Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[GboroRam]

I think we're in stage 3 of the "yes minister" standard foreign office response :

 

Sir Richard Wharton: “In stage one, we say nothing is going to happen.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby: “Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.”

Sir Richard Wharton: “In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby: “Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.”

[Leeds Ram]

19 hours ago, Highgate said:

It's not up to me to clarify how to reach the targets proposed by JSO or XR.  I don't even agree with some of their actions, let them defend their own proposals. I'm not sure how plausible they would be.  Nor am I a policy maker and I have little interest in detailing how the UK government should meet it's own 2050 targets.  I'm sure they have attempted to explain their plans in some policy paper or whatever, although I'm not sure how clear it could be, given how quickly the situation develops and technology changes. I don't really favour setting such targets anyway, they often serve more as a slogan and may be nothing more than an an attempt to kick the whole climate crisis can down the road for someone else to deal with. 

What I am against is this notion than the UK should do little or nothing while China and the US sort themselves out first. That's illogical and counterproductive in the extreme in my view. On the contrary I believe the UK should be doing everything it can possibly can to hasten the conversion to the green economy and doing it as quickly as feasible. Allowing for one understandable red line, not to make those living in poverty's situation worse, or push more people towards the poverty line in the effort to reach a sustainable economy.  That's the job of the UK government, whomever they may be, and it's the responsibility of the UK public to make sure that those in government start to prioritize the climate and environment by voting accordingly. However, I will admit that the UK electorate is hampered here by the FPTP electoral system, which is a system not fit for purpose in a modern democracy, as it operates to prevent a change in the status quo. Flexibility and change are precisely the attributes that a healthy democracy is supposed to embrace. 

As regards climate policy there is a whole host of things that the UK can do, and continue to do.  Stop subsidizing fossil fuels, put a wealth tax on the profiteering fossil fuel and utility companies, that are making such record profits at a time crisis.  Implement a wealth tax on the super wealthy.  Use this money, to subsidize an electric transport system, making it so much easier for everybody's next car to be an electric one.  Continue building renewable energy power generation facilities, such as solar and offshore wind, build grid scale energy storage, exploring micro hydro and nuclear options, build grid interconnectivity with neighbouring countries and so on. As well as ambitions plans such as the xLinks project connecting the UK an enormous renewable energy resource in Morocco. 

https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/

Also, by encouraging a more climate friendly diet a significant CO2 reduction could be achieved, (by taxing high foods with a high CO2 footprint and subsidizing foods with a low CO2 footprints). Furthermore and needless to say really, energy wastage can be reduced all over the economy, without impacting the economy negatively. There are a lot of the things the UK government could be getting on with regarding reducing their GHG emissions.  

There is little point posting a TED talk from more than 10 years ago when talking about the future of renewables and their contribution to the Green Economy. The field is moving so fast and technology is being developed so rapidly, that no matter how knowledgeable a person was on the subject in 2012, their views are simply out of date now.  How were they to know that by now solar power would more efficient and be 70% cheaper than it was then, making it the cheapest energy source on the planet. Or to predict the development of grid scale battery storage for renewables, or the growth of interconnected national grids, or the possibilities for solid state batteries for electric vehicles etc... 

I have no interest in the opinions of Harry Winsdor or Emma Thompson on this subject, or any subject really, but one point worth mentioning is that the 'net' zero that all these people are talking about doesn't necessarily mean zero CO2 emissions. Emissions can be offset by planting trees, both in the UK and elsewhere and potentially by various carbon sequestration practices and technologies in the future.

There does seem to be a somewhat complacent and self-congratulatory tone creeping into your attitude towards the UK's GHG emissions reduction of recent decades. I think this is somewhat unwarranted, given that it's largely due to the coalmines being closed for financial reasons, manufacturing migrating abroad to find lower labour costs and the deliberate mislabeling of imported biomass as carbon neutral. That's not to say that the renewables introduced by the UK haven't been making a positive impact, they certainly have, but there is so much more that needs to be done and now is the time to start doing it, instead of waiting for China to do something first. You talk about the pain incurred by people as the costs of the Green Transition mount up, but you make no mention of the many hardships that will be felt all around the world (if smaller countries were to follow your advice and do little or nothing) as our global climate becomes increasingly inhospitable year after year.  

