climate change

[iNow]

The primary debate is that the solution proposed is still too tepid and doesn’t go far enough. 

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

The primary debate is that the solution proposed is still too tepid and doesn’t go far enough. 

I see, thank you. I couldn't figure out what 'this' in the beginning of the paragraph refers to.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People like Greta Thunberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg in my humble opinion don't help matters. She recently deleted a twitter message she posted back in 2018 where she stated that in 5 years time we will be all wiped out if we don't act now. 

No, she didn’t. Right-wing pundits claimed this, but they are known to lie quite often. Common when it comes to climate change. And everything else.

The tweet doesn’t say what they assert.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-greta-thunberg-delete-claim-that-humanity-will-end-2023-1787420

“inaccurate to claim that Thunberg's tweet or the article she referenced said the world was going to end this year”

 

Try to avoid using dubious sources, and, in any event, provide references for claims made by others.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Is there?

Nope.

😀

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

More in depth investigation to find irrefutable evidence that human carbon emissions is the key factor in climate change.

Done.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The problem with the second option is that no one can afford it and industry across the globe would collapse. 

This is pure industry propaganda. The facts are that industry can't afford NOT to adapt to changing climates, and trillion-dollar losses are predicted if something isn't done to mitigate the impact. About 80% of industry around the globe depends on stable supply chains, and the costs when these are disrupted is staggering. Personally, I think there are some extremist capitalists keeping up this propaganda because they make hideous profits when disasters strike and there's nobody else to turn to, and they see climate change as an opportunity for profit, so they spread the BS that no one can afford it and industry across the globe would collapse, adding that dung to the small-government dung many conservatives spread regularly. 

[Ken Fabian]

All the justifications and excuses Intoscience has referenced and many more will be used relentlessly to limit our global efforts to a lot less than the world is capable of, but I do find the blaming the messengers and claiming if they didn't say it was so serious it would be taken more seriously by people who don't want to do anything about it especially mind boggling. If people (NOT echoing the IPCC) had been saying it won't be that bad we'd get more support for strong emissions reductions efforts? Bizzare, and yet it is an argument that lots of people - who have been primed to believe the climate problem isn't really serious and don't want to do anything about it - appear to buy. It isn't about doing anything better, just pure excuse and justification for continuing to be dangerously irresponsible.

People telling it like it is like Greta are blamed for people ignoring the IPCC report telling it like it is (tldr, too doomist?), despite the first IPCC report not just coming before Greta was even born but being the "sure" part of "let's be sure before we do anything".

The IPCC is portrayed as too unduly influenced by woke snowflakes and environmentalists and globalist/socialist/atheist scientists to be trusted, despite it's reports being the combined effort of the world's leading science agencies and probably the most scrutinised science ever. The science on climate change is a jewel in the crown of science and modern civilisation, the decades of warning providing a priceless window for acting ahead of time to prevent dangerous change to our world. Spat on, trampled, driven over. Yet it gets up again.

A lot to be pessimistic about yet enough people in high places still take it seriously that it can't be dismissed, enough people across all walks of life take it seriously. The one area that offers optimism is renewable energy and that is only because it has gotten cheap enough to be taken up at large scale -

Edited March 22, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[Peterkin]

Any idea how much of the biomass represented there is from trees?

[Ken Fabian]

40 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Any idea how much of the biomass represented there is from trees?

No, but likely it is a large part of it. I don't think woodchip burning will be a big help - help a bit, maybe, under responsible management. Seems to me it is people and interest apart from those genuinely committed to zero emissions - forestry and operators of coal plants that can use it in greenwash style mostly - that have promoted it. Environmentalist mostly oppose it.

Like carbon offsets and CCS it looks more like a way to delay commitment to more substantive investments in lower emissions options. It is the wind and solar contributions that I find impressive and cause for some cautious optimism.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The one area that offers optimism is renewable energy and that is only because it has gotten cheap enough to be taken up at large scale

Which is likely a result of being subsidized a decade ago, which spurred R&D and investment in manufacturing. Higher efficiency and economy of scale makes for a good feedback loop.

[MigL]

This is the reason why emission targets will continue to be missed by most countries 

along with some put downs of 'woke' culture.
All I ask is that you actually watch it before you neg rep me, as I would be very interested in your opinion, and ways to work around the problems of trying to reach emission targets.

[Peterkin]

"combat racism by treating people based solely on the content of their character" "woke culture that we must all oppose" "our culture" "western values" Having made those points, three times, he will not make any of those points for the fourth time. "That's all." (He's just getting started.)  "You wish to save the planet. And for tonight, and tonight only, I will join you." "in worshipping at the feet of St. Greta of climate change." "Let us all accept... that we are living though a state of climate emergency... I join you in this myth." "What are we going to do about it?" "It's going to be decided in Asia and Latin America by poor people who couldn't give a shit about the planet"

Sorry, that's all I had the stomach for. 

