BaronSmoggie
Well-known member
I'm curious how this would be considered a green project.
Climate Change, where are you on this scale?
- Thread starter relfyoftheboro
- Start date
festa5
Well-known member
I think that's the crux of the matter. Most are of course also heavily influenced by people who have vested interests in ensuring continued reliance on fossil fuels.
I think a lot of people would say our government aren't doing anywhere near enough and their likely successor won't do either.
If we ever brought in FPTP I think the greens might surprise a few as to how well they'd do. I think there's more concern amongst the population on the issue that our media would have you believe.
JohnsonMFC
Member
Its pretty impossible for humans as a civilised race, to live on this planet and advance with both technology and standard of living, without fcking the planet up. Every single thing we do uses the planets resources and pollutes in some way. Eventually, and not too far in the future we are all going to be goosed. So just enjoy yourself while you can 
JohnsonMFC
Member
Hence why even the 'Green' solutions to big polluting problems also pollute just as bad, just hidden better further down the chain.
BaronSmoggie
Well-known member
Don't have kids. And I am not being mean. Seriously, if you wish to live with that attitude, and I am not saying it is wrong or berating you, then don't bring kids into this world without trying to make the world better than it was when you were born. Else, there genuinely is no hope for humanity to survive climate change on this level if kids don't learn from their parents actions.Its pretty impossible for humans as a civilised race, to live on this planet and advance with both technology and standard of living, without fcking the planet up. Every single thing we do uses the planets resources and pollutes in some way. Eventually, and not too far in the future we are all going to be goosed. So just enjoy yourself while you can
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
4D
JohnsonMFC
Member
Thats not exactly how I live my life mate, just because thats what I think will happen doesnt mean i'm a tosser...... I recycle, watch what I buy and throw out, I do my bit. (what else can I do?)
But I have enough intelligence to see that what I wrote is almost certain to happen eventually, the world is a fragile eco system and cant cope with us 8 Billion (and growing) energy/food/land hungry humans for an infinite amount of time. We are a drain on the planets limited resources and what ever we do it's only going to end