 

 

It really doesn't matter what we do. If the US, China, India, and the emerging global south don't significantly pitch in to net 0 then we will likely be in big trouble. It's okay to say we should be providing an example (and yes, we should within reasonable adjustments), but the idea that will give us any kind of influence on these countries is a little fanciful. Countries will act in their own self-interest, some will see the need to develop economically now and then fund defensive measures in the future, others will decide to try to limit future damage.

We are not sure about future hardships because of the change in climate for precisely the same reasons why you say someone in 2012 cannot talk of renewables now. Climate scientists are not prophets on every subject, they merely speculate what kind of changes we can expect to see. How we deal with that will inevitably be subject to unknown and numerous technological changes that could change how we live and how we live with climate change. 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, jono said:

I truly hope the population peak happens before we water and food wars. You can really see it happening. 
I have mixed feelings about climate change. It’s happening, it’s real and with the current climate change, human activity is the main driver. Yet looking at a bigger picture the climate has always changed. The earth at times has been much warmer and sea levels much higher. The problem is we don’t want it to change because our insignificant populace needs it to be stable to ensure our survival .. it’s kind of a selfish driver when you look at it like that. 

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. For me the biggest thing we could do is build the Severn barrage .. that would be really green .. 10% or more of our entire electricity needs could be met if that is done properly. Reliably safely and green. Sadly (and you make a good point about dictatorships) our leaders of every stripe want short term wins and stopped thinking big a long time ago. 

Very good point and very relevant. I think it also applies to the population/voters in general.  We aren't that good at thinking long-term, we all focus on short-term and local threats, and that's understandable. But the problem is climate change is a global threat, long-term and also very real. 

You are right that climate change has always happened and the planet will be fine, whatever happens to us. However, I do think as humans we have a right to think of ourselves as significant and to worry what a climate change would do now to our precarious civilization, nearly half of which is hugging coastlines all around the world. 

 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

It really doesn't matter what we do. If the US, China, India, and the emerging global south don't significantly pitch in to net 0 then we will likely be in big trouble. It's okay to say we should be providing an example (and yes, we should within reasonable adjustments), but the idea that will give us any kind of influence on these countries is a little fanciful. Countries will act in their own self-interest, some will see the need to develop economically now and then fund defensive measures in the future, others will decide to try to limit future damage.

We are not sure about future hardships because of the change in climate for precisely the same reasons why you say someone in 2012 cannot talk of renewables now. Climate scientists are not prophets on every subject, they merely speculate what kind of changes we can expect to see. How we deal with that will inevitably be subject to unknown and numerous technological changes that could change how we live and how we live with climate change. 

Well I can see that I'm getting through to nobody..🤣. It really does matter what we do.  And it's not about influencing China and the US, of course they will do what they like, but all the countries you've left out still account for a large percentage of global emissions. All country's contributions matter, some more than others, but they all matter. You say countries act in their own self interest, that's certainly true, but the point is it is in every country's self-interest to act and to transition to a Green Economy as soon as possible, for all the reason listed numerous times on this thread and more, most notably to combat global climate change, political and energy security, cleaner air, healthier environments.  It literally couldn't be more in each countries, and their citizens, interest to become sustainable economies as soon as possible.  It's the fossil fuel industry whose interest the transition will not suit

I don't quite buy your comparison. We are not sure of the details of what will happen in the future regarding climate change and it's consequences but we have a pretty good picture.  We know that we are increasing the quantity of GHG in the atmosphere, and we know for a fact that this will warm up that planet, as that's what they always do. We know that a warming atmosphere and warming seas will cause the ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise all around the world and we know that warmer atmospheres will carry more water, and therefore storms are likely to be more intense. In other words, our knowledge is already sufficient to know what we need to know, that is we should try everything to reduce the effects of climate change as much as we possibly can. 

[jono]

As a side note, I feel that extinction rebellion, just stop oil et Al will achieve nothing except disrupting people’s lives and increasing emissions. They won’t won’t change a single persons habits. That will only happen when we see wild fires, floods and natural mayhem. Whenour lives are disrupted by nature or our own physical conditions. Grandiose statements from ideologues are as worthless as platitudes from politicians wanting votes in the short term. 

