climate change

[Intoscience]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

To what?

Carbon emissions.

look at the high contributors and ask why it's so high, and what, if anything they can do to reduce it. If they can't, then ask why/ and then investigate what can be done to help them to achieve it. 

Scaring the little piggy who lives in a straw house that he needs to knock it down and build a brick one before mister wolf comes is not really helpful, especially so if little piggy hasn't the resource to build a new house. What would help is supporting him with the resource/to find the resource and offering him shelter while he does so.   

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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

I agree totally,

We are joining with other companies working in collaboration to achieve NetZero. But it isn't enough, some funding is available, but each level of funding has to be matched by the companies and it's for innovation only, not for implementation! Let alone the hurdles we face to meet the funding requirements. Like I said R&D is massively under funded at this level. Yet the government is expecting individual companies to do their personal bit! 

The big players are expecting the small players to contribute at their level. this is non attainable and just down right naughty. Then the government uses scaremongering tactics in an attempt to bring people inline. How about they offer a helping hand instead? 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Carbon emissions.

That's like driving a coach towards a cliff and hoping it runs out of petrol before we get there... 

Edited March 23, 2023 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That's like driving a coach towards a cliff and hoping it runs out of petrol before we get there... 

Nope, its like driving a coach with a full tank and expecting you to empty it before the cliff with no way of doing so.  

[studiot]

41 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.

 

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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.    

I agree that there are a great many individuals in the world that feel powerles by themselves and actualy resentful of the fact that the literally can't make a different whatever they do.

I certainly feel like that.

This is especially sad since the totality of such folk is probably actually what is often referred to as "the silent majority".

 

Our society actively promotes greed on a massive scale and this, combined with beaurocratic obstructionism and downright fraudlent secretism and (mis)use of public  resources for private gain.

55 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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

1% or 4%  ?

Well I suspect the scandalous cover up of Drax has much to do with it.

is Drax bio friendly or very very bio unfriendly ?

 

44 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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. 

I sympathise with the planning refusal, especially as 6000 solar cells for the whole of your company's requirements, would not be so vey many. We have larger solar farms in the south west already.
But there is currently an argument from objectors to a new one, because standard application practice has become to simply show the panel array and not mention the complex of ugly battery housing containers that are necessary to make the project viable.

Yet this is nothing compared to the way the state supports new 90% of the oil drilling finances in the North Sea, whilst offering exactly zero support for solar and wind alternatives, unless they service a tax deductable drilling platform.
I was shocked to learn this  -  source a recent BBC Countryfile investigation.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Nope, its like driving a coach with a full tank and expecting you to empty it before the cliff with no way of doing so.  

Na, that's more like the "Italian Job", drop the gold or die, you fooking IDIOT...

Edited March 23, 2023 by dimreepr

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

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

Until you show a source, your number is fiction.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

look at the high contributors and ask why it's so high,

For that, it is important to look at per capita emission. Every person is going to contribute, but how much depends on the system they are in. High-income countries tend to have a higher carbon footprint, but certain countries, such as Canada, Australia and US are pretty high on that list, as are certain Middle Eastern country. An important driver seems to be the source for electricity, where many European countries have done more to reduce emissions.

 

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Until you show a source, your number is fiction.

Even then it may still be fiction, depending upon how it is derived.

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

For that, it is important to look at per capita emission. Every person is going to contribute, but how much depends on the system they are in. High-income countries tend to have a higher carbon footprint, but certain countries, such as Canada, Australia and US are pretty high on that list, as are certain Middle Eastern country. An important driver seems to be the source for electricity, where many European countries have done more to reduce emissions.

 

Good points +1

[MigL]

Since most have chosen to ignore the video I posted, I will try to explain the important point made in the video.

Given the choice between feeding their family, keeping them in good health, and raising them out of poverty, over 1 Billion Chinese people ( interesting story about Xi Jinping ) and another 1 Billion Indian people, will do whatever they need to do, even if it means spewing CO² into the atmosphere 24/7. 
Climate change is the least of their concerns; number 1 would be "where is the next meal coming from?"

