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

[Red-Soldier]

That's the root of the whole fucking problem - an ever-expanding global population.

Perhaps.  However, I'd argue it's more about how that population lives their lives.

We need 1.5 Earth's to sustain our current way of life.  However, all is not equal:

How many Earths do we need?

It has been suggested that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain them. But where does this claim originate, and how is it calculated?

The world's seven billion people consume varying amounts of the planet's resources. Compare the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer with that of a wealthy city-dweller in a developed country. More land is required to grow the city dweller's food, more materials are used to build the city dweller's home and workplace, more energy is required for transport, heating and cooling.

So it's obvious that Americans consume more, on average, than the people of less developed countries. But the claim that four Earths would be needed if everyone lived like Americans is still a striking one.

It has been recurring on social media at least since 2012, when science writer Tim De Chant produced this infographic illustrating how much land would be required if seven billion people lived like the populations of nine selected countries from Bangladesh to the United Arab Emirates.

De Chant was using a subset of data produced by the Global Footprint Network (GFN), which has been attempting the tricky business of measuring the impact of humans on the planet since 2003.

"Ecological footprinting" is where researchers look at how much land, sea and other natural resources are used to produce what people consume - how many potatoes they eat, how much milk they drink, the cotton that goes into the shirts they wear and so on.

They do this by using published statistics on consumption and the amount of land or sea used to produce the quantity of goods consumed.

"It's a book-keeping approach for resources," says GFN director and co-founder Mathis Wackernagel.

The key questions for GFN, he says, are: "If there is one planet - how much planet is available per person and how much planet do we use per person."

The answers are expressed in an unusual unit - the global hectare, defined as a biologically productive hectare with world-average bioproductivity.

The average American, says GFN, uses seven global hectares, compared to a global average of 2.7, according to the most recent GFN figures (based on data from 2011). It's this figure of seven global hectares that allows Wackernagel and his colleagues to calculate that it would take four Earths - or to be precise, 3.9 Earths - to sustain a population of seven billion at American levels of consumption.

However, the US does not consume the most on this measure. It is in fact ranked fifth among countries with a population of one million or more. Kuwait comes top with 8.9 global hectares (5.1 Earths), followed by Australia (4.8 Earths), the United Arab Emirates (4.7 Earths) and Qatar (4.0 Earths). The others in the top 10 are Canada, Sweden, Bahrain, Trinidad and Tobago, and Singapore. The UK is 32nd on the list (2.4 Earths).

How useful are these figures?

One curious thing to note is that according to the Global Footprint Network, the world's population is currently using not one, but one-and-a-half Earths.

That's because it takes account of carbon emissions. The forests and oceans of the world absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, but we are currently emitting more than the planet can handle - and Wackernagel's team has calculated how much extra land and sea we would need to absorb it. They estimate that we need an extra half a planet.

If we now look again at the average American footprint - two-thirds of that is made up of carbon emissions.

This means that for the four Earths we would need if everyone consumed like an American, more than two-and-a-half of those would be needed just to absorb carbon dioxide.

This calculation has its critics.

"It seems a little odd to convert what's happening in the atmosphere into a proxy measure and pretend you're measuring land when you're not," says Fred Pearce, environment correspondent for New Scientist magazine.

But Mathis Wackernagel says it is important to include carbon emissions in the calculation to capture the "total package" of our activity.

Another criticism - made, for example by Linus Blomqvist, Director of Conservation at the Breakthrough Institute in California - is that there is insufficient data from many parts of the world to create meaningful ecological footprint estimates. Researchers just don't know how sustainable some agricultural practices are, and therefore to what extent resources are being overused.

"Our critique is that these figures don't say anything about sustainability of cropland, such as the erosion of soil," Blomqvist says.

Wackernagel accepts this criticism, to an extent.

"I would be perfectly blunt - our numbers are certainly wrong. I'm convinced our numbers are underestimates.

"There are aspects on which no good data exists that we don't include, so our demand on nature is larger."

While these figures may not be perfect, Wackernagel says that governments can find them useful as a way of thinking about policies on the environment.

