Climate Change - a poll

[SecretPro]

Just now, leicsmac said:

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.

True enough, but it does bug me (as an environmentalist) when I see so many Environmentalists that are not vegan. It is the single biggest thing anybody can do, personally, for the long term health of the environment, but because it actually requires personal change, so-called 'environmentalists' just ignore it... shows who the people willing to put the effort in really are, as opposed to the virtue-signallers.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

True enough, but it does bug me (as an environmentalist) when I see so many Environmentalists that are not vegan. It is the single biggest thing anybody can do, personally, for the long term health of the environment, but because it actually requires personal change, so-called 'environmentalists' just ignore it... shows who the people willing to put the effort in really are, as opposed to the virtue-signallers.

I think that very much depends on the power of the individual (a person successfully lobbying for an alternative power source for an area would likely be more effective in terms of carbon emission reduction over a lifetime than a vegan diet), but fair to say.

 

I think for such measures to be be effective they would have to be applied across a population, which would require either a magnificent PR campaign or strict police state enforcement because it would be very unpopular at the start. I'm not against it, I think it may well be a necessary measure in the future, but I do think it would be impractical and there are easier bigger solutions that also would be easier to apply and they might be prioritised.

[SecretPro]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I think that very much depends on the power of the individual (a person successfully lobbying for an alternative power source for an area would likely be more effective in terms of carbon emission reduction over a lifetime than a vegan diet), but fair to say.

 

I think for such measures to be be effective they would have to be applied across a population, which would require either a magnificent PR campaign or strict police state enforcement because it would be very unpopular at the start. I'm not against it, I think it may well be a necessary measure in the future, but I do think it would be impractical and there are easier bigger solutions that also would be easier to apply and they might be prioritised.

Oh yeah, don;t get me wrong, I'm not saying veganism should be forced or enforced, merely pointing out that it should be the baseline for anybody calling themselves an 'environmentalist'. If an environmentalist can't even be arsed to make the easiest and single biggest change to their own personal lifestyle, then they aren't really an environmentalist. There seems to be a massive gap between people who like to talk about the environment and people that actually care.

[leicsmac]

Just now, SecretPro said:

Oh yeah, don;t get me wrong, I'm not saying veganism should be forced or enforced, merely pointing out that it should be the baseline for anybody calling themselves an 'environmentalist'. If an environmentalist can't even be arsed to make the easiest and single biggest change to their own personal lifestyle, then they aren't really an environmentalist. There seems to be a massive gap between people who like to talk about the environment and people that actually care.

I don't think I agree and I've explained my reasons why in the post above, but I can certainly see the extremely valid point and I may well be wrong.

[SecretPro]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think I agree and I've explained my reasons why in the post above, but I can certainly see the extremely valid point and I may well be wrong.

Surely if you are an actual environmentalist, you do everything within your power to make sure your lifestyle and actions are the best they can be for the environment. That means being vegan. Anything else is laziness or ignorance (unless you have a valid medical condition which means you physically cannot be vegan).

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, SecretPro said:

Surely if you are an actual environmentalist, you do everything within your power to make sure your lifestyle and actions are the best they can be for the environment. That means being vegan. Anything else is laziness or ignorance (unless you have a valid medical condition which means you physically cannot be vegan).

That, and/or various other circumstances of your lived environment and economic circumstances, too.

[SecretPro]

Just now, leicsmac said:

That, and/or various other circumstances of your lived environment and economic circumstances, too.

Well yes, obviously, but I was generally referring to to the vast majority of Europe and America, especially Britain, rather than Inuits etc where a vegan lifestyle isn't a valid option.

[leicsmac]

"Vance is now talking about prioritizing American energy, repeating the common Republican refrain "Drill baby drill" - a reference to support for oil and gas drilling. The crowd responds to the line with loud applause.

 

The vast majority of Republicans support the continuation of fossil fuel use in the US, while many Democrats want to see fossil fuel use decreased or phased out."

 

Every other policy position, every other one short of full on nuclear release, pales beside this one in terms of consequences. And culpability.

 

Someone who "cares about people", as Vance put it, wouldn't risk hundreds of millions of lives in various places (at a minimum) through this policy decision.