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is pure industry propaganda. The facts are that industry can't afford NOT to adapt to changing climates, and trillion-dollar losses are predicted if something isn't done to mitigate the impact. About 80% of industry around the globe depends on stable supply chains, and the costs when these are disrupted is staggering. Personally, I think there are some extremist capitalists keeping up this propaganda because they make hideous profits when disasters strike and there's nobody else to turn to, and they see climate change as an opportunity for profit, so they spread the BS that no one can afford it and industry across the globe would collapse, adding that dung to the small-government dung many conservatives spread regularly. 

Interestingly the company I work for is desperately struggling to meet carbon reduction targets due to lack of finances. The government is making it very difficult to get funding for initiatives. I sit on many discussion boards within my industry and the trend is the same, even though we are all collaborating to try and road map a solution. Every single company will fail to meet the targets for 2050 or collapse trying to do so, so the 2040 is out of the question unless there is some radical improvement in cheap and accessible clean energy. So I'd say its more than just industry propaganda. I'm actually experiencing the consequences of this unrealistic ideology, people are and will lose jobs, companies are failing.    

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The one area that offers optimism is renewable energy and that is only because it has gotten cheap enough to be taken up at large scale

That's just not true, I have spent the last 5 years investigating renewable energy for the company I work for. The investment is high, the payback is low and takes a long period of time. That's assuming its practical to implement, regulate and maintain.  

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Sometimes the truth is scary and needs to be spoken plainly. 40-50 years of using the approach you advocate hasn’t been getting it done  

The truth?? are you kidding me. There has been back and forth on this issue for 50 years. 

The UK carbon emissions represent around 1% of the total global emissions. It's estimated that the current carbon emission reduction in total since 1990 is around 30%+ which is good. But what affect has this had on total global emissions? 

  

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Which is likely a result of being subsidized a decade ago, which spurred R&D and investment in manufacturing. Higher efficiency and economy of scale makes for a good feedback loop.

Nope, R&D investment in manufacturing is desperately under funded. Higher efficiencies experienced by manufacturers is being negated and the savings far out weighed by the investment in trying to achieve net zero.    

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

people are and will lose jobs, companies are failing.    

Blacksmiths also went out of business when cars were invented. Film companies when digital photography took hold. Blackberry and Nokia phones after the iPhone. 

This circumstance is so common it even has a name in the study of economics: Creative Destruction. 

I’m not saying that the impact to people and families isn’t real nor difficult, only that you may as well be decrying how the wind blows or the rains fall. It happens. It will keep happening. Not everyone can win all of the time, but we ALL lose if we keep ignoring this. 

41 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The truth?? are you kidding me.

No. Not kidding at all, and TBH am not at all clear where specifically you’re suggesting we disagree. 

42 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

what affect has this had on total global emissions? 

Not nearly enough 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Nope, R&D investment in manufacturing is desperately under funded.

Citation?

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Higher efficiencies experienced by manufacturers is being negated and the savings far out weighed by the investment in trying to achieve net zero

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. What’s been negated?

Solar cell efficiency has increased over time, and the cost per watt has dropped even faster.

https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/history-of-pv-technology/

(see that? It’s a link that supports my claim - graphs that quantify the increase in efficiency and drop in cost)

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The UK carbon emissions represent around 1% of the total global emissions.  

4.6%

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

[MigL]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Sorry, that's all I had the stomach for. 

Then you missed the important part which comes after the 'woke' put downs.
Open your mind.
If you don't understand other people's motivation, you will never get along with them, or convince them to your way of thinking.

And this problem won't be solved by only the 'woke' people doing their part; it needs the efforts of everyone.

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then you missed the important part which comes after the 'woke' put downs.
Open your mind.
If you don't understand other people's motivation, you will never get along with them, or convince them to your way of thinking.

And this problem won't be solved by only the 'woke' people doing their part; it needs the efforts of everyone.

I largely agree, especially the last part; but most people are just happy to be left alone, to enjoy what little comfort they can from this "bitter sweet symphony of life". 

If you can find a way to merge that way of thinking with comfort and good hard work, then by George (Orwell) I think we've cracked it... 🤞 

Edited March 23, 2023 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

4.6%

There seems to be differing reports out there on the exact figure. Most offering somewhere between 1%- 4%.   

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

There seems to be differing reports out there on the exact figure. Most offering somewhere between 1%- 4%.   

The actual number is largely unimportant, because it represents millions of tonnes of shit we don't want and can't dump, without stinking up the neighbourhood...  

Edited March 23, 2023 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Interestingly the company I work for is desperately struggling to meet carbon reduction targets due to lack of finances. The government is making it very difficult to get funding for initiatives. I sit on many discussion boards within my industry and the trend is the same, even though we are all collaborating to try and road map a solution. Every single company will fail to meet the targets for 2050 or collapse trying to do so, so the 2040 is out of the question unless there is some radical improvement in cheap and accessible clean energy. So I'd say its more than just industry propaganda. I'm actually experiencing the consequences of this unrealistic ideology, people are and will lose jobs, companies are failing. 

