Climate Change

[kaosmark2]

4 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If the world acts now and acts fast then no it's not too late. We can if we want stop things soon and reverse to a certain extent. Sadly though the world seems lacking in any desire to stop.

 

I don't even think it's the world lacking desire, it's the industrial capitalist complex that doesn't. Several countries are already seeing disaster and massive climate problems as a result of what's been done, but the rich need to get richer and those of us doing "middling" in wealthy countries aren't willing to reduce our own consumerism.

[kaosmark2]

25 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

One day in the not too distant future China will reach 'net zero' (a meaningless thing in reality) and the rest of the developed world will lose their excuse for not acting................................ so will then blame India instead. 

This is the depressing thing. Particularly as the developed world will point their fingers, while still buying all those products from India.

[steviewevie]

18 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I should have said those running the world that have no desire - cos they really don't as, as you rightly say, they want to get richer.

One day in the not too distant future China will reach 'net zero' (a meaningless thing in reality) and the rest of the developed world will lose their excuse for not acting................................ so will then blame India instead. Countries like the UK will fiddle while the world burns pretending to be taking action with policies that soon get scrapped.

I am so glad I am not young.

China's net zero goals are later than US/Europe, right? They pushed back on the original goals set at that Glasgow COP, along with India. Maybe they will get there earlier, they are certainly at the forefront of green tech and can think long term and plan accordingly because they don't have to worry about something called democracy, but US/EU are ploughing loads of money into this too. I think just blaming the evil west or evil capitalism is kind of lame, no matter what system a country has they still want to build and have more stuff. The problem is on top of developed countries and their massive carbon spewing economies we have all the developing countries, they want to build, they want to use loads of cement and loads of steel and have all the things that developed countries have, and now we're saying sorry...no can do.

[steviewevie]

and the thing with China and India is that both these countries have been developing rapidly, especially China...and between them they have 1/3 of the world's population.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

and neither are any excuse for others to do nothing.................. but are and will be used in just that way

countries aren't doing nothing, they have their net zero goals which they will be held to, as do China and India. Granted it is easier for some countries to hit those goals.

[kaosmark2]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

China's net zero goals are later than US/Europe, right? They pushed back on the original goals set at that Glasgow COP, along with India. Maybe they will get there earlier, they are certainly at the forefront of green tech and can think long term and plan accordingly because they don't have to worry about something called democracy, but US/EU are ploughing loads of money into this too. I think just blaming the evil west or evil capitalism is kind of lame, no matter what system a country has they still want to build and have more stuff. The problem is on top of developed countries and their massive carbon spewing economies we have all the developing countries, they want to build, they want to use loads of cement and loads of steel and have all the things that developed countries have, and now we're saying sorry...no can do.

Yes to basically all this.

The "unfairness" of the West benefiting from the industrial revolution and no other countries being "allowed" to is a big part of why negotiations allowed later net zero. That said, China will certainly beat the US and probably beat most EU countries to net zero.

I think it's fair to comment on the problems of capitalism, "replace" over "fix/recycle/refurbish" has been a thing for a long time, and the economics that lead to it being quicker, easier, and usually cheaper to just get a new thing should be called out.

A big big question is going to be what green technology China develops, and then whether they actually choose to share it with the rest of the world. I can very much see a situation where China makes some brilliant advances in non-carbon technology, but declines to share the methods and only sells a sample of the products, leaving the rest of the world playing catch-up to China.

[steviewevie]

Us is investing heavily in this stuff too. I wonder if Trump will change direction if he gets in...?

[steviewevie]

Fond this...a few African nations leading the way...US/Europe not so good...China and India even worse...and as for Russia..

Countries | Climate Action Tracker

(not sure how up to date).

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

The UK has rolled back on 95% of their policies. Germany has started to delay too.

I can guarantee that unless some creative accounting is used by using Carbon Credits very few, if any, countries in Europe will meet their net zero targets.

To meet them things needed to be started 10 plus years ago - even if we start on mass today we will not change quick enough. We would be 5-10 years late.

The only way things will be 'met' is carbon credits which will become more valuable than gold.

might get worse...the populist right which is on the rise everywhere has put net zero on their list of things that are bad.

[kaosmark2]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Fond this...a few African nations leading the way...US/Europe not so good...China and India even worse...and as for Russia..

Countries | Climate Action Tracker

(not sure how up to date).

