part of their supply chain to adapt. With the political will the richest billion can use their buying power to reward desirable climate behaviour in other nations.

[dutchkop]

Agree that loss of habitat remains a concern but population changes shouldn't be startling as it has been accurately monitored and measured since the 1960s although the reporting has been sub-standard and often alarmist. Better health and education means birth rates are falling and people are living longer. The net result of the system dynamics means that things are expected to level off at around 10-11 billion by the end of the century. This is not some post-Mathusian nightmare, if we don't fuck up the climate and are prepared to adapt some of our behaviours there is time for us to adjust to accommodate the extra billions.

The population stats and dynamics are laid out brilliantly in the 7 minutes between 19:15 and 26:12 (the rest is all fascinating and encouraging too).

<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>

The equitable split of available resources is covered later but suffice to say the onus is on the main polluters (the richest billion - us)  to develop the technologies and means to low carbon consumption so that the next richest (2 billion - in India and Asia) don't have to follow directly in our footsteps.

Responsible organisations are increasingly considering the true carbon cost of their activities and including upstream Scope 3 emissions as part of their procurement processes, and are forcing others that want to be part of their supply chain to adapt. With the political will the richest billion can use their buying power to reward desirable climate behaviour in other nations.

50% of population live in cities - soon it will be 70% . Climate change needs to be acted upon by all immediately. Someone justs shared the practical things they did in their house (new one - so they bought a well insulated house, south facing roof for solar panels (or with solar panels installed) turned down heating on CB boiler to 50 degrees, thermostat to 18,5 degre=, turned off CV radiators in rooms when people left and saved 50% of gas bill in March/April. Eat more plant based a few times a month, public transport and really educate oneself. 

for example - Vegan diet is huge in top sport, it is far better for the planet and better for your  healthy lifestyle and longevity of people and planet - if we have one extra vegan/vegetarian meal a week we can save 0.5Mton of carbon a year in the Netherlands - https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/dutch-implementation-plan/'

Lewis Hamilton says the only regret he has is that he didn't go plant based sooner (2017). Not that he went from eating meat to vegan overnight. He transitioned to plant-based eating by giving up his previous diet incrementally, and that's how he would recommend you adopt a plant-based diet too. "Don't go hard," says Hamilton.
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/mhsquad/nutrition-membership/a31095632/lewis-hamilton-plant-based-diet/
https://www.livekindly.co/vegan-formula-1-champion-lewis-hamilton-what-he-eats-to-stay-fit/

He told GQ, “we’re taught to drink milk and eat meat protein and I started looking into other areas of research around all this. The first thing was, what’s happening to the animals? Secondly, the impact it can have on your body. That’s a free advantage I’m going to take. If no one else wants it, well that’s their loss.”

What Does a Vegan Athlete Eat?
In 2018, Hamilton told Business Insider that he and other Formula One drivers typically enjoy porridge for breakfast but if he’s feeling more “adventurous,” he might go for baked beans on toast. Other meals include slow-cooked zucchini with toasted pine nuts with a salad consisting of couscous, pomegranate, raisin, and orange peel.

In November 2017, the athlete told CNN that he enjoys a stack of pancakes every weekend.

“It’s crazy. I’m not putting more weight on because, with this new plant-based diet, I can have more carbs which is contradictory of what you’d normally have thought diet-wise, but I’m not going to complain, I love pancakes so it’s great,” Hamilton said.

https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/features/vegan-athletes-plant-based-diet/  e.g. Lewis Hamilton, Venus  & Serena Williams, Tia Blanco, Djorkovic, 

[Red Raw]

50% of population live in cities - soon it will be 70%.
...
for example - Vegan diet is huge in top sport, it is far better for the planet and better for your  healthy lifestyle and longevity of people and planet - if we have one extra vegan/vegetarian meal a week we can save 0.5Mton of carbon a year in the Netherlands - https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/dutch-implementation-plan/'
...

Might be worth noting that per capita emissions in cities tend to be lower than in rural areas so they can be a carbon efficient way to live (subject to caveats over good design, infrastructure etc.)