I'd have to see what kind of money your company is sending to its stockholders and C suite before I could assess why they're struggling with finances. I just know virtually every major company blames regulations for their woes, yet they usually don't reduce executive salaries and bonuses as an option.

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Solar cell efficiency has increased over time, and the cost per watt has dropped even faster

Solar cell efficiency may have increased and cost per watt dropped. But its not a practical application that can be implemented for many sectors, and in many cases only reduces power consumption by a very small margin for a high investment. 

For our company to reduce our overall electrical power assumption from the national grid by 10% requires over 600 solar cell panels. These at full capacity will offer 10% of the total power requirements for our manufacturing process. The site cannot accommodate this system. we even enquired about renting an adjacent unused field to accommodate the panels but planning permission was refused. 

There are lots of initiatives that in principle maybe options but many in practical terms just aren't viable and/or you run in to road blocks which hinder opportunities such as planning or environmental protection legislation...   

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'd have to see what kind of money your company is sending to its stockholders and C suite before I could assess why they're struggling with finances. I just know virtually every major company blames regulations for their woes, yet they usually don't reduce executive salaries and bonuses as an option.

I'm in agreement with you on this one. I find it very disturbing when the company owners propagate and seemingly support carbon reduction but don't advocate changing themselves. 

Our company owner is an avid activist who chairs many of the working groups for climate change. Yet she continues to jet set around the world, have numerous homes, takes a large salary and I'm sure her dividends.

But In my position I get to see our finances and honestly regardless of her salary (which to be fair is quite modest compared to other company directors of similar size/turn overs) would make little difference to the investment required enable our company to reach net zero. the financial impact is already happening and is not going away. Talking to the financial director, she has high concerns and the current models suggest the company will fold within the next 3 years unless something radical happens. 

Just to be clear the total financial crisis is not solely down to investment in carbon net zero. there are many factors, some which I won't go into because it will just spark more adverse reaction. But it is a major factor that isn't going away and as yet there is no solution.      

[Peterkin]

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you don't understand other people's motivation, you will never get along with them, or convince them to your way of thinking.

That was never within the realm of possibility with sharks like this guy. 

[Intoscience]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The actual number is largely unimportant, because it represents millions of tonnes of shit we don't want and can't dump, without stinking up the neighbourhood.

My point is focus should be towards those which contribute the most. A blanket initiative is not only unfair but also not productive.

If the UK reduces its contribution to zero then the total emissions will be 4% less, very difficult to achieve. A country that produces significantly more towards total global emissions may only need to reduce their total by say a 50% factor to make a much larger difference, something that maybe much easier to achieve. 

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, I'm a fan of energy saving initiatives. I promote and drive this in my company. But I'm against scaremongering propaganda tactics which may have a massive impact on the small person in the group.    

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That was never within the realm of possibility with sharks like this guy

Sharks? Is that what you call people who's opinion you don't agree with? 

There are always 2 sides to every story the trick is to find a common ground. 

[CharonY]

I think the issue is that we have known that it was coming for decades. With some sort of addressing the issue back then the impact could have been larger with modest changes. The urgency now is really driven but the fact that weather patterns seem to change within our lifetime whether it is true or not. Sure, we likely can leave it to future generations to sort out. However empirically we have seen that without urgency we won't do anything. And heck even with, we barely care. I mean, who notices 6 million or more deaths, nowadays anymore?

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

My point is focus should be towards those which contribute the most.

To what?

And don't say the economy, that rabbit hole is very deep indeed.

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If the UK reduces its contribution to zero then the total emissions will be 4% less, very difficult to achieve. A country that produces significantly more towards total global emissions may only need to reduce their total by say a 50% factor to make a much larger difference, something that maybe much easier to achieve. 

Ask not for whom this bell tolls...

It's kinda my signature... 😉 

Edited March 23, 2023 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That's just not true, I have spent the last 5 years investigating renewable energy for the company I work for. The investment is high, the payback is low and takes a long period of time. That's assuming its practical to implement, regulate and maintain.  

It can't all happen at the level of individual companies.  Renewable energy happens, if it happens, at a national level (that's the whole point of Biden clean energy bill in the US) with masssive infrastructure (like grid upgrades to handle moving the various types of renewable energy around) investment, tax credits to help the initial costs of throwing up windmills etc, residential tax credits and rebates, subsidies to companies that put in conservation measures and on-site renewable installs, etc.  Your company needs to join with other companies and lobby the government - if you want us to turn wind into widgets, you need to help capitalize those wind-grabbers, and put up high-V lines to get it to our factory, and subsidize the transition costs.  IOW, every taxpayer needs to chip in and do the right thing, to get Isles that runs on tides, winds, sun (on the rare occasions it appears over there), and other renewables.  

Companies doing this alone is a straw man.  Huge sea changes require that massive public consortium we call government.