Frozen Britain

wgwarburton

Eau Rouge wrote:

Painless?

Reasonably painless.

We don't have viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels,

So lets try and find some, and scale them to make them affordable.

Less cooling/heating, less electricty use and less travel for ourselves and the goods we import/export are not "painless" but really quite fundamental changes, ....

Yes, however better insulation, low-carbon power generation and less profligate travel are arguably reasonably painless. There's a case for fundamental change, anyway, for example, mass private car ownership hasn't been painless either.
Cheap flights don't take into account their environmental impact, just as inedequate sewage treatment didn't before the Victorians built sewers. It's not sensible for large numbers of people to dump their waste (be it sewage or CO2) without regard to the consequences.

The crux of my problem with the whole thing is exactly that it seems the ice will melt anyway, even if we stopped all human CO2 emiisions next year (unless someone can show me otherwise?)

You might be right. We don't know. It might be irresponsible to do nothing, It might be foolish to do anything, if it makes no difference, or simply not enough.

If the ice melts, the fact we all stopped flying or used energy effecient light bulbs won't matter. If the ice melts anyway, anything we do to stop global warming will have been a waste of valuable time and money. I'd rather not take the pain if it's not actually going to achieve anything.

Indeed. If. If. If.
Best to make someone else take the pain- lets try and bully the USA (most profligate) and China/India (biggest contributors in the near-term) to do it for us! :-)

The rest of the world repeating our mistakes is less of a concern. For one, there is only so much fossil fuels available to burn. The solution to that is therefore the same as to us burning those fuels, finding real, viable, alternatives. That should be the sensible insurance policy, but it seems it's not even on the agenda while everyone worries about carbon footprints instead.

I don't think that's true- there's a substantial "green technology" industry that wants to make money out of low-carbon generation, recycling, electric vehicles etc... the "green lobby" is much wider than just a bunch of wild-eyed hippies that want to live in communes....

There's no shortage of fossil fuels for now- just those that are cheap & easy to extract (known reserves keep rising). If "developing countries" start to produce as much CO2 (etc, let's simplify :-) ) as the North Americans then we can expect the "human impact" to get much bigger.

Cheers,
W.

tailwindhome

JonGinge wrote:

Ireland looks green. Probably been raining there :P

You remember that bit in 'Day After Tomorrow' when the US was freezing and they evacuate, throwing themselves on the mercy of their Mexican neighbours.

When you London types need a place to stay you won't be so smart then.

Will you?

*Adds JonGinge to watch list*

biondino

Some of you people are astonishing. If there is a CHANCE we can stop the world from becoming a Mad Max dystopia then we should do everything we can to take that chance! Do you really want to be wondering if it could have been avoided if you'd bought a smaller call, or insulated your roof, or a million other small sacrifices?

Eau Rouge

biondino wrote:

Some of you people are astonishing. If there is a CHANCE we can stop the world from becoming a Mad Max dystopia then we should do everything we can to take that chance! Do you really want to be wondering if it could have been avoided if you'd bought a smaller call, or insulated your roof, or a million other small sacrifices?

If someone can show me there actually is a chance, then sure. But somebody seems able to do that. The little I've seen all semes to suggest the Antartic and Greenland ice is gone at some not-too-distant future time, all we could maybe do is delay it a decade or 2. That's not a chance.
Global warming even on the worst case scenarios doesn't get us to anything like Mad Max. The planet will still be prefectly habitable once the ice melts.

Christophe3967

Painless is a relative term.

How painless is it for,say, the 1700 people at Corus (plus perhaps a further 1500 at suppliers etc) whose jobs are to be exported to India so that Tata Steel (who own Corus) can claim as much as $1billion in Carbon Credits? There won't be any less CO2 emitted - and this is only the start of the carbon tax scam...

cjcp

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Ireland looks green. Probably been raining there :P

You remember that bit in 'Day After Tomorrow' when the US was freezing and they evacuate, throwing themselves on the mercy of their Mexican neighbours.

When you London types need a place to stay you won't be so smart then.

We'll have all fled to our houses on top of the hills in the countryside. :P

*Adds JonGinge to watch list*

cjcp

prawny wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

proof that global warming is a lie 8)

Global warming will actually make us colder in winter, as the gulf stream ceases. That means the warmer currents will miss us out, leading to more of what we are currently enjoying. Possibly warmer and drier in summer as the conveyer belt of low pressure systems slows down.

Ace!

Fire up the 80's range rovers!

Not so. Go long on cross bikes and mtbs. Society will break down under the strain of a bitter territorial battle between the two camps.

itboffin

The cross bikes will win because we already rule the world, oops i've said too much :roll:

Jay dubbleU

Prepare for climate change - buy a cross bike!!