For example, Switzerland publishes ecological footprint estimates on its Federal Statistics Office website. The UK, meanwhile, has formed a Natural Capital Committee to study how the country consumes its natural resources and how long, at current rates, they will last.

Not perfect figures, but it's a nice guide.  This is 7 years old now, so things would have got worse since.  The UK is likely equivalent to France.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712

[Red Raw]

I hadn't even thought about how my diet contributed to climate change but I can't be the only one.

How do you find out? Is there an app or something that'll tell you what your carbon footprint is based on your total lifestyle?

I can thoroughly recommend this little gem:


_{https://uk.bookshop.org/books/how-bad-are-bananas-the-carbon-footprint-of-everything/9781788163811}

We are generally really good at distinguishing orders of magnitude when it comes to money - a bottle of champagne is expensive and so is a car and so is a house but we know intuitively that there are orders of magnitude between them.

With carbon very few have the same intuition and this book aims to give you a better feel for the carbon impacts of everyday things, from a text message, to a pint of beer, to a swimming pool, to a forest fire. The chapters are oganised by emissions in carbon dioide equivalent*, from under 10 g, 10-100 g, 100 g to 1 kg and so on. This helps give a sense of the relative emissions for different products and activities.
_{*(Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e is a unit that accounts for the warming effect of non-CO2 greehouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide as well as the F-gases in our refrigerators.)}

Most of the carbon emissions in a fancy coffee for example is in the milk rather than the imported beans so a large latte might have 5 times the carbon impact as an americano with a bit of milk.

Paper and card packaging generally has a higher carbon footprint than plastic, partly because it gives off methane when it decomposes. There are other reasons for minimising plastics but where packaging increases the likelihood of the food being consumed rather than wasted (extended shelf life, protection from mauling) there is a net carbon benefit because more carbon is generally emitted in growing, processing and transport.

Spoiler: How bad are bananas?

Bananas are imported mostly from Central and South America which you might think makes them relatively carbon intensive but the fact that they are grown in natural sunlight rather than hothouses, can be transported efficiently due to their excellent shelf life and are high in carbs, fibre and vitamin C means that they are really rather good.

[close]

[Red Raw]

That's the root of the whole fucking problem - an ever-expanding global population.

To add to what Red-Soldier has said the rate of population growth is falling as a result of measures to combat poverty and improve education. See for example:


_{https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth}

I have posted the excellent Prof Hans Rosling video 'Don't Panic' which explains the dynamics in an entertaining and engaging way a few times in this thread - if anyone hasn't seen it there is a link in this post:
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=296645.msg18036117#msg18036117

[Nobby Reserve]

According to UN figures, 72 countries have a fertility rate of 2.5 or above; 31 with a fertility rate of 4.0 or above.

Of those, 47 are in Africa and 14 Asia (none in Europe).

It's good that the rate of population increase has slightly declined, but the higher overall global population means that even the slightly lower rate means the population is growing by more numbers per year than any other time in history.

A higher global population with increasing aspirations means, overall, that fewer people will be able to live the sort of lives we in the West currently enjoy (ie, we in 'the West' will need to reduce our own quality of life because people in predominantly Africa and Asia keep having unsustainable numbers of offspring, who demand an increasing proportion of the planet's resources)

 

[Elmo!]

According to UN figures, 72 countries have a fertility rate of 2.5 or above; 31 with a fertility rate of 4.0 or above.

Of those, 47 are in Africa and 14 Asia (none in Europe).

It's good that the rate of population increase has slightly declined, but the higher overall global population means that even the slightly lower rate means the population is growing by more numbers per year than any other time in history.

A higher global population with increasing aspirations means, overall, that fewer people will be able to live the sort of lives we in the West currently enjoy (ie, we in 'the West' will need to reduce our own quality of life because people in predominantly Africa and Asia keep having unsustainable numbers of offspring, who demand an increasing proportion of the planet's resources)

So will you be doing your bit by reducing meat consumption? 

[Nobby Reserve]

So will you be doing your bit by reducing meat consumption? 

I'll swap beef for chicken once a month on condition that everyone in Africa & Asia keep their birth rates below 2

How's that? 