Agree that diet is huge. In the UK the Climate Change Committee anticipates halving meat production and converting the land to veg/cereals. This has the benefit of improving health in many diets and increasing the amount of land available for rewilding and forestry to increase carbon sequestration.

[darragh85]

50% of population live in cities - soon it will be 70% . Climate change needs to be acted upon by all immediately. Someone justs shared the practical things they did in their house (new one - so they bought a well insulated house, south facing roof for solar panels (or with solar panels installed) turned down heating on CB boiler to 50 degrees, thermostat to 18,5 degre=, turned off CV radiators in rooms when people left and saved 50% of gas bill in March/April. Eat more plant based a few times a month, public transport and really educate oneself. 

for example - Vegan diet is huge in top sport, it is far better for the planet and better for your  healthy lifestyle and longevity of people and planet - if we have one extra vegan/vegetarian meal a week we can save 0.5Mton of carbon a year in the Netherlands - https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/dutch-implementation-plan/'

Lewis Hamilton says the only regret he has is that he didn't go plant based sooner (2017). Not that he went from eating meat to vegan overnight. He transitioned to plant-based eating by giving up his previous diet incrementally, and that's how he would recommend you adopt a plant-based diet too. "Don't go hard," says Hamilton.
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/mhsquad/nutrition-membership/a31095632/lewis-hamilton-plant-based-diet/
https://www.livekindly.co/vegan-formula-1-champion-lewis-hamilton-what-he-eats-to-stay-fit/

He told GQ, “we’re taught to drink milk and eat meat protein and I started looking into other areas of research around all this. The first thing was, what’s happening to the animals? Secondly, the impact it can have on your body. That’s a free advantage I’m going to take. If no one else wants it, well that’s their loss.”

What Does a Vegan Athlete Eat?
In 2018, Hamilton told Business Insider that he and other Formula One drivers typically enjoy porridge for breakfast but if he’s feeling more “adventurous,” he might go for baked beans on toast. Other meals include slow-cooked zucchini with toasted pine nuts with a salad consisting of couscous, pomegranate, raisin, and orange peel.

In November 2017, the athlete told CNN that he enjoys a stack of pancakes every weekend.

“It’s crazy. I’m not putting more weight on because, with this new plant-based diet, I can have more carbs which is contradictory of what you’d normally have thought diet-wise, but I’m not going to complain, I love pancakes so it’s great,” Hamilton said.

https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/features/vegan-athletes-plant-based-diet/  e.g. Lewis Hamilton, Venus  & Serena Williams, Tia Blanco, Djorkovic,

What are you suggesting here? That people living in rural should move to the cities.

Your point ó out top sportsmen being vegan is total waffle too. Hilarious how your example is an f1 driver. I'm sure you won't find many top rugby players or even footballers who are vegan.

I would just love to hear more about how the rich and powerful can help climate change. We hear very little of that. The largest countries do sweet f all to reduce their emissions and the wealthiest people make absolutely no sacrifices. The recent  space escapades of bezos and Branson highlighted how our faces are really being rubbed in it.

I'm not disagreeing that we are in big trouble either but I am fed up of these feeble attempts to help matters buy shifting onus onto to the average person to solve the problem. The whole emphasis is on making us suffer so the elite can live how they like. The world's wealthiest 1 % account for more than twice the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%. The approach is all wrong and there is little or no leadership or example being set.

I believe the effects of global warming are inevitable at this point. Its still not being tackled effectively by those that can have the most impact and as per usual, greed and self interest comes to the fore.



Whatever will be will be. We have no divine right to be here.

[ToneLa]

Nobody gives a fuck 

[Jiminy Cricket]

Nobody gives a fuck 

It is not that, ToneLa. It is just that your fellow Kopites probably do not know how to respond to a - if you forgive me saying - somewhat incoherent stream of consciousness post. And like you suggested, this might be the wrong thread anyway. I am glad that you got it off your chest.

[ToneLa]

Cheers. I'll replace that of text with this....

Yeah XR fundraiser brags about their own offshore accounts so they don't pay tax

Lol well I've said it boom done it's a shame but that's the world we are in