All this 'Save the Planet' crap is just that - what greens and other politicians mean is 'Save the Human Race from having to adapt to a changing climate'

Trouble is that for most of human history we have lived with an equable climate - as Wallace says the first result of climate change is likely to be major changes to the North Atlantic Drift
[url=tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current]tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current[/url]
Desalinisation of the North Atlantic is likely to occur as melt water from the Greenland icecap adds fresh water to the ocean which will either slow the flow or cut of the current altogether - ice core records show that this change can occur in as little as a decade so we may yet see the re-glaciation of the Cairngorms

Bugly

amnezia wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Is it just me or has "global warming" long been hijacked by those who's real goal is to drag everyone back to the pre-Regency era by any means possible?

"Global warming" is the new religion

That in like all religions non believers are persicuted :oops: but even worse forced to pay tithes through taxes. Climate change - yes has changed from the formation of the planet and will change with or without us - caused by human activity? Not likely.

greg66_tri_v2.0

biondino wrote:

Some of you heathens are astonishing. If there is a CHANCE you can save yourself from eternal damnation then you should do everything you can to take that chance! Do you really want to be wondering if burning for all eternity could have been avoided if you'd bought a smaller cow, or prayed harder, or given more to the church on your deathbed?

Fixed dat fer yer, blondie!

cjcp

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Prepare for climate change - buy a cross bike!!

All this 'Save the Planet' crap is just that - what greens and other politicians mean is 'Save the Human Race from having to adapt to a changing climate'

Trouble is that for most of human history we have lived with an equable climate - as Wallace says the first result of climate change is likely to be major changes to the North Atlantic Drift
[url=tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current]tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current[/url]
Desalinisation of the North Atlantic is likely to occur as melt water from the Greenland icecap adds fresh water to the ocean which will either slow the flow or cut of the current altogether - ice core records show that this change can occur in as little as a decade so we may yet see the re-glaciation of the Cairngorms

Now, does this mean that we will soon be able to go skiing in North Wales and Scotland? That's got to be a good thing, right? So what if the Euro is strong, cos we won't be going to the Alps and we won't all need to jump in planes to the Alps. :P

UndercoverElephant

cjcp wrote:

Now, does this mean that we will soon be able to go skiing in North Wales and Scotland? That's got to be a good thing, right? So what if the Euro is strong, cos we won't be going to the Alps and we won't all need to jump in planes to the Alps. :P

Erm, CJ, have you never heard of Aviemore?

cjcp

UndercoverElephant wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Now, does this mean that we will soon be able to go skiing in North Wales and Scotland? That's got to be a good thing, right? So what if the Euro is strong, cos we won't be going to the Alps and we won't all need to jump in planes to the Alps. :P

Erm, CJ, have you never heard of Aviemore?

Yep.

Stone Glider

When I was in Australia (last November) Kevin Rudd, the Federal Prime Minister was trying to pass a Climate Change Bill through Parliament. After a huge amount of pushing and shoving it failed and the opposition coallition leader was deposed. The opposition was characterised as neanderthals and luddites by the media but it still failed.

Kevin Rudd is a smart cookie but his bill was a crock of shoot. There were so many compromises and carve-ups in it by the end even the Green Party were expressing doubts. Most of it seemed linked to some sort of Carbon Trading wangle that was sure to make a few people very rich and everyone else rather confused. Australia is a country at the sharp end of any deterioration in weather conditions but even they could not bring themselves to sign up to the smoke and mirrors on offer. Even though the media was full of the usual strident apocalyptic warnings.

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

cjcp

Stone Glider wrote:

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

A big reason why population control is at the heart of battle against the drain on the planet's reserves.

Sewinman

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

A big reason why population control is at the heart of battle against the drain on the planet's reserves.

Population is not the problem, it is the relative resource use of that population that is a problem.

moonio

Well said sewingman, many people use overpopulation theory in order to continue with their own over consumption, its very easy to blame people on the other side of the planet and not change your own behaviours.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Sewinman wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

A big reason why population control is at the heart of battle against the drain on the planet's reserves.

Population is not the problem, it is the relative resource use of that population that is a problem.

There was a David Attenborough documentary the other week, not his usual genre of flaura and fauna from around the globe, but regarding the world's human population and the earth's energy reserves that we currently know how to exploit. Quite a sobering programme, from what I remember of it.

Towards the end of the show there was a horrifying forcast, from a computer model and/or group of human experts, which went something along the lines of:-

If everyone used as much energy as the population of USA or UK, the world could support a total of upto ~1.5 and 2 billion people respectively.
If we all lived like average Indians, the world can currently supply enough energy from current technologies to support something like 18 billion! :shock:

Edit:Just watched part of the Horizon programme linked below and editted the sustaintable figures.

jonginge

NitrousOxide wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

A big reason why population control is at the heart of battle against the drain on the planet's reserves.

Population is not the problem, it is the relative resource use of that population that is a problem.

There was a David Attenborough documentary the other week, not his usual genre of flaura and fauna from around the globe, but regarding the world's human population and the earth's energy reserves that we currently know how to exploit. Quite a sobering programme, from what I remember of it.

Towards the end of the show there was a horrifying forcast, from a computer model and/or group of human experts, which went something along the lines of:-

If everyone used as much enery as the population of USA or UK, the world could support a total of upto ~2 billion people.
If we all lived like average Indians, the world can currently supply enough energy from current technologies to support something like 8 billion! :shock:

Was quite sobering. Malthus etc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf

cjcp

Sewinman wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

A big reason why population control is at the heart of battle against the drain on the planet's reserves.