Until that problem is addressed, the 1.6% reduction and 2% reduction coming from the elimination of fossil fuel energies from Canada and the UK are meaningless.

But I guess poor people trying to feed their families and survive are 'sharks' to Peterkin.

[iNow]

Congratulations. He spoke of Maslow’s hierarchy 

While yelling at people for being woke 

Wow. Super impressive 

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

Given the choice between feeding their family, keeping them in good health, and raising them out of poverty, over 1 Billion Chinese people ( interesting story about Xi Jinping ) and another 1 Billion Indian people, will do whatever they need to do, even if it means spewing CO² into the atmosphere 24/7. 
Climate change is the least of their concerns; number 1 would be "where is the next meal coming from?"

A couple of things, China still relies too much on coal, but green energy has been pushed heavily in their energy portfolio. Not enough, and there has been some backsliding, but they are for example leaders in solar energy, for example. Also important to note that a lot of carbon emission is outsourced to China (i.e. production). So it is doubly important to have global policies in place that create favourable conditions for green energy (and unfavourable for fossil fuels) so that China is further encouraged to continue that road. 

The alternative is of course to use the situation elsewhere as an excuse to do nothing and then complain when things get bad. 

We did nothing when we were the top producers and now we won't do anything because someone else produces more. 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Congratulations. He spoke of Maslow’s hierarchy 
While yelling at people for being woke 
Wow. Super impressive 

You can get POd about it and concentrate on the other garbage he says, while totally ignoring the main point concerning climate change.

To almost half the world's population it isn't even in the top 10 concerns.
They have more important things to worry about, like survival.
We have the luxury of being able to consider what will happen in 50 or 100 years, because we have all we need for our daily survival.
A lot of people in 3rd world countries do not, and until the situation is rectified, I don't see much progress towards meeting targets.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

To almost half the world's population it isn't even in the top 10 concerns.
They have more important things to worry about, like survival.
We have the luxury of being able to consider what will happen in 50 or 100 years, because we have all we need for our daily survival.

Actually in many cases the reverse is true. High-income nations have more options to deal with climate change. Especially developing countries have been calling folks to do more as they will be more impacted by food and water insecurity, for example. A pew survey shows that e.g. 71% of folks in Kenya think it is a major threat (vs 9% thinking no threat), which is higher than e.g. global economy worries (58%).Even in Nigeria, where ISIS is an ongoing threat (especially at time of polling) the differential between ISIS as the major threat (61%) was not that far away from climate worries (41%, with 21% no threat)  and was more or less on par with global economy worries (49%).

 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

So I think that we cannot really assume attitudes of low-income countries based on our rather cozy situation. Ultimately you have to ask them.

And there is an UN study doing just that https://www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote

And the overall findings are that the highest concerns are (unsurprisingly) among small island development states. While it is overall true that lower income countries have a lower belief in climate change as an emergency,  it still sits at 58% at the lowest.

Dividing by region, the difference between Western Europe and NA to Sab-Saharan Africa is about 10% (72%-61%). There is quite a difference between countries within a region, with South Africa sharing similar worries as Canada and Poland having fairly low worries (still 59%) which is similar to India.

But overall, the assertion that developing countries just ignore climate or do not think it is relevant at all, appears to be inaccurate.

 

That being said, if you argue that day-to-day worries are higher, that would be accurate for everyone. The trouble is that using that as the guiding post, there would be virtually no space for any types of policy, as they are systemic and the impact on the individuals day-to-day are often hard or impossible to predict. That would basically put us into a perpetual paralysis and we might only consider doing something once the dam is broken.

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You can get POd about it

Why would I do that? I haven’t already, yet you imply otherwise. Odd, really. 

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Carbon emissions.

look at the high contributors and ask why it's so high, and what, if anything they can do to reduce it. If they can't, then ask why/ and then investigate what can be done to help them to achieve it. 

Scaring the little piggy who lives in a straw house that he needs to knock it down and build a brick one before mister wolf comes is not really helpful, especially so if little piggy hasn't the resource to build a new house. What would help is supporting him with the resource/to find the resource and offering him shelter while he does so.   

