Climate Change - a poll

[Zear0]

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Back to Top-,Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies,support from surging energy prices.

 

IMF has estimated the subsidies to the fossil fuel companies at $7 trillion. Somewhat higher than the amount given to Ukraine (which was money ploughed straight back into the domestic defense industry creating jobs and just putting money back into the US financial system). The fossil fuel industry have done an excellent job of blinding people to the state money they receive via tax breaks and subsidies.

 

Point I'm making is that even if you don't care about the environment at the expense of your wallet, moving away from fossil fuels is the long term solution as they're cheaper. We've seen the consequences of being hostage to the global energy market rate is following Russia's invasion (wasn't exactly delighted to see my energy bills go from £80p/m to £450 p/m), so the idea of going deeper into hydrocarbons makes no sense financially or environmentally. Wish the former was articulated better to try and convince those who are opposed to de-carbonisation better. It's more idealogical crap being weaponised for vested interests that sadly have a strangle hold on US politics. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Charmingly unhinged front page from today's Daily Mail with bonus Dorries for good measure: 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, marbles said:

How do you get people who feel like they are barely surviving, to make sacrifices though?

 

I know one thing that doesn’t help.  Where the message is coming from.

As an average middle class American, last thing I want is some rich out of touch celebrity fresh off their private jet/yacht to talk to me about conservation.

I don’t want a politician who pretends to be for the working class, yet can’t find the money to help starving/homeless Americans but can find 200billion for Ukraine or the newest nuclear weapon.  
I don’t know what the answer is for getting the message out, but the current way certainly ain’t it.

Tbh I'm much more in a solutions than problems mode. Everyone wants to talk about what won't work, perhaps it might be nice to actually have people pop up with what will, rather than simply writing the issue off because it's unsolvable.

 

 

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Back to Top-,Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies,support from surging energy prices.

 

IMF has estimated the subsidies to the fossil fuel companies at $7 trillion. Somewhat higher than the amount given to Ukraine (which was money ploughed straight back into the domestic defense industry creating jobs and just putting money back into the US financial system). The fossil fuel industry have done an excellent job of blinding people to the state money they receive via tax breaks and subsidies.

 

Point I'm making is that even if you don't care about the environment at the expense of your wallet, moving away from fossil fuels is the long term solution as they're cheaper. We've seen the consequences of being hostage to the global energy market rate is following Russia's invasion (wasn't exactly delighted to see my energy bills go from £80p/m to £450 p/m), so the idea of going deeper into hydrocarbons makes no sense financially or environmentally. Wish the former was articulated better to try and convince those who are opposed to de-carbonisation better. It's more idealogical crap being weaponised for vested interests that sadly have a strangle hold on US politics. 

I think it could be articulated as clearly as you like and the ideological bollocks would still get in the way and be difficult to shift.

 

And unfortunately then, the best options to shift it become themselves nasty, as talk and debate no longer works.

 

 

52 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Charmingly unhinged front page from today's Daily Mail with bonus Dorries for good measure: 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit A for the above.

 

Anyone sane should be anxious, and angry.

 

How do you address this kind of stuff in the way necessary to bring round enough people to get meaningful action going?

 

I wish I knew.

Edited 16 July by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

On a more optimistic note, however, there does appear to be a broader developed world consensus on what needs to be done getting done - Russia, India (to a degree) and the US (if the Repubs win in November) being the only significant outliers.

 

Unfortunately, they are all very important outliers, and this issue doesn't have room for large free riders.

[marbles]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Tbh I'm much more in a solutions than problems mode. Everyone wants to talk about what won't work, perhaps it might be nice to actually have people pop up with what will, rather than simply writing the issue off because it's unsolvable.

 

 

I think it could be articulated as clearly as you like and the ideological bollocks would still get in the way and be difficult to shift.

 

And unfortunately then, the best options to shift it become themselves nasty, as talk and debate no longer works.

 

 

Exhibit A for the above.

 

Anyone sane should be anxious, and angry.

 

How do you address this kind of stuff in the way necessary to bring round enough people to get meaningful action going?

 

I wish I knew.

Serious question- what is The Daily Mail supposed to be?

Is it a tabloid (made us news stories like “Aliens stole my dog”)

or are they supposed to be legit news?

[Heathrow fox]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

Serious question- what is The Daily Mail supposed to be?

Is it a tabloid (made us news stories like “Aliens stole my dog”)

or are they supposed to be legit news?