[Elmo!]

I'll swap beef for chicken once a month on condition that everyone in Africa & Asia keep their birth rates below 2

How's that? 

Really taking one for the team there Nobby. Your sacrifice is appreciated. 

[Jiminy Cricket]

I was vegetarian until lockdown when I regressed. We’ll have meat for dinner around 3 times a week. The meat meals are often borne out of laziness. A well crafted veggie meal is as good as any meat dish. Generally, we don’t have meat outside of the main meal unless eating out.

I guess our main green contribution is not having kids.

And that's huge! Probably the single most important decision most of us individually make to affect climate change.

[Jiminy Cricket]

To add to what Red-Soldier has said the rate of population growth is falling as a result of measures to combat poverty and improve education. See for example:


_{https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth}

I have posted the excellent Prof Hans Rosling video 'Don't Panic' which explains the dynamics in an entertaining and engaging way a few times in this thread - if anyone hasn't seen it there is a link in this post:
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=296645.msg18036117#msg18036117

Yes, the expectation is that the world population will level-off somewhere around 11 billion people. However, since the planet already has more people than it can support in the longer term, taking the position of 'nothing to worry about' is seriously flawed. The population rising to 11 billion is a huge fucking problem.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I'll swap beef for chicken once a month on condition that everyone in Africa & Asia keep their birth rates below 2

How's that? 

I suppose that counts as 'a start'.

We're fucked, aren't we!?

[Nobby Reserve]

I suppose that counts as 'a start'.

We're fucked, aren't we!?

You said two posts before this that not having kids is - to quote - "probably the single most important decision most of us individually make to affect climate change."

I'm making the change by strongly encouraging, from a distance, others not to have more than 2 kids.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You said two posts before this that not having kids is - to quote - "probably the single most important decision most of us individually make to affect climate change."

I'm making the change by strongly encouraging, from a distance, others not to have more than 2 kids.

I assumed that your 'offer' was tongue-in-cheek. Were you being serious about swapping beef for chicken meet once a month if the whole of the developing world commits to having no more than two children per couple?

[Nobby Reserve]

I assumed that your 'offer' was tongue-in-cheek. Were you being serious about swapping beef for chicken meet once a month if the whole of the developing world commits to having no more than two children per couple?

Deadly serious


 

[Jiminy Cricket]

Deadly serious

 

Then - assuming the above is sarcasm - your previous comment is a prime example of Poe's Law in action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

You said two posts before this that not having kids is - to quote - "probably the single most important decision most of us individually make to affect climate change."

I'm making the change by strongly encouraging, from a distance, others not to have more than 2 kids.

[Nobby Reserve]

Then - assuming the above is sarcasm - your previous comment is a prime example of Poe's Law in action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

 

As if I'd give up a 'beef day'!

[Red-Soldier]

And that's huge! Probably the single most important decision most of us individually make to affect climate change.

As the graphic posted above highlights, that really depends where you live, and how you live your life, doesn't it.

Nobby pointing the finger at birth rates of the Global South, whilst eating a ton a of meat a day, doesn't really cut the mustard, so to speak 

[Jiminy Cricket]

As the graphic posted above highlights, that really depends where you live, and how you live your life, doesn't it.

Nobby pointing the finger at birth rates of the Global South, whilst eating a ton a of meat a day, doesn't really cut the mustard, so to speak 

Not quite. But, by my calculation, about a ton every 6-7 years! But so long as he avoids 'waffer thin mints' to fill out the corners, he'll probably be OK. Well, except for the colon cancer, of course.

Sorry, Nobby. I am not meaning to single you out. A bit of fun at your expense is all. I know you are far from alone in the amount of meat you consume. But meat consumption is a very big issue in regard to climate change.

[reddebs]

I can thoroughly recommend this little gem:


_{https://uk.bookshop.org/books/how-bad-are-bananas-the-carbon-footprint-of-everything/9781788163811}

We are generally really good at distinguishing orders of magnitude when it comes to money - a bottle of champagne is expensive and so is a car and so is a house but we know intuitively that there are orders of magnitude between them.