Edited 22 July by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/24/net-zero-will-only-make-you-poorer-and-china-richer/

 

Never mind guaranteeing the future of civilisation, this Telegraph talking head will happily see the world burn before letting the Chinese even look like taking the lead on this matter, then.

 

Edit: Of course it's Bjorn "let me count my oil and gas money for libelling my brothers in science" Lomberg, too.

Edited 24 July by leicsmac

[FoxyPV]

I saw a report saying that scientists think that the gulf stream is already being impacted by climate change.

 

They are split on whether the surface gulf stream will be more resilient than the deep water gulf stream.

 

If / when it collapsed Europe will be like have weather similar to Siberia (insert joke here)

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

I saw a report saying that scientists think that the gulf stream is already being impacted by climate change.

 

They are split on whether the surface gulf stream will be more resilient than the deep water gulf stream.

 

If / when it collapsed Europe will be like have weather similar to Siberia (insert joke here)

Something like this one:

 

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2024/05/02/the-atlantic-meridional-overturning-circulation-in-a-changing-climate/

 

What kind of impact and on what timeline is still rather open to research. What is certain, is that there will be an impact and it will be at least significant.

 

 

[Otis]

3 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

I saw a report saying that scientists think that the gulf stream is already being impacted by climate change.

 

They are split on whether the surface gulf stream will be more resilient than the deep water gulf stream.

 

If / when it collapsed Europe will be like have weather similar to Siberia (insert joke here)

I thought we were being told it would get warmer?

I wish they'd make their min up. 🤣

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Otis said:

I thought we were being told it would get warmer?

I wish they'd make their min up. 🤣

Well, if one wanted to view it incredibly simplistically rather than viewing the full range of extreme consequences across the board (such as drought in sub-Saharan Africa, flooding and drought alternating across parts of tropical Asia, melting of ice that then results in shifts in ocean currents that then raise or lower temperatures by location, among others), I guess that point could be made.

Edited 24 July by leicsmac

[jgtuk]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, if one wanted to view it incredibly simplistically rather than viewing the full range of extreme consequences across the board (such as drought in sub-Saharan Africa, flooding and drought alternating across parts of tropical Asia, melting of ice that then results in shifts in ocean currents that then raise or lower temperatures by location, among others), I guess that point could be made.

Hasn’t the record been broken again this month for high world temperatures, the last record being July last year?

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

Hasn’t the record been broken again this month for high world temperatures, the last record being July last year?

https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024

 

Yes.

[leicsmac]

Further to the above:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crg7pen1xj7o

 

The record for the world's hottest day has tumbled twice in one week, according to the European climate change service.

On Monday the global average surface air temperature reached 17.15C, breaking the record of 17.09C set on Sunday.

It beats the record set in July 2023, and it could break again this week.

Parts of the world are experiencing powerful heatwaves including the Mediterranean, Russia and Canada.

Climate change is driving up global temperatures as greenhouse gas emissions released when humans burn fossil fuels warm the Earth's atmosphere.

"While fluctuations are to be expected, as the climate continues to warm, we are likely to keep seeing records being broken, and each new record is taking us further into uncharted territory," says Prof Rebecca Emerton, a climate scientist at the Copernicus Climate Change Service.

The naturally-occurring climate phenomenon El Niño also added heat to the climate in the first six months of this year but its effects have now waned.

Extreme heat is a serious health hazard, with thousands of deaths attributed to high temperatures every year.

In 2000-2019, almost half a million heat-related deaths around the world occurred each year, according to the World Health Organization.

China has issued heat alerts this week, with central and northwestern areas of the country recording temperatures higher than 40C.

Russia has been battling wildfires in Siberia, and Spain and Greece also endured days of high temperatures.

In the US, more than 40 million people on Tuesday faced dangerous temperatures, and wildfires have broken out in western areas of the country.

 

 

... and this is barely the start. Unless action, meaningful, unified action, is taken.

[leicsmac]

Exactly this.

 

And oddly enough, I don't hear much from people disparaging these people (rightfully so) on what would work in terms of averting the catastrophe that is coming.

 

Perhaps that might be a better topic of conversation?

[ozleicester]

Many people dont undertsand...
A)  the catastrophe we are facing
B) The point to protesting

[leicsmac]

...I would again invite @Kisnorbo fox, @Babylon and @Trav Le Bleu, as well as other interested parties in the actions of rather ridiculous protesters, here to discuss the nature of the problem as well as the solution, rather than just a bunch of idiots making noise mostly for the sake of self-gratification. 