It sits in the middle ground alongside the Daily Express,between the serious broadsheets and the tabloids.The Daily Mail is now Britains biggest selling paper which doesn’t really say much these days.

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, marbles said:

Serious question- what is The Daily Mail supposed to be?

Is it a tabloid (made us news stories like “Aliens stole my dog”)

or are they supposed to be legit news?

Yeah, would confirm what was said above, really, apart from adding that there are a great many people that do take what it prints very seriously indeed still. Their online presence is larger than the printed one.

[fox_up_north]

As noted - if the US and India aren't playing ball then it's a bugger. Though, I am optimistic for China. 

[Dreadnought]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, would confirm what was said above, really, apart from adding that there are a great many people that do take what it prints very seriously indeed still. Their online presence is larger than the printed one.

Worryingly, their website is one of the most read “news” websites worldwide. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

Worryingly, their website is one of the most read “news” websites worldwide. 

I can imagine they strike a chord with kindred spirits in other parts of the Anglosphere.

[Guest Col city fan]

If ‘global warming’ is a thing then how it’s affecting Britain is undoubtedly with it becoming wetter.

The seasons are blurring into each other too, with the coldest months now typically becoming Feb and March. When I was kid, we used to get snowdrifts in Leicester, and we used to lark about jumping into them as they’d built-up against walls on the Netherhall Council Estate. We just don't see that now.

But my advice to anyone who has drainage issues in their gardens is to pay to get them sorted. I think the rain is only going to get worse!

I’ve recently paid to have some groundwork done in my garden to add another drain into the patio area. I’ve been here since 2007 and never had a flooded patio like I have done the past couple of years. Literally having to wade through a foot of water to put the bins out because the ground beneath has been so soaked, the rain hasn’t been able to go anywhere.

Having the drain linking into the main sewer should hopefully help with that.

We’ve probably had rain like this before in some decade or another but I can’t recollect it being this continually wet.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

If ‘global warming’ is a thing then how it’s affecting Britain is undoubtedly with it becoming wetter.

The seasons are blurring into each other too, with the coldest months now typically becoming Feb and March. When I was kid, we used to get snowdrifts in Leicester, and we used to lark about jumping into them as they’d built-up against walls on the Netherhall Council Estate. We just don't see that now.

But my advice to anyone who has drainage issues in their gardens is to pay to get them sorted. I think the rain is only going to get worse!

I’ve recently paid to have some groundwork done in my garden to add another drain into the patio area. I’ve been here since 2007 and never had a flooded patio like I have done the past couple of years. Literally having to wade through a foot of water to put the bins out because the ground beneath has been so soaked, the rain hasn’t been able to go anywhere.

Having the drain linking into the main sewer should hopefully help with that.

We’ve probably had rain like this before in some decade or another but I can’t recollect it being this continually wet.

Yep, it tallies that an overall temperature increase will result in an overall more "tropical" climate in the UK and other places of similar latitudes. More humid, wetter summers (and generally hotter too) and much less snow and cold in winters.

 

And if people like that idea because "hey, it's like going abroad!", go look up the effects of frequent flooding and the top ten tropical diseases that affect humans and animals with their associated knock on effects and get back to me.

[leicsmac]

East Asia getting hit with monsoon conditions at least as bad as last year, which was among the nastiest in history.

[leicsmac]

And closer to home:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn051ee77pno

 

London must better prepare for severe floods and heatwaves, a report has warned.

The London Climate Resilience Review, published on Wednesday, called for a "reset moment" for the capital following the general election.

Emma Howard Boyd CBE, chairwoman of the review, said preparing London for more frequent and extreme climate risks was "non-negotiable". The report highlighted opportunities for investment in London but warned that time was running out to act on climate resilience.

A government spokesperson said it welcomed the review and understood the "urgent need" to prepare for and adapt to changes posed by the climate emergency.

The review said that in July 2022, when London hit 40°C, there was a 50% increase in water consumption, while reservoirs were at their lowest for 30 years and wildfires pushed the London Fire Brigade to its limits.

It recommended that an official heat plan be created for London to enable the city to better deal with severe floods and heatwaves.

 

And yet, despite this and much more noteworthy events elsewhere, people feel the need to be distracted by the dog and pony show on the M25. I know the discussion about it has been done to death, but as time progresses and the effects really kick into gear, people in a few places might become less sympathetic to the accidentally or deliberately apathetic.