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Well I can see that I'm getting through to nobody..🤣. It really does matter what we do.  And it's not about influencing China and the US, of course they will do what they like, but all the countries you've left out still account for a large percentage of global emissions. All country's contributions matter, some more than others, but they all matter. You say countries act in their own self interest, that's certainly true, but the point is it is in every country's self-interest to act and to transition to a Green Economy as soon as possible, for all the reason listed numerous times on this thread and more, most notably to combat global climate change, political and energy security, cleaner air, healthier environments.  It literally couldn't be more in each countries, and their citizens, interest to become sustainable economies as soon as possible.  It's the fossil fuel industry whose interest the transition will not suit

I don't quite buy your comparison. We are not sure of the details of what will happen in the future regarding climate change and it's consequences but we have a pretty good picture.  We know that we are increasing the quantity of GHG in the atmosphere, and we know for a fact that this will warm up that planet, as that's what they always do. We know that a warming atmosphere and warming seas will cause the ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise all around the world and we know that warmer atmospheres will carry more water, and therefore storms are likely to be more intense. In other words, our knowledge is already sufficient to know what we need to know, that is we should try everything to reduce the effects of climate change as much as we possibly can. 

Maybe if you're getting through to nobody, have you considered that you may be wrong....  

If every other country bar the US, China, Germany, and India reduced to net 0, then climate change would remain a significant problem. That's what I mean when I say it 'doesn't matter', i.e., when I say it doesn't matter, I infer that some countries' carbon output is so great that our contribution will not tip the scales meaningfully in any direction. 

Some countries may deem it's not in their self-interest to take an economic hit. We do not know the political or security results of climate change because that depends upon how we manage the changes to our climate. You and climate scientists cannot predict that; the same is true of food and energy security too. How we will manage these changes will come down to all kinds of innovations and rest upon the speed of science, technology, and infrastructure, much of which has likely not even been developed yet. 

No, we don't have a good picture. We have modelling based upon climate changes if things stay the same technologically and what that will do if everything else stays the same. The problem is everything around us is shifting all the time. Imagining a world 100 years from now predicated upon current knowledge is impossible. If you asked the brightest minds in 1910 what the world would look like in 2010 and you wouldn't have come close. The same is true today.

[Highgate]

32 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Maybe if you're getting through to nobody, have you considered that you may be wrong....  

If every other country bar the US, China, Germany, and India reduced to net 0, then climate change would remain a significant problem. That's what I mean when I say it 'doesn't matter', i.e., when I say it doesn't matter, I infer that some countries' carbon output is so great that our contribution will not tip the scales meaningfully in any direction. 

Some countries may deem it's not in their self-interest to take an economic hit. We do not know the political or security results of climate change because that depends upon how we manage the changes to our climate. You and climate scientists cannot predict that; the same is true of food and energy security too. How we will manage these changes will come down to all kinds of innovations and rest upon the speed of science, technology, and infrastructure, much of which has likely not even been developed yet. 

No, we don't have a good picture. We have modelling based upon climate changes if things stay the same technologically and what that will do if everything else stays the same. The problem is everything around us is shifting all the time. Imagining a world 100 years from now predicated upon current knowledge is impossible. If you asked the brightest minds in 1910 what the world would look like in 2010 and you wouldn't have come close. The same is true today.

Of course that's a possibility, but it's also a possibility that views are just entrenched, like they seem to be on most issues. 

I understand your point that if all the smaller countries achieved Net 0, while the larger ones didn't bother, then climate change would still be an issue, therefore it doesn't matter what the smaller countries do.  I understand it, but I believe it's fundamentally flawed. Consider it from the other angle, the big countries reach Net 0, while all the smaller ones didn't bother? Then global warming is also still a problem. The point is that everyone needs to be sustainable, not just some. So every country matters, especially moderately sized ones such as the UK. It's a global problem, we are all in this together. 

The political and security implications of climate change are unknown, that's a relatively safe assumption, but it's also pretty safe to assume that all those implications are on the bad end of the spectrum. Best avoided or at least reduced really. 