With carbon very few have the same intuition and this book aims to give you a better feel for the carbon impacts of everyday things, from a text message, to a pint of beer, to a swimming pool, to a forest fire. The chapters are oganised by emissions in carbon dioide equivalent*, from under 10 g, 10-100 g, 100 g to 1 kg and so on. This helps give a sense of the relative emissions for different products and activities.
_{*(Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e is a unit that accounts for the warming effect of non-CO2 greehouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide as well as the F-gases in our refrigerators.)}

Most of the carbon emissions in a fancy coffee for example is in the milk rather than the imported beans so a large latte might have 5 times the carbon impact as an americano with a bit of milk.

Paper and card packaging generally has a higher carbon footprint than plastic, partly because it gives off methane when it decomposes. There are other reasons for minimising plastics but where packaging increases the likelihood of the food being consumed rather than wasted (extended shelf life, protection from mauling) there is a net carbon benefit because more carbon is generally emitted in growing, processing and transport.

Spoiler: How bad are bananas?

Bananas are imported mostly from Central and South America which you might think makes them relatively carbon intensive but the fact that they are grown in natural sunlight rather than hothouses, can be transported efficiently due to their excellent shelf life and are high in carbs, fibre and vitamin C means that they are really rather good.

[close]

Thanks for the info but is there nothing simple I can do like a questionnaire online whilst I've got the bug 🤔

[Red-Soldier]

Thanks for the info but is there nothing simple I can do like a questionnaire online whilst I've got the bug 🤔

Here's something Debs:

Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?

Avoiding meat and dairy products is one of the biggest ways to reduce your environmental impact, according to recent scientific studies.

Switching to a plant-based diet can help fight climate change, according to a major report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says the West's high consumption of meat and dairy is fuelling global warming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714

Beef once or twice a week:

Over an entire year your consumption of beef is contributing 604kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions.
That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 1,542 miles (2,482km).
or
the same as heating the average UK home for 95 days.
or
like taking 1 return flight from London to Malaga.
Your consumption of beef also uses
1,735m² land, equal to the space of 6 tennis courts.

Beans 1-2 times a week:

Over an entire year your consumption of beans is contributing 7kg to your annual greenhouse gas emissions.
That's the equivalent of driving a regular petrol car 20 miles (32km).
or
the same as heating the average UK home for 1.2 days.
Your consumption of beans also uses
1,905 litres of water, equal to 29 showers lasting eight minutes.

[Nobby Reserve]

But meat consumption is a very big issue in regard to climate change.

Look, I know it is. I've been a bit 'provocateur' but the underlying message is what I believe.

If we're to genuinely tackle climate changem the developed world needs to reduce its GHG's, but alongside that the developing world needs to freeze or at least severely slow down the rate of GHG increase.

The problem is that neither 'side' will.

And I like meat very much.

[reddebs]

Here's something Debs:

Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714

Perfect thanks mate 👍

[Red-Soldier]

Sadly, I hink he's right:

Nothing will change on climate until death toll rises in west, says Gabonese minister

Before Cop27, Lee White also says broken promises on funding leave sense of betrayal

The world will only take meaningful action on the climate crisis once people in rich countries start dying in greater numbers from its effects, Gabon’s environment minister has said, while warning that broken promises on billions of dollars of adaptation finance have left a “sense of betrayal” before Cop27.

Lee White said governments were not yet behaving as if global heating was a crisis, and he feared for the future he was leaving to his children. He said the $100bn of promised climate finance from rich nations was not reaching poor countries, which was driving distrust in the UN climate process.

The UN has framed Cop27, which begins next week in Sharm el-Sheikh, as “the Africa climate conference”, and loss and damage finance for countries experiencing the worst consequences of global heating will be a key issue.

“With everything that’s happened in the last year in the Horn of Africa and Pakistan – those places really count,” White said. “But with the once-in-a-500-year drought in Europe, fires in France, and the New York subway becoming Niagara Falls, we might be at a point where things are getting bad enough that developed nations start taking the climate more seriously.

“It’s a horrible thing to say but until more people in developed nations are dying because of the climate crisis, it’s not going to change,” White said.