You can kinda see the self-interest. Those African countries will suffer a lot from climate catastrophes, so are making a proportionally bigger effort. Norway is interesting, and I suspect is largely to do with the fact they're selling off their remaining Oil reserves instead of burning it themselves - simultaneously creative accounting and good economics. Although they're also at fairly high risk of shifted currents with the ice caps melting etc.

[steviewevie]

27 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

You can kinda see the self-interest. Those African countries will suffer a lot from climate catastrophes, so are making a proportionally bigger effort. Norway is interesting, and I suspect is largely to do with the fact they're selling off their remaining Oil reserves instead of burning it themselves - simultaneously creative accounting and good economics. Although they're also at fairly high risk of shifted currents with the ice caps melting etc.

but also those African countries aren't emitting anywhere near the amount that more developed countries are, so have less to do to achieve et zero goals? If you look at graphs China/India emissions have been rapidly rising so they have to halt that and reverse, which is probably why needed more time. USA/Canada were at a high level consistently, and in Europe levels had been coming down since the 90s I guess as many of their industries moved abroad and they moved away from coal?

Anyway, no one is doing very well...and we won't hit goals..but hopefully what is done will stop us getting above 3C because anything less is unrealistic I expect.

Edited February 19, 2024 by steviewevie

[kaosmark2]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

but also those African countries aren't emitting anywhere near the amount that more developed countries are, so have less to do to achieve et zero goals? If you look at graphs China/India emissions have been rapidly rising so they have to halt that and reverse, which is probably why needed more time. USA/Canada were at a high level consistently, and in Europe levels had been coming down since the 90s I guess as many of they're industries moved abroad and they moved away from coal?

Anyway, no one is doing very well...and we won't hit goals..but hopefully what is done will stop us getting above 3C because anything less is unrealistic I expect.

Yeah, although they're not tacking into carbon emissions intentionally, in a way that they could/would do without the threat of climate crisis. You compare to India, where India are making an active choice to industrialise large parts of their country/economy using fossil fuels, and ignoring the state of the globe (and like... anything about their farmers having even a hint of right to food they grow).

[steviewevie]

 

[lazyred]

Some goid news for once. We're pulling out of a treaty that allows investors to sue for losses caused by net zero policies

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/22/uk-quits-treaty-that-lets-fossil-fuel-firms-sue-governments-over-climate-policies

[steviewevie]

14 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If we carry on (the world over) how we are now and by that I mean the rate of reduction etc this is a map of the UK in 2100

Hope you can swim.

quite like that

[kerplunk]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

quite like that

Except it's a bonkers wildly unrealistic and unsupportable outlook.

Appears to be what the UK would look like if all the ice sheets on earth melted completely causing sea levels to rise by 70m.

Even if the world warmed enough for that to happen (quite unlikely) it would take many thousands of years.

 

[kerplunk]

On 2/19/2024 at 8:30 AM, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Pretty much all as predicted in the 1990's, only around 10 years sooner than they thought...................... a huge escalation in change as tipping points are reached and passed.

If you want to despress yourself look at those predictions and then look at those for 2050 if little or nothing is done. We are on course for those in 2035-2040 at the moment.

Which 10yrs sooner than thought 1990's predictions are you referring to here?

[kerplunk]

 

 

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

The info is out there and really easy to find.

Right, I think I'll just disregard your claim as unsupported

[Neil]

All that cos someone dared to disagree with you. 

[steviewevie]

Yeah but is that map of Britain in 2100 realistic? Because not sure catastrophising with unrealistic worst case scenarios helps the cause.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

. nice try scoring petty points.

you with every post, like where you presumed he was a denier cos he disagreed with you, for all you know he knows more about climate change than you.

Edited February 25, 2024 by Neil

[steviewevie]

Quite like all those islands if true...will it be tropical?

[Paul ™]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Quite like all those islands if true...will it be tropical?

Extra couple of degrees going by the claims...

[steviewevie]

This is what is going to happen.

 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

When you spend 25 plus years dealing with deniers etc you know how they work................ and trust me, I know how they work, but you won't believe that will you.

Did you read all the links after you upvoted his dismissing post? No, of course you didn't

Do you eat meat?

I know @fraybentos1has asked this lost but you always ignore it.

a portion of vegetable matter creates the same methane, whether from a cow or a vegan, (you'll have a point when you've got fart-free beans.)

land has been cleared for cattle and land has been cleared for vegetables.