 

Always good to talk about this problem - it is rather big.

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Exactly this.

 

And oddly enough, I don't hear much from people disparaging these people (rightfully so) on what would work in terms of averting the catastrophe that is coming.

 

Perhaps that might be a better topic of conversation?

Honestly I think it's a bit of a lost cause. We're so far from the answer I just can't see anything but suffering ahead for a long time. 

 

Look at the state of politics at the moment, the left right divide is so pronounced. With the right spewing conspiracies, and doubt to all who follow them, they use it as a pawn in their own quest for power. Until that changes and we have political unity, we have no chance. 

 

Those in charge of some of the biggest polluters, like India an China couldn't give two hoots. No amount of chucking soup at paintings is going to change the minds of the people who matter. 

 

It's going to take something to happen that's unreverasable for people to get it. Even then, lets say that impacts one part of the world. The rest will still say "not my problem"... until it is their problem.

 

People aren't going to stop having kids, needs for resources will continue to grow. There will ultimately be a mass extinction event that might wise people up to it. 

 

That's not to say you don't try, we all should. Because it can make a difference. But at the moment it's pissing in the wind until you have globl unity.

[Kisnorbo fox]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...I would again invite @Kisnorbo fox, @Babylon and @Trav Le Bleu, as well as other interested parties in the actions of rather ridiculous protesters, here to discuss the nature of the problem as well as the solution, rather than just a bunch of idiots making noise mostly for the sake of self-gratification. 

 

Always good to talk about this problem - it is rather big.

Thank you for the invite. I agree it is an important topic, however my knowledge on The subject matter isn’t the best. In regards to the protestors such as “Just stop oil” I think they go about it the wrong way and do more damage than any form of good. If anything there behaviour may make people more resentful to the idea of climate change etc than actually help towards it, as the topic then becomes associated with the people seen in protests like at Gatwick airport and previous individuals (idiots) glueing themselves to the roads.

Edited 29 July by Kisnorbo fox

[Trav Le Bleu]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...I would again invite @Kisnorbo fox, @Babylon and @Trav Le Bleu, as well as other interested parties in the actions of rather ridiculous protesters, here to discuss the nature of the problem as well as the solution, rather than just a bunch of idiots making noise mostly for the sake of self-gratification. 

 

Always good to talk about this problem - it is rather big.

 

While we have stupid, selfish humans in charge nothing will change. I'm a religious man and I believe only God can sort it out. (Lots of prejudiced people will have now switched off). Which isn't to excuse anyone, myself included, from doing their part to try.

 

Money (or rather, the love of it, without getting all biblical on yo' ass) is a major contributor. If humankind really wanted to, we could go "green" in less than a decade. The technology, the capacity, the knowledge; it's all there. It's the will of people to give up their riches that is the problem.

 

No one wants to give away their energy saving devices, or the people who sell the components to them either. Massive corporations don't want to manufacture goods that last, they want you to throw away and buy another in a few years (modern appliances are deliberately difficult to repair). Building constructors will try to get away with a minimum cost also. 

 

People who want to be green are often priced out. EVs are expensive and those who live in lower cost housing will struggle to charge them, whilst public transport continues to be shoddy. Even with grants, solutions to old inefficient boilers aren't cheap. The healthiest and most organically grown food? That's the most expensive.

 

Then you've got your average Joe or Jo doesn't want to go to their local shop to buy something for £4.99 when they can get it from China for £3.99 (plus £1.10 postage) They'd rather eat at McDs than a restaurant. They'd prefer breakfast delivered to their doorstep than pour milk and cereal into a bowl, or, heaven forbid, peel some fruit.

 

As a delivery person, I get to see all of the above and I dread t think what some people's, average, everyday, working people) carbon footprint is like.

 

Don't even get me started on the super-rich, wh are stupid enough to spend £10Ks of £$€¥ for a single night of excessive living in a hotel, none of which will be put back into supporting the environment.

 

So, no, humankind is surely doomed. But everyone try your best. There's no excuse.

[Wymsey]

Do wonder sometimes if the country will, at some point, run out of water in particular, once the population reaches a high point.