Recent reports show how close the planet is to climate catastrophe, with scientists warning that the world has reached a “really bleak moment”.

Gabon, one of the most forested nations and home to more than half of the remaining critically endangered African forest elephants, is holding one of the largest ever sales of carbon credits, generated by protecting its portion of the Congo basin rainforest, the world’s second largest and the last that sucks in more carbon than it releases.

White said his country, which gets about 60% of its state revenue from oil, accepted that the oil economy would go and that greater emphasis needed to be placed on sustainable forestry and timber.

“We’ve not really actively promoted the death of the oil industry like Costa Rica,” he said, referencing the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance launched at Cop26 in Glasgow by the Central American country and Denmark. “We recognise that the oil industry will disappear.”

The politician, originally from Manchester, said he had seen only small amounts of climate funding for his country despite big promises, which was driving frustration with the UN climate process.

“Over and over again, developed nations have committed and not delivered. They’ve committed to reduce emissions and they’re not delivering sufficiently. They’ve committed to funding and that funding doesn’t ever seem to materialise. We didn’t create the problem and so you would expect a more sincere engagement from developed nations and you would expect them to respect their word and their engagements,” he said.

“I have three kids. I tell them that my absences are about trying to save the planet. They get it, because it’s real. We are creating a really big problem for the next generation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/31/nothing-will-change-on-climate-until-death-toll-rises-in-west-says-gabonese-minister-aoe

[Jiminy Cricket]

Sadly, I hink he's right:

Nothing will change on climate until death toll rises in west, says Gabonese minister

Before Cop27, Lee White also says broken promises on funding leave sense of betrayal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/31/nothing-will-change-on-climate-until-death-toll-rises-in-west-says-gabonese-minister-aoe

Yep. Absolutely.

Frankly, I believe the Developed World will turn its back on Africa and other parts of the world which will be hardest hit by climate change. Developed nations will argue - and they will have a point - that they cannot possibly support their own populations and mass diaspora measured in the hundreds of millions at a time when they too are suffering the consequences of reduced food production because of climate change. It will be so bad, there will be mass denial - a collective burying of heads in hands out of shame. The West will turn their backs and blank it because they will know that it they (us) who are the most responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions while we get off relatively scott-free. Only 'relatively', but enough for the West to concentrate on their own losses and ignore the far greater losses from afar. Lee White, the Gabonese minister, is absolutely correct in his assessment.

No, I don't believe I am exaggerating at all. It could still be largely averted, but the world (particularly The West) are still totally unwilling to grasp the nettle. When they are willing to do something, it will be far too late. You've only to look at how difficult it was to cajole our populations into minimal action over a little blip called 'COVID'. Because, in comparison, that all COVID is/was.

[thejbs]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/01/polluting-elite-enormous-carbon-dioxide-emissions-gap-between-poorest-autonomy-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.

The findings highlight the enormous gaps between what have been termed “the polluting elite”, whose high-carbon lifestyles fuel the climate crisis, and the majority of people, even in developed countries, whose carbon footprints are far smaller.

It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.

[thejbs]

Could there be a tax on private jets? Like, based on their occupancy? Set rates based on jet aircraft’s taking off with less than X passengers?

[Jiminy Cricket]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/01/polluting-elite-enormous-carbon-dioxide-emissions-gap-between-poorest-autonomy-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.

You know, I find it irritating when journalists oversimplify percentages: '11%' becomes 'more than 'one in ten',* etc. But I find the inability to distill the numbers into something more understandable irritating too. That sentence fails to distill the disparity. It would be better to write: The top 1% produce carbon dioxide emissions at a rate of 200 that of those in the bottom 10%. I digress.

* Apart from the unnecessary simplification, it would be more accurate to state 11% as 'one in nine' - so, it is doubly annoying when they do that.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Could there be a tax on private jets? Like, based on their occupancy? Set rates based on jet aircraft’s taking off with less than X passengers?

A properly organised carbon tax should take care of that. I expect all this is coming - it will too late, of course.