I can't agree with your last paragraph at all, except with the general point that the world will be quite different in 100 years time. What won't be different at all are the laws of physics. The manner in which GHGs trap heat in our atmosphere won't have changed one bit, the temperature at which ice melts and raises the sea-level will still be exactly the same as it is today, as will the rate at which ocean water thermally expands. The amount of water our atmosphere can carry, per unit volume, will be precisely as sensitive to temperature as it ever was. How we adapt to these challenges is what is unknown not that those will be the challenges that we face. Their extent and severity will be decided by the actions we (all of us) take now and in the coming years. 

[Archied]

I actually think just stop oil protests have been counterproductive to they’re aims , they have raised awareness of net zero drive and it seems many more people are questioning what we are trying to achieve at what cost to our economy and peoples lives and that’s no bad thing , there’s a lot of vested interests on the net zero side just as there is with fossil fuels and people are beginning to question whether we are being taken on a ride for the short term financial gains of some with very little long term gain , it really is becoming the kind of debate that should have been had before passing laws on reaching plucked out of the sky policies, targets and timeframes , this may be the issue that see s a new political party shake up the big two which again is no bad thing , I really have less and less clue what either of the big two stand for🤷🏻‍♂️

[Archied]

Further to above ,has the hyperbole of tipping point actually become counterproductive too , these tipping points just can’t be avoided without massive worldwide fossil fuel usage being stopped now , we know that’s not going to happen so there really is no point in U.K. destroying its economy and lives of it’s citizens so are we not better to concentrate time ,money ,research , energy into mitigating the effects of climate change along with diverse balanced energy production over time ?

the figures are indisputable that cold kills far far more people than heat worldwide so temp raises will save more lives worldwide? And something that came into my head was the question of ,if parts of the world are going to become far less habitable then surely by the same token vast swathes of the world are going to become far more habitable for people , crop growing ect ect ? Maybe migration is managed around these areas too?
im aware this is very simplistic but I actually believe simplistic views and questions are the best starting point ,

it’s very clear we have been ever evolving and progressing to the point we live longer now , live better lives so why is it so impossible to believe we cannot evolve with climate change which let’s be honest is always going to happen to a degree we are not sure of no matter what we do🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Archied

[Leeds Ram]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Of course that's a possibility, but it's also a possibility that views are just entrenched, like they seem to be on most issues. 

I understand your point that if all the smaller countries achieved Net 0, while the larger ones didn't bother, then climate change would still be an issue, therefore it doesn't matter what the smaller countries do.  I understand it, but I believe it's fundamentally flawed. Consider it from the other angle, the big countries reach Net 0, while all the smaller ones didn't bother? Then global warming is also still a problem. The point is that everyone needs to be sustainable, not just some. So every country matters, especially moderately sized ones such as the UK. It's a global problem, we are all in this together. 

The political and security implications of climate change are unknown, that's a relatively safe assumption, but it's also pretty safe to assume that all those implications are on the bad end of the spectrum. Best avoided or at least reduced really. 

I can't agree with your last paragraph at all, except with the general point that the world will be quite different in 100 years time. What won't be different at all are the laws of physics. The manner in which GHGs trap heat in our atmosphere won't have changed one bit, the temperature at which ice melts and raises the sea-level will still be exactly the same as it is today, as will the rate at which ocean water thermally expands. The amount of water our atmosphere can carry, per unit volume, will be precisely as sensitive to temperature as it ever was. How we adapt to these challenges is what is unknown not that those will be the challenges that we face. Their extent and severity will be decided by the actions we (all of us) take now and in the coming years. 

Of course entrenchment is also a possibility. 

I mean, not everyone needs to reach net 0 though. For instance, if the 10 smallest countries with negligible fossil fuel output weren't technically at net 0, that would not particularly impact our climate. However, if the 10 largest countries didn't reduce their carbon emissions, that would significantly affect climate change. In this sense, some countries matter a great deal more than others, and whilst it is likely important to get everyone we can on board if we don't get the major players to commit, then we'll remain at serious risk of climate change being a significant issue. I know this is recognised because in my field (Political Theory), there have been ongoing discussions debating climate reparations from those primarily responsible for climate change. 

I would currently say it's basically impossible to foresee the political and security implications of 50-100 years from now. It could be we suffer major internal threats from eco-terrorism if this thing worsens, and there are significant migration patterns from different areas that are more difficult to live in. This could lead to radical forms of destabilisation. Or it could be that technological, infrastructural and economic advances mean that countries basically live as we do now. 

