Climate change, time for a change?
Bobbinogs
Posts: 4,841
Well, nice to see all the world leaders gathering to chat about the future of the planet rather than anything minor for a change, although the irony of seeing Obama getting off his plane flown into Paris just for the occasion was not lost on me.
Anyone out there convinced by the "we are causing this" argument or is the general consensus more a Top Gear-type view of the world, as in "carry on regardless and burn as much fuel as we can whilst we can"??
My ten bob's worth is that reducing fuel usage has to be a good thing but I find it hard to get too enthused about washing out dog food tins when the Chinese, Indians, et al, are chucking so much censored into the atmosphere that any minor gestures on my part seem futile...
Anyone out there convinced by the "we are causing this" argument or is the general consensus more a Top Gear-type view of the world, as in "carry on regardless and burn as much fuel as we can whilst we can"??
My ten bob's worth is that reducing fuel usage has to be a good thing but I find it hard to get too enthused about washing out dog food tins when the Chinese, Indians, et al, are chucking so much censored into the atmosphere that any minor gestures on my part seem futile...
0
Posts
"My ten bob's worth is that reducing fuel usage has to be a good thing but I find it hard to get too enthused about washing out dog food tins when the Chinese, Indians, et al, are chucking so much censored into the atmosphere that any minor gestures on my part seem futile..."
That's how I feel, but we have to do something.
Also UK companies are put at a massive disadvantage as production costs are greater which helps leads to loss of jobs.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
What irks me the most is that we can definitely afford to do this, but somehow there needs to be a financial incentive....
I don't see how that will work, but it will be the proposed solution.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Agree, until NY Bejing, London are about to be flooded, we wont do anything substantial, leave it to another generation, look at India, point blank refusing to even attempt to cut CO2, going for a huge increase in coal power stations.
My ex Swedish GF, a scientist, many years ago, said it was too late and we are heading for something called a climate flip, i really hope she is wrong.
mmm, albeit increased taxes for us here in the UK alone I suspect as no one else wants to increase their cost of production in the current difficult market conditions. Increased taxes does seem to be our preferred way of dealing with things...I noticed that the proposed solution to too many fat kids appears to be a 20% tax increase on sugary drinks. I guess that brilliant strategy would also work with cigarettes, oh no, hang on...
Why can't we just get out of bed with Middle East and oil. That seems to be the fairly obvious root cause of most ills with this world.
Get some uk engineers to build, run, service and maintain a few nuclear plants - just nowhere near me, right?
Job. Done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34899066
If anything groundbreaking comes out of this conference, I'll eat my chapeau. They will fail us yet again. I agree with mamba, it'll take catastrophic weather events in the back yards of the main players to really force change, and by then it'll be too late.
Love the bit about educating people so they can make choices. Most of the people that need "educating" are too censored stupid to be educated. I think if they did a study on stupidity it will be found to be growing faster than the waistlines of the so called 1st world.
Ribble Gran Fondo, Campagnolo Centaur (winter bike)
Van Raam 'O' Pair
Land Rover (really nasty weather
That means that the world will enter a new "steady state" - the average temperature will be within a new range of values and there will be no going back, unless somehow we can reduce the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere.
The level of catastrophe we face depends on the rate of change - a 3-4 degree increase over a couple of centuries would be absolutely disastrous. We're basically carrying out a massive experiment on the Earth without knowing the outcome. Flooding would be the least of our problems - the destruction of ocean food chains would be the big one. If CO2 levels keep going up, I certainly don't envy future generations.
I don't think that the situation is quite as hopeless as some people make out, but we need to invest big time and we need to do it now.
Decimate and flatten the Middle East.
Less oil, less pollution, less terrorists.
Cover the entire area with solar panels for energy generation.
Win, win, win, win.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
But as said, the bulk of the UK populous are too stupid and too addicted to throw away culture, I'm not sure much can be done, certainly not anything any politician would dare do. It's all about short term economic gain and the pressure from industry will prevent any major change.