[Foxdiamond]

I wonder if any posters on this thread also post on have you booked a holiday yet to some far flung resort

 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I wonder if any posters on this thread also post on have you booked a holiday yet to some far flung resort

 

And I wonder, seeing as energy generation dwarfs global transportation in terms of worldwide overall carbon emissions, exactly what point is being made here. Some more clarification would be appreciated.

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And I wonder, seeing as energy generation dwarfs global transportation in terms of worldwide overall carbon emissions, exactly what point is being made here. Some more clarification would be appreciated.

Even if the lesser evil it surely has an environmental impact especially when you consider the journey alone is not the only factor. 

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Even if the lesser evil it surely has an environmental impact especially when you consider the journey alone is not the only factor. 

Agreed, however also given that as far as I know no one on here (and let's be honest, no one in the wider world who actually has a handle on the whole problem) has advocated for abandonment of such transportation, rather a switch that maintains quality of life while saving hundreds of millions of lives in the future (at minimum)...with respect, I'm still not seeing the point.

[Foxdiamond]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Agreed, however also given that as far as I know no one on here (and let's be honest, no one in the wider world who actually has a handle on the whole problem) has advocated for abandonment of such transportation, rather a switch that maintains quality of life while saving hundreds of millions of lives in the future (at minimum)...with respect, I'm still not seeing the point.

I suppose when looking at carbon footprint questions often they include things like how many flights do you take or how much car travel.  Perhaps we should not need someone else to ask us to cut down. I've not been on a flight since 1980 though I like to think I have empathy for other people around the world without the need to go. I see there is already a backlash against tourists in places like Barcelona. Even locals in the Cotswolds are fed up with too many cars. This may not be directly to do with the climate but it seems quality of life is harmed. A difficult balance.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I suppose when looking at carbon footprint questions often they include things like how many flights do you take or how much car travel.  Perhaps we should not need someone else to ask us to cut down. I've not been on a flight since 1980 though I like to think I have empathy for other people around the world without the need to go. I see there is already a backlash against tourists in places like Barcelona. Even locals in the Cotswolds are fed up with too many cars. This may not be directly to do with the climate but it seems quality of life is harmed. A difficult balance.

Yeah, that is a problem, but it is peripheral to the bigger issue IMO.

 

Forgive me, but too often I see arguments floated in this way as a means of sidestepping the very real, very difficult problem, which is modifying the way we generate energy and (to a lesser extent) travel while still maintaining present quality of life, before the actions of our species cause consequences that will reduce quality of life for a great many people in very drastic fashion. The Earth won't allow us to quibble about it forever.

Edited 19 July by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, that is a problem, but it is peripheral to the bigger issue IMO.

 

Forgive me, but too often I see arguments floated in this way as a means of sidestepping the very real, very difficult problem, which is modifying the way we generate energy and (to a lesser extent) travel while still maintaining present quality of life, before the actions of our species cause consequences that will reduce quality of life for a great many people in very drastic fashion. The Earth won't allow us to quibble about it forever.

I agree with you on energy generation. I think people could travel a bit less and still have a quality of life. This alone might reduce air pollution. Investing in clean public transport that is affordable too. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I agree with you on energy generation. I think people could travel a bit less and still have a quality of life. This alone might reduce air pollution. Investing in clean public transport that is affordable too. 

Scope for adjusting public transport in a way that is cleaner and cheaper is certainly the way to go. Along with addressing energy generation

 

Focusing on voting for, endorsing and applying the necessary solutions is what's needed, the Daily Fail and various talking heads trying to generate attention on peripheral matters about it at the expense of the future be damned.

[SecretPro]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And I wonder, seeing as energy generation dwarfs global transportation in terms of worldwide overall carbon emissions, exactly what point is being made here. Some more clarification would be appreciated.

Animal agriculture, mainly beef, also dwarfs World Transport emissions...then add in the effect beef production has on water consumption, plus the effect of excess slurry on the worlds rivers and watercourses, and well, anyone claiming to be an environmentalist but isn't vegan is a bit of a walking contradiction.

Edited 19 July by SecretPro

[ozleicester]

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Animal agriculture, mainly beef, also dwarfs World Transport emissions...then add in the effect beef production has on water consumption, plus the effect of excess slurry on the worlds rivers and watercourses, and well, anyone claiming to be an environmentalist but isn't vegan is a bit of a walking contradiction.

Yep, and power generation dwarfs even that.

 

I might submit that addressing that as the biggest problem might be both more effective and a better hit with the public than either transportation or animal agriculture, but of course all three do have to be addressed in their own way in time.