Whilst the laws of physics may not change (although exceptions always seem to be parts of the rules of physics laws from my very limited understanding), the effects and consequences are totally unknown, which is my entire point. If the effects of climate change are mitigated because of technological improvements and infrastructural changes, then it won't be a disaster. Hence my point that besides the process no-one can say with any degree of certainty what the world will look like which was my point. 

[Carl Sagan]

On 26/07/2023 at 21:57, Highgate said:

It's not up to me to clarify how to reach the targets proposed by JSO or XR  ... What I am against is this notion than the UK should do little or nothing while China and the US sort themselves out first. That's illogical and counterproductive in the extreme in my view. On the contrary I believe the UK should be doing everything it can possibly can to hasten the conversion to the green economy and doing it as quickly as feasible. Allowing for one understandable red line, not to make those living in poverty's situation worse, or push more people towards the poverty line in the effort to reach a sustainable economy. 

That's the issue. There are no mechanisms to do what you suggest without crossing your own red line. I wouldn't normally call on him for support, but even Tony Blair agrees with me as the realization hits more people and the conversation (thankfully) starts to change away from climate virtue signalling:

 

[Carl Sagan]

On 26/07/2023 at 13:16, Bob The Badger said:

Any excuse? Are you kidding me?

They lost over half of their imported gas (55%) that they had to make up. No other country came close. They imported almost 3 times that of the next country (Italy) by volume. And more than four times that of Turkey the next country.

By comparison, we imported about 4% of ours from Russia. 

So no, we couldn't make the same excuse without it sounding utterly preposterous.

They only closed some more of their (working perfectly fine) nuclear power stations this April. April 2023!!!! If the situation was as desperate as you suggest, you might think they'd have kept them operating until the end of the war. But no, let's shift energy generation to (even more) coal instead.

[Ghost of Clough]

16 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Maybe if you're getting through to nobody, have you considered that you may be wrong....  

If every other country bar the US, China, Germany, and India reduced to net 0, then climate change would remain a significant problem. That's what I mean when I say it 'doesn't matter', i.e., when I say it doesn't matter, I infer that some countries' carbon output is so great that our contribution will not tip the scales meaningfully in any direction. 

Some countries may deem it's not in their self-interest to take an economic hit. We do not know the political or security results of climate change because that depends upon how we manage the changes to our climate. You and climate scientists cannot predict that; the same is true of food and energy security too. How we will manage these changes will come down to all kinds of innovations and rest upon the speed of science, technology, and infrastructure, much of which has likely not even been developed yet. 

No, we don't have a good picture. We have modelling based upon climate changes if things stay the same technologically and what that will do if everything else stays the same. The problem is everything around us is shifting all the time. Imagining a world 100 years from now predicated upon current knowledge is impossible. If you asked the brightest minds in 1910 what the world would look like in 2010 and you wouldn't have come close. The same is true today.

As has been discussed in depth over many pages, the infrastructure just isn't in place for any reasonably developed country to make a sudden transition towards renewable energy. It's tough enough in our country when balancing out cost and timescales, imagine China doing it with a GDP per capita which is almost a quarter of ours.

They've identified their path to being net 0 (by 2060), but it still means coal consumption (the majority of their fossil fuel consumption) will continue to rise for another 5 years. In the meantime, they will continue to develop it's renewable energy supply. They have quadrupled their renewable energy production since 2008, but they would need to triple that again to completely remove fossil fuels from their electricity requirements - it'll take time. 

Interestingly, no country is currently on course to be Paris Agreement compatible. The UK currently emits about 400 MT CO2 per year (estimated to reduce to 320 by 2030). Next highest in the 'almost sufficient' category is Nigeria with 300 (estimated to maintain that level until 2030), then Ethiopia with 170 (estimated to increase to 225 by 2030). You can see these ranking categories below (link).

[Highgate]

5 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Of course entrenchment is also a possibility. 

I mean, not everyone needs to reach net 0 though. For instance, if the 10 smallest countries with negligible fossil fuel output weren't technically at net 0, that would not particularly impact our climate. However, if the 10 largest countries didn't reduce their carbon emissions, that would significantly affect climate change. In this sense, some countries matter a great deal more than others, and whilst it is likely important to get everyone we can on board if we don't get the major players to commit, then we'll remain at serious risk of climate change being a significant issue. I know this is recognised because in my field (Political Theory), there have been ongoing discussions debating climate reparations from those primarily responsible for climate change. 