[Trav Le Bleu]

17 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Do wonder sometimes if the country will, at some point, run out of water in particular, once the population reaches a high point.

I think something else would finish us off before that.

 

Though that adds another point to what I was saying before. The provision of water, one of the most basic requirements for life, is a resource for wealth. I.E. shareholders>infrastructure.

 

That it requires charity to provide people with clean water in certain countries is damning of humankind.

Edited 29 July by Trav Le Bleu

[leicsmac]

Glad to hear from you guys.

 

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

Honestly I think it's a bit of a lost cause. We're so far from the answer I just can't see anything but suffering ahead for a long time. 

 

Look at the state of politics at the moment, the left right divide is so pronounced. With the right spewing conspiracies, and doubt to all who follow them, they use it as a pawn in their own quest for power. Until that changes and we have political unity, we have no chance. 

 

Those in charge of some of the biggest polluters, like India an China couldn't give two hoots. No amount of chucking soup at paintings is going to change the minds of the people who matter. 

 

It's going to take something to happen that's unreverasable for people to get it. Even then, lets say that impacts one part of the world. The rest will still say "not my problem"... until it is their problem.

 

People aren't going to stop having kids, needs for resources will continue to grow. There will ultimately be a mass extinction event that might wise people up to it. 

 

That's not to say you don't try, we all should. Because it can make a difference. But at the moment it's pissing in the wind until you have globl unity.

Tbf China are beginning to turn things around (last year they installed more solar panels than the USA has done over its entire history), but other places like India and Russia need to step up, rapidly.

 

We do need to try, all of us, and I wish people would become more involved and view this as a priority issue and do what they can (involvement in the policymaking process regarding it, for instance) wherever they can, because it's the only way we might avoid a very dark future. People need to fight the good fight, rather than fatalistic acceptance of bad times to come, because that outlook only guarantees such an outcome.

 

2 hours ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Thank you for the invite. I agree it is an important topic, however my knowledge on The subject matter isn’t the best. In regards to the protestors such as “Just stop oil” I think they go about it the wrong way and do more damage than any form of good. If anything there behaviour may make people more resentful to the idea of climate change etc than actually help towards it, as the topic then becomes associated with the people seen in protests like at Gatwick airport and previous individuals (idiots) glueing themselves to the roads.

I do agree with you about the acts of JSO being counterproductive. It really doesn't help. But rather than talk about that, I wish people would talk about what would work.

 

 

2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

While we have stupid, selfish humans in charge nothing will change. I'm a religious man and I believe only God can sort it out. (Lots of prejudiced people will have now switched off). Which isn't to excuse anyone, myself included, from doing their part to try.

 

Money (or rather, the love of it, without getting all biblical on yo' ass) is a major contributor. If humankind really wanted to, we could go "green" in less than a decade. The technology, the capacity, the knowledge; it's all there. It's the will of people to give up their riches that is the problem.

 

No one wants to give away their energy saving devices, or the people who sell the components to them either. Massive corporations don't want to manufacture goods that last, they want you to throw away and buy another in a few years (modern appliances are deliberately difficult to repair). Building constructors will try to get away with a minimum cost also. 

 

People who want to be green are often priced out. EVs are expensive and those who live in lower cost housing will struggle to charge them, whilst public transport continues to be shoddy. Even with grants, solutions to old inefficient boilers aren't cheap. The healthiest and most organically grown food? That's the most expensive.

 

Then you've got your average Joe or Jo doesn't want to go to their local shop to buy something for £4.99 when they can get it from China for £3.99 (plus £1.10 postage) They'd rather eat at McDs than a restaurant. They'd prefer breakfast delivered to their doorstep than pour milk and cereal into a bowl, or, heaven forbid, peel some fruit.

 

As a delivery person, I get to see all of the above and I dread t think what some people's, average, everyday, working people) carbon footprint is like.

 

Don't even get me started on the super-rich, wh are stupid enough to spend £10Ks of £$€¥ for a single night of excessive living in a hotel, none of which will be put back into supporting the environment.

 

So, no, humankind is surely doomed. But everyone try your best. There's no excuse.

That's pretty astute, yes.

 

But everyone does need to fight the good fight, as per above. It would be deeply sad to be remembered by what remains of humanity as the ones who destroyed pretty much everything that came before them.

 

Do what you can, where you can. No matter how small.