Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Climate Change


kalifire

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, kerplunk said:

Lots of questions over it, but how is it cheating when the goal is *net* zero?

It allows us to keep on using fossil fuels which is extremely foolish in the long term, and delays us making the necessary adjustments to our over consumption 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

It allows us to keep on using fossil fuels which is extremely foolish in the long term, and delays us making the necessary adjustments to our over consumption 

I think point is that will probably still need to be using fossil fuels for a while, for things like steel and concrete. So having both carbon capture along with a reduction of fossil fuels best way to hit targets so quickly. But as pointed out in that document lots of people like George Monbiot disagree and think all we need to do is go back to being hunter gatherers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

It allows us to keep on using fossil fuels which is extremely foolish in the long term, and delays us making the necessary adjustments to our over consumption 

 

The 'ball' is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

 

All of the emissions scenarios for limiting warming by the end of the century call for negative emissions to achieve, and the more we overshoot in the meantime the more negative emissions needed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If continue to see higher than expected temperatures and climate change actually worse than forecast then they might have to do something radical alongside speeding up a reduction in fossil fuel use...some geoengineering stuff...injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool us down a bit...that sort of stuff.

But then that would mean some sort of global agreement, so probably unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

 

"Another prominent theory is a reduction in the number of small particles in the atmosphere, known as aerosols"

 

I'm subscribed to James Hansen's updates - he was banging the drum about a 'Faustian payment' coming in due to reduced aerosols prior to the bonkers record breaking global av temps of the last couple of years.

 

Latest analysis just published here:

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

If continue to see higher than expected temperatures and climate change actually worse than forecast then they might have to do something radical alongside speeding up a reduction in fossil fuel use...some geoengineering stuff...injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool us down a bit...that sort of stuff.

But then that would mean some sort of global agreement, so probably unlikely.

 

 

We could blame China again for cleaning up their dirty coal burning act

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, kerplunk said:

Lots of questions over it, but how is it cheating when the goal is *net* zero?

I'd say the biggest way it's cheating is sometimes the same carbon capture credits are sold to multiple companies. I don't have a problem with the technology, but the global regulation around buying/selling carbon credits is f**ked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'd say the biggest way it's cheating is sometimes the same carbon capture credits are sold to multiple companies. I don't have a problem with the technology, but the global regulation around buying/selling carbon credits is f**ked.

 

 

Well that would clearly be cheating obviously, but has little to do with the method itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Over 10 years ago the economist Nicholas Stern told us that going down the green route would be far less expensive than continuing as we were

I mean it's pretty obvious and for those concerned about migration then they aint seen nothing yet ....  the idiots fall will likely fall into the climate denial category also 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

I mean it's pretty obvious and for those concerned about migration then they aint seen nothing yet ....  the idiots fall will likely fall into the climate denial category also 

Yeah, the reasons for going down the green route are numerous, almost endless. 
 

And even if climate change was a hoax, going green all round would lead to healthier, happier lives and a far more pleasant environment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...