I would currently say it's basically impossible to foresee the political and security implications of 50-100 years from now. It could be we suffer major internal threats from eco-terrorism if this thing worsens, and there are significant migration patterns from different areas that are more difficult to live in. This could lead to radical forms of destabilisation. Or it could be that technological, infrastructural and economic advances mean that countries basically live as we do now. 

Whilst the laws of physics may not change (although exceptions always seem to be parts of the rules of physics laws from my very limited understanding), the effects and consequences are totally unknown, which is my entire point. If the effects of climate change are mitigated because of technological improvements and infrastructural changes, then it won't be a disaster. Hence my point that besides the process no-one can say with any degree of certainty what the world will look like which was my point. 

Yeah....no disagreement at all with your first paragraph really. It's clear that the major players are the most significant, but we should be encouraging every country to do their upmost. 

And true, all sorts of unknowable political and security issues are coming our way in the next 100 years. I'm of no help there, I couldn't even predict the invasion of Ukraine, when Russia's army was amassed on their border. So I'll keep the guessing to a minimum. And it's impossible to tell how climate change will affect our geopolitical security situation in future....but it's fairly safe to say that's it's effect will be a negative one. 

I don't think there are exceptions to the laws of physics...although our knowledge of them is never perfect. It's true that we don't know what technologies we have in the future, but given that we already have the technology available to prevent the worst effects of climate change, why don't we crack on with that now, rather than hoping that future technologies will save the day? 

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

That's the issue. There are no mechanisms to do what you suggest without crossing your own red line. I wouldn't normally call on him for support, but even Tony Blair agrees with me as the realization hits more people and the conversation (thankfully) starts to change away from climate virtue signalling:

 

I'm always wary when someone uses the term 'virtue signalling' as a form of criticism. If often suggests there is less substance to their own argument than they would wish.  

As for 'no mechanisms' to do what I suggest (namely reducing GHGs as much as possible without pushing people into poverty). What about those ones I suggested, namely spend the billions used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry on green technologies instead, tax the profiteering fossil fuel companies (or force them by law to build renewable capacity as @jono suggested), as well as a wealth tax on the super wealthy, spending that money on subsidizing electric cars over petrol. That can be done for starters.  Furthermore, better house design, encouraging lower carbon foods by prudent tax and subsidies. Adapting agricultural techniques, such as soil management practices to absorb carbon, better public lighting so we don't send half our artificial light into space. And of course planting trees. The list literally goes on and on of things that can be done that won't push people into poverty.  So lets do those one first and then see where we are regarding GHG  emissions.

“Don’t ask us to do a huge amount when frankly whatever we do in Britain is not really going to impact climate change.”

I'm not sure who that is attributed to, the New Statesman itself, or Tony Blair.  Either way it's nothing but a cop out from the UK's responsibility to it's own citizen's and to the rest of the world. I've said why I think that's the case previously, so no point in repeating myself again'. 

'Tony Blair speaks to @andrewmarr9 about why there’s “absolutely no possibility” of solving climate change without China.'

This from Tony Blair, is simply a truism. Of course we can't solve it without China, the world's largest economy and population.  As you say yourself, even Tony Blair knows that. The point is everybody knows that, it's obvious.

And the reverse is equally true. China can't solve Climate Change without the rest of the world.  So what would be the point in them doing anything if the rest of the world won't?  Do you see where this sort of logic will lead?  It will lead to nobody doing anything.  So instead, let's all do what we can as quickly as we can and stop using China as an excuse for inaction. 

 

[Seaside Ram]

My god I need next Saturday to get here ! 😶

[cstand]

On 28/07/2023 at 16:54, Highgate said:

I'm always wary when someone uses the term 'virtue signalling' as a form of criticism. If often suggests there is less substance to their own argument than they would wish.  