[Crumble]

* Apart from the unnecessary simplification, it would be more accurate to state 11% as 'one in eleven' - so, it is doubly annoying when they do that.

One in nine. /pedant

[Jiminy Cricket]

One in nine. /pedant

D'oh. Because I have just written '11%' of course. Still, unfortunate! Now corrected.

[reddebs]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/01/polluting-elite-enormous-carbon-dioxide-emissions-gap-between-poorest-autonomy-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.

The findings highlight the enormous gaps between what have been termed “the polluting elite”, whose high-carbon lifestyles fuel the climate crisis, and the majority of people, even in developed countries, whose carbon footprints are far smaller.

It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.

Yeah but it's all ok cos they plant a few trees to level it all out.

[A Complete Flop]

I think one of the great problems with tackling climate change is messaging. The general population has a tiny attention span and for the last few years maybe even decades the messaging has been that we've reached a tipping point or this is our last chance etc... Most people i know are blue in the face hearing about it and let's be honest if it's not directly effecting your life you just get on with that life and ignore the warnings.

It's all and good saying buy an electric car or spend 100k retrofitting the house but when you are just focused on the next meal or keeping the heating on that kind of stuff is a million miles away. Not saying that line of thinking is good but it is a reality for many, the vast majority i'd argue.

[Nobby Reserve]

Could there be a tax on private jets? Like, based on their occupancy? Set rates based on jet aircraft’s taking off with less than X passengers?

That wouldn't really cut GHG emissions, just make the super-rich pay a bit more out of their vast fortunes.

If we're serious, we need to start rationing highly impactful activities - like flying. Allow people just 2 or 4 flights a year. For the vast majority, that wouldn't impact them. But the seriously high-polluting 'elite' would need to restrict. Spread that to other areas, like banning non-goods vehicles that produce more than 'x' amount of GHG's (like huge Chelsea tractors and supercars). Taking it further, perhaps an annual 'energy allowance'

As with many such issues, you can't implement such policy unilaterally, as these elites are globally-mobile more than ever. And the UK is out of the EU.

[reddebs]

That wouldn't really cut GHG emissions, just make the super-rich pay a bit more out of their vast fortunes.

If we're serious, we need to start rationing highly impactful activities - like flying. Allow people just 2 or 4 flights a year. For the vast majority, that wouldn't impact them. But the seriously high-polluting 'elite' would need to restrict. Spread that to other areas, like banning non-goods vehicles that produce more than 'x' amount of GHG's (like huge Chelsea tractors and supercars). Taking it further, perhaps an annual 'energy allowance'

As with many such issues, you can't implement such policy unilaterally, as these elites are globally-mobile more than ever. And the UK is out of the EU.

They'd have to stop all top level sport.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

No, I don't believe I am exaggerating at all. It could still be largely averted, but the world (particularly The West) are still totally unwilling to grasp the nettle. When they are willing to do something, it will be far too late. You've only to look at how difficult it was to cajole our populations into minimal action over a little blip called 'COVID'. Because, in comparison, that all COVID is/was.

You're not exaggerating, but by the time it gets to that point frankly it's game over.

[Red-Soldier]

That wouldn't really cut GHG emissions, just make the super-rich pay a bit more out of their vast fortunes.

If we're serious, we need to start rationing highly impactful activities - like flying. Allow people just 2 or 4 flights a year.

Two to four flights a year is still excessive.  How about allowing 1 flight, every 3-5 years.......  I guess that means you'd have to take another one for the team 

How your flight emits as much CO2 as many people do in a year

Even short-haul flights produce huge amounts of CO2, figures show

Taking a long-haul flight generates more carbon emissions than the average person in dozens of countries around the world produces in a whole year, a new Guardian analysis has found.

The figures highlight the disproportionate carbon footprint of those who can afford to fly, with even a short-haul return flight from London to Edinburgh contributing more CO2 than the mean annual emissions of a person in Uganda or Somalia.

2019 is forecast to be another record-breaking year for air travel, with passengers expected to fly a total of 8.1tn km, up 5% from last year and more than 300% since 1990.