I agree totally,

We are joining with other companies working in collaboration to achieve NetZero. But it isn't enough, some funding is available, but each level of funding has to be matched by the companies and it's for innovation only, not for implementation! Let alone the hurdles we face to meet the funding requirements. Like I said R&D is massively under funded at this level. Yet the government is expecting individual companies to do their personal bit! 

The big players are expecting the small players to contribute at their level. this is non attainable and just down right naughty. Then the government uses scaremongering tactics in an attempt to bring people inline. How about they offer a helping hand instead? 

I think your metaphor about the little pigs overlooks a crucial point. This is that industry will only move when pushed by legislation. And legislation on climate mitigation measures will only become a priority when the voters treat it as such.

So one has to pursue twin tracks: yes, the technocratic one you advocate to implement changes, but also a PR campaign to keep the pressure on legislators to act urgently.

In the UK, the electricity transition is well under way and the shift on vehicles is starting to build momentum (though more help is needed on the charging network and associated electricity infrastructure). But the government is still ducking the issue, completely, on domestic heating and insulation. So we need to keep the pressure on our elected representatives.  

[swansont]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

This is that industry will only move when pushed by legislation.

Also profit, unless blocked by legislation.

[exchemist]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Also profit, unless blocked by legislation.

If legislation drives the desired behaviour, the ones that adapt best will be the most profitable. Legislation has the virtue that it provides a level playing field for all players in the market and the most ingenious in adapting will benefit.  

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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

No, that's what I have called people who express a high level of insincerity in public discourse. The guy has an agenda and a well known strategy. Listen to the catch-phrases, the dripping sarcasm, the innuendo. He knows his audience and how to play it. I don't believe he's reachable by means of argument, because his agenda is not fact- or reason-based; it serves a different purpose.

But I do apologize to sharks! It won't happen again.   

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Given the choice between feeding their family, keeping them in good health, and raising them out of poverty, over 1 Billion Chinese people ( interesting story about Xi Jinping ) and another 1 Billion Indian people, will do whatever they need to do, even if it means spewing CO² into the atmosphere 24/7.

Yeah, that's where I bailed, when the guy said poor people were given the choice. Not the billionnaires, not the global corporations, not the movers and launderers of vast quantities of crime profit, not governments - it's down to the non-white poor.

Even if he eventually came up with a reasonable suggestion, his style was too odious for it to be worth waiting for. 

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Until you show a source, your number is fiction.

Fine, lets just go with the 4.6% or what ever the accurate figure is.

My point still stands

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

For that, it is important to look at per capita emission. Every person is going to contribute, but how much depends on the system they are in. High-income countries tend to have a higher carbon footprint, but certain countries, such as Canada, Australia and US are pretty high on that list, as are certain Middle Eastern country. An important driver seems to be the source for electricity, where many European countries have done more to reduce emissions.

 

Exactly and the higher emitters (the more wealthy) should be the most active. You should pay for what you use!

In addition and my whole point was that a blanket policy rolled out to the entire globe of net zero is not going to be achievable by many nations. A small change for a high emitting nation is going to be more beneficial than a big change from a lower emitting nation. So if you are correct and the lower emitting nations are not as wealthy in general as the higher ones then the impact to try and get to net zero is going to be greater on the less wealthy for less benefit. 

So scare mongering the entire world with the notion you must get to net zero or we are all doomed seems a tad unfair towards the lower carbon producing nations. 

Target the higher more wealthy nations, support the lower less wealthy nations, work together for humanity as a whole and set realistic targets focussing on productive ways to achieve them.  

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, that's what I have called people who express a high level of insincerity in public discourse. The guy has an agenda and a well known strategy. Listen to the catch-phrases, the dripping sarcasm, the innuendo. He knows his audience and how to play it. I don't believe he's reachable by means of argument, because his agenda is not fact- or reason-based; it serves a different purpose

He may have a personal agenda, I don't care much for that.

But many of the points he raises are true, MigL pointed this out, extreme left wing activists are covering the ears, saying yeah yeah blah blah blah... whatever. Then suggesting we get rid of cars, stop eating meat, scrap technology... the irony being that the vast majority of these people continue to live high energy using, technological, comfortable life styles, with  mobile phones and gas guzzling vehicles, plane rides, fast food and luxury a plenty, everything they need or desire at their feet. While other poverty stricken nations are full of people struggling to find food, shelter, fresh water, medicine... But are now being shouted at to reduce their carbon footprint or we are all doomed. 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[MonDie]

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

[...] 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. [...]

Future generations to sort out how?  By disrupting more ecosystems?

Co-occurring anthropogenic stressors reduce the timeframe ofenvironmental viability of the world's coral reefs

---

Ala dimreeper, it's looking like Doherty's "F*cked Forever."

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In addition and my whole point was that a blanket policy rolled out to the entire globe of net zero is not going to be achievable by many nations. A small change for a high emitting nation is going to be more beneficial than a big change from a lower emitting nation.

But a nation that does not emit much CO2 doesn’t have to do as much.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Fine, lets just go with the 4.6% or what ever the accurate figure is.

My point still stands

Your point reflects one of the biggest problems - the attitude that any one individual’s effort won’t have a big impact, so why bother? Instead of accepting that everyone has to do their part if the problem is going to be solved.

[Intoscience]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

But a nation that does not emit much CO2 doesn’t have to do as much.

That's not true, the expectation is that all companies, corporations and people are to individually reduce their carbon emissions to net zero. Nations with fewer people, companies, corporations resources have the same individual duty as nations with more. Yet the collaborative impact per nation differs between each nation based on their annual output towards the total global emissions.  If the people, each individually or by collaboration, in a country that produces 5% of the total global emissions reduces their contribution by 100% then that's 5% less towards the total. Compared to a country that contributes 25%,  they would only need to reduce their emissions by 20% to achieve a similar overall impact.         

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

But a nation that does not emit much CO2 doesn’t have to do as much.

Your point reflects one of the biggest problems - the attitude that any one individual’s effort won’t have a big impact, so why bother? Instead of accepting that everyone has to do their part if the problem is going to be solved.

Everyone should do their part, I agree. I'm just saying that the impact of doing so between nations is significantly different. therefore to make headway towards net zero, focus should be on the highest contributors. Those causing the most damage should be investing the most in fixing it. And if they haven't the resource to do so then they should be supported by those that have.

All have a part to play, all will have an impact on success, some more than others.     

[dimreepr]

51 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

That's not true, the expectation is that all companies, corporations and people are to individually reduce their carbon emissions to net zero. Nations with fewer people, companies, corporations resources have the same individual duty as nations with more. Yet the collaborative impact per nation differs between each nation based on their annual output towards the total global emissions.  If the people, each individually or by collaboration, in a country that produces 5% of the total global emissions reduces their contribution by 100% then that's 5% less towards the total. Compared to a country that contributes 25%,  they would only need to reduce their emissions by 20% to achieve a similar overall impact. 

That's a similar argument to the trickle down theory in capitalism and we all know that in the real world, it just doesn't work.

51 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm just saying that the impact of doing so between nations is significantly different. therefore to make headway towards net zero, focus should be on the highest contributors.

First you have to define and agree about what net zero actually means.

For instance, if you mean one tree = x no. of tonnes (which is by no means a linear or fully understood equation), then a rich country will just pay poor countries to plant x no. of tree's and continue on its merry way patting itself on the back; that's like pooring the same amount shit into the gutter and making it better by putting stilts on the sidewalk.

54 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

All have a part to play, all will have an impact on success, some more than others. 

Indeed if by some more than others, you mean the rich more than the poor.

The poor have almost no choice about their emissions, it's only the rich that can afford to choose from the alternatives available.

Edited March 24, 2023 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

First you have to define and agree about what net zero actually means.

For instance, if you mean one tree = x no. of tonnes (which is by no means a linear or fully understood equation), then a rich country will just pay poor countries to plant x no. of tree's and continue on its merry way patting itself on the back; that's like pooring the same amount shit into the gutter and making it better by putting stilts on the sidewalk

I agree and this would be a poor approach. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

I agree and this would be a poor approach. 

So what do you think net zero mean's?