As for 'no mechanisms' to do what I suggest (namely reducing GHGs as much as possible without pushing people into poverty). What about those ones I suggested, namely spend the billions used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry on green technologies instead, tax the profiteering fossil fuel companies (or force them by law to build renewable capacity as @jono suggested), as well as a wealth tax on the super wealthy, spending that money on subsidizing electric cars over petrol. That can be done for starters.  Furthermore, better house design, encouraging lower carbon foods by prudent tax and subsidies. Adapting agricultural techniques, such as soil management practices to absorb carbon, better public lighting so we don't send half our artificial light into space. And of course planting trees. The list literally goes on and on of things that can be done that won't push people into poverty.  So lets do those one first and then see where we are regarding GHG  emissions.

“Don’t ask us to do a huge amount when frankly whatever we do in Britain is not really going to impact climate change.”

I'm not sure who that is attributed to, the New Statesman itself, or Tony Blair.  Either way it's nothing but a cop out from the UK's responsibility to it's own citizen's and to the rest of the world. I've said why I think that's the case previously, so no point in repeating myself again'. 

'Tony Blair speaks to @andrewmarr9 about why there’s “absolutely no possibility” of solving climate change without China.'

This from Tony Blair, is simply a truism. Of course we can't solve it without China, the world's largest economy and population.  As you say yourself, even Tony Blair knows that. The point is everybody knows that, it's obvious.

And the reverse is equally true. China can't solve Climate Change without the rest of the world.  So what would be the point in them doing anything if the rest of the world won't?  Do you see where this sort of logic will lead?  It will lead to nobody doing anything.  So instead, let's all do what we can as quickly as we can and stop using China as an excuse for inaction. 

 

Your accusation of inaction is simply not true.

2022 was a record year for the UK 40% of our energy was from renewable energy.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/how-much-do-renewables-contribute-to-the-uks-energy-mix-and-what-policies-support-their-expansion/#:~:text=In 2022%2C 40% – a, in 2022 after gas.

Plus we are not pulling down wind turbines to extend coal mines.

https://www.ecowatch.com/germany-coal-wind-energy-crisis.html

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by cstand

[Stive Pesley]

37 minutes ago, cstand said:

Your accusation of inaction is simply not true.

2022 was a record year for the UK 40% of our energy was from renewable energy.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/how-much-do-renewables-contribute-to-the-uks-energy-mix-and-what-policies-support-their-expansion/#:~:text=In 2022%2C 40% – a, in 2022 after gas.

Plus we are not pulling down wind turbines to extend coal mines.

https://www.ecowatch.com/germany-coal-wind-energy-crisis.html

 

Yup, as I said in an earlier post, the direction of travel is positive and it's unstoppable, as the ULEZ court ruling shows. There will always be whataboutery naysayers trying to slow down progress but hopefully momentum will build.

Ironically aforesaid naysayers are coming from a point of view of wanting nothing to change. But the only way to ensure that our general way of life doesn't change is to act positively in anyway you can, however small.  No one is driving an unecessarily massive car on a road that has melted

[Highgate]

56 minutes ago, cstand said:

Your accusation of inaction is simply not true.

2022 was a record year for the UK 40% of our energy was from renewable energy.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/how-much-do-renewables-contribute-to-the-uks-energy-mix-and-what-policies-support-their-expansion/#:~:text=In 2022%2C 40% – a, in 2022 after gas.

Plus we are not pulling down wind turbines to extend coal mines.

https://www.ecowatch.com/germany-coal-wind-energy-crisis.html

 

You are absolutely right.  Inaction isn't the right word, I should have said people shouldn't be using China as an excuse not to continue swapping out fossil fuels for renewables as quickly as possible.  Which people certainly are, here and elsewhere. 

The amount of electricity being produced by renewables now in the UK and elsewhere is one main reason there is still cause for a little optimism. But more needs to be done, and there isn't really any time to lose. 

One caveat, the  40% figure does include a lot of biomass, most of which is from imported wood pellets. That shouldn't really be considered renewable at all, at least not in the current situation, where you don't want to be emitting carbon now and gradually absorbing the same amount over the next few decades. 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Highgate

[Carl Sagan]

When you look at our per capita emissions you can see they're pretty much the lowest in the West and below most countries. 

This chart is customizable.

When you view this in conjunction with our overall (ie not per capita) emissions, you'll understand it confirms the profound error of logic it is to believe, as JSO and XR claim to do, that what happens in the UK has any material impact on the global climate system.