According to figures from German nonprofit Atmosfair, flying from London to New York and back generates about 986kg of CO2 per passenger. There are 56 countries where the average person emits less carbon dioxide in a whole year – from Burundi in Africa to Paraguay in South America.

But even a relatively short return trip from London to Rome carries a carbon footprint of 234kg of CO2 per passenger – more than the average produced by citizens of 17 countries annually.

The figures are averages taking into account which aircraft models are typically used on flight routes, and the estimated occupancy of seats on board those planes. The figures include only the CO2 generated by burning jet fuel, not any emissions embedded in the construction of the plane or any other greenhouse gases that might be produced, such as water vapour.

Aviation emissions could triple in the next three decades

The aviation sector currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions, and is one of the fastest-growing polluters.

According to projections from researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University, emissions from the sector could more than double by 2050 even if planes become substantially more fuel-efficient and airlines save additional carbon by optimising their operations.

Under a less optimistic scenario, a lower level of fuel savings could lead emissions to triple by 2050.

“The increase in traffic has historically outpaced the improvements in technology,” says Dr John Broderick, who researches climate policy and international transport at the University of Manchester.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year

[Nobby Reserve]

Two to four flights a year is still excessive.  How about allowing 1 flight, every 3-5 years.......  I guess that means you'd have to take another one for the team 

Tsk! Me again!! 


 

[Red-Soldier]

Tsk! Me again!! 


 

Joking aside, I think 2-4 flights a year is a lot.  However, it's nothing when compared to how many times a person could use a private jet (could easily be in the 10s - 100s).

It's just another issue that highlights the inequality of it all.

[Schmidt]

Joking aside, I think 2-4 flights a year is a lot.  However, it's nothing when compared to how many times a person could use a private jet (could easily be in the 10s - 100s).

It's just another issue that highlights the inequality of it all.

I'm assuming by two flights you mean two flights and return trips? Otherwise I think your "1 flight" suggestion might struggle to gain support!

[Elmo!]

What about connecting flights? I can't go many places direct from Aberdeen.... does a trip to say Budapest like I am doing next month, which goes via Heathrow count as one flight, 2 flights (there and back), or 4 flights (2 flights there, 2 flights back)?

Also, does this include work flights (only flights I have done since pre-covid have been work flights)?

[Red-Soldier]

People who want to end oil and gas industry have 'no clue', says fossil fuel CEO

Fossil fuel CEO Vicki Hollub has said people who call for the end of the oil and gas industry “have no clue what that would mean” and refused to say whether she accepted her company’s role in climate disasters.

Speaking on decarbonisation day at Cop27, Hollub, who heads Occidental Petroleum, said mounting extreme climate events, such as this year’s deadly flooding in Pakistan and drought in the horn of Africa, were the responsibility of individuals, not just the oil and gas industry.

When asked by a Guardian reporter if she felt any personal responsibility for natural disasters made worse by climate change, she said:

    This is not a problem that just the oil and gas industry has. Everybody that uses a product that was generated from oil and gas has a part in this and is also responsible. Your iPhone, you are responsible for that. If you flew over here, you are responsible for what you used here. The nice clothes you are wearing right now, you are responsible. If we don’t all step up and take accountability, this doesn’t happen. You are still there thinking ‘oil and gas companies need to go away, they need to shut down their production’. You don’t understand what would happen to you if we did that. Your television goes away, … driving goes away. That’s why the transition has to be better designed. We’ve got to be much more thoughtful.

She added:

People who run round saying ‘oil and gas needs to go away’ have no clue what that would mean. I’m saying the world is responsible … Don’t ask me about oil and gas without taking some responsibility yourself and helping others understand. You have a way to help others understand that if you don’t step up.

Hollub was speaking at a CEO armchair event on corporate leadership and net zero, where she discussed Occidental Petroleum’s fossil fuel assets in the Permian basin in the southwest US and the Middle East, and the company’s investment in carbon capture technology.

She was at Cop27 as part of the UAE delegation, which will host next year’s Cop28 in Dubai. In 2017, Occidental Petroleum was listed as 55th in a Carbon Majors Report report listing the top 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions between 1988 and 2015.