Population is not the problem, it is the relative resource use of that population that is a problem.

By controlling population, you control demand/consumption. If the population continues to grow, there will be more people who will want to have a good standard of living e.g. the big demand from consumers in China. This increases the demand on our resources. Trying to change our consumption habits without acknowledging that population growth is a problem will not help. These "new" people will also need to be fed and watered. This will put a strain on resources. For example, India is going to have a big water shortage problem because the huge increase in its population it has already experienced means its water table has dropped.

By tackling the population growth, we'll also tackle poverty because the majority of the increase in the population is likely to occur in the poorer countries.

Sewinman

cjcp wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

Oil will run out soon because demand in India, China and Brazill is going to drain reserves at an ever faster rate. We need low carbon power for its own sake. The planet doesn't need saving but the human race might. :?

A big reason why population control is at the heart of battle against the drain on the planet's reserves.

Population is not the problem, it is the relative resource use of that population that is a problem.

By controlling population, you control demand/consumption. If the population continues to grow, there will be more people who will want to have a good standard of living e.g. the big demand from consumers in China. This increases the demand on our resources. Trying to change our consumption habits without acknowledging that population growth is a problem will not help. These "new" people will also need to be fed and watered. This will put a strain on resources. For example, India is going to have a big water shortage problem because the huge increase in its population it has already experienced means its water table has dropped.

By tackling the population growth, we'll also tackle poverty because the majority of the increase in the population is likely to occur in the poorer countries.

It is a red herring, a dangerous one at that. 'Tackiling population growth' *shudder*.

Resource use and increasing emissions in China/India are due to economic growth not population growth. The key to avoiding this getting worse is to help them leap frog a stage of development and move to a low carbon economy - energy efficiency and renewable power. Such an economy should be perfected in the developed world and then given to developing economies. Our emissions reduce, theirs increase and we converge at a maneagable level - contraction and convergence.

cjcp

Sewinman wrote:

It is a red herring, a dangerous one at that. 'Tackiling population growth' *shudder*.

Resource use and increasing emissions in China/India are due to economic growth not population growth. The key to avoiding this getting worse is to help them leap frog a stage of development and move to a low carbon economy - energy efficiency and renewable power. Such an economy should be perfected in the developed world and then given to developing economies. Our emissions reduce, theirs increase and we converge at a maneagable level - contraction and convergence.

Put emissions to one side for a moment, because my point isn't one about emissions, but pure use of resources.

As China and India's already-huge populations increase, that population will demand more resources, whether it's for water, grain, oil etc.. China has already controlled its population once - it started in the '70s. Had they not done so, their population would be bigger by the populaion of the US - a lot of people. India hasn't, and it's population increased by 500 million in 35 years.

If you're going to control the use of resources, you've got to tackle the number of new people living on the planet because there's always a limit on those resources.

So, IMO, population growth is far from a red herring, but it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Stone Glider

The problem with endorsing population control is the short step (in some minds) to eugenics, etc. My view is that populations can be brought to a manageable state by education. Women, given adequate information and support can manage the matter personally.

Unfortunately politics/religion gets in the way. However a well educated populace will run things better. Oddly, the growth of the population of the USA seems rooted in immigration, the longer-settled sections show little growth, and some are shrinking.

cjcp

Stone Glider wrote:

The problem with endorsing population control is the short step (in some minds) to eugenics, etc. My view is that populations can be brought to a manageable state by education. Women, given adequate information and support can manage the matter personally.

This will involve the education of the population in the developing countries. There is a connection between better literacy rates and a lower birth rate. Population control doesn't have to be oppressive.

Unfortunately politics/religion gets in the way. However a well educated populace will run things better. Oddly, the growth of the population of the USA seems rooted in immigration, the longer-settled sections show little growth, and some are shrinking.

Yep. Same in Canada, I think.

prawny

Bloody hell, I only posted a pretty picture :shock:

Wallace1492

moonio wrote:

Well said sewingman, many people use overpopulation theory in order to continue with their own over consumption, its very easy to blame people on the other side of the planet and not change your own behaviours.

But when there are more and more people on the other side of the planet wanting to use the oil that we use, of course they are to blame!

Yes, maybe we do have overconsumption, but we have a realatively stable population. Does the demand from developing countries mean that we should cut back, lower our standards, use less, so that they can use more?

I am all for spreading wealth and advances and development, but you can only do this if one country is richer, more advanced and developed.

always_tyred

Stone Glider wrote:

Women, given adequate information and support can manage the matter personally.

:?
Its womens' responsibility then?
I can see that education really is required. :shock:

Homer J

prawny wrote:

Bloody hell, I only posted a pretty picture :shock:

You knew exactly what you were doing

prawny

Homer J wrote:

prawny wrote:

Bloody hell, I only posted a pretty picture :shock:

You knew exactly what you were doing

I've never know what I was doing 8)