That all sounds a bit defeatist iPete
Yep, and what's more, they don't give a toss about it either. You'd think that being a moron was a badge of honour.
The sort of person who will just throw their MacDonalds waste out of the car window isn't going to care about climate change.
The older I get, the better I was.
Surely a vote winner among Daily Mail readers, but a couple of minor details need clarification:-
What do we do with all the refugees? Those parts of Europe at the sharp end can't cope with the numbers arriving now.
What do we do for energy at night??
And it's fewer terrorists
Miserable git by nature
Little things that can stack up.
Now, now, don't get picky. It is a plan with fewer flaws than DC's has!
The problem is that DC is serious.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
And above all, educate people that we've been on a massive carbon-based energy censored for a couple of centuries and that it's time to choose what sort of hangover we're going to get.
XM-057 rigid 29er
Why don't they move with the times and video conference.
When people say we have to reduce C02 and any further increase and the world is doomed, just think about where fossil fuels came from.
Coal is plant matter that has been under massive pressure for millions of years. Oil is animal matter that has undergone the same pressure. Other carbon sinks are rock like chalk and limestone - Calcium Cabonate. These are essentially shellfish that have been fossilised.
These living organisms all got their carbon from the atmosphere. Plants fix carbon dioxide with water in the presence of sunlight in the process called photosynthesis. They can only take carbon from carbon dioxide in gas form. If it's a gas then it's in the atmosphere. Animals eat other animals or plants so all their carbon comes from photosynthesis and therefore carbon dioxide in gas form from the atmosphere.
We have about 400 ppm C02 in the atmosphere now. The minimum known is 170 ppm during the last ice age and below that plants do not grow. But in previous maximas C02 concentrations went up to 4000ppm. The idea that the world will die and the seas will boil is just unbelievable. No carbon dioxide no photosynthesis no life. More carbon dioxide and plants grow more.
But you might say that if the C02 levels were as low as 170 ppm in the last ice age then surely that shows that C02 does effect temperature - low C02 low temperature. More like C02 levels follow temperature. C02 dissolves in water, once frozen it does not come out of solution and atmospheric levels drop. As the temperature rises and ice melts the C02 is released and plants can grow again.
The proof of this is the fossil fuels themselves. They could not have formed if that C02 was not in the atmosphere and the quantity of fossil fuels show that life thrived in a high C02 environment.
Blasphemer!!
I'll get the popcorn.
That's right, climate change is a religion. Reasoned argument is not allowed!
C02 isn't a pollutant, animals can breathe it, indeed we breathe it out and plants love it.
N02 on the other hand is a pollutant and so are other products of burning fossil fuels. But I'm not arguing that. I'm just not convinced that C02 is going to lead to the destruction of the environment.
Better nuclear power seems like the easiest alternative to fossil fuels. Thorium molten salt reactors look like the way to go. Uranium was a mistake that we made. We choose it because it produces Plutonium that can be made into bombs. But we have our bombs now and we don't want anyone else to have any so we don't need any more Plutonium.
Getting off oil would be good because we can cut all ties with the Middle East.
Of course the vast majority of the worlds scientists could be in on a CIA plot that would dwarf the kennedy shooting and yes life did exist in very hi co2 levels but maybe not life as we know it or could survive in, of course the planet will carry on regardless of whether we are here or not.
If your right and we at least try and limit co2 levels then we ve at most put world dev back a few years, but if your wrong then what? be far far too late (if not already) big gamble ?
It's is a gamble and that's why I ride a bike. But it's a certainty that not enough C02 would halt photosynthesis.
Nobody's literally saying that the oceans will boil and nobody sensible is saying that all life will be doomed, but a rate of change of 2-3 degrees celsius is absolutely enormous and could severely damage many ecosystems as well as severely disrupting weather patterns, agriculture etc.
I'm glad you don't want to take the risk, but there is so much scientific evidence out there now that humans are causing the current warming trend and that it could well be disastrous if we don't take action soon that as a species, we just can't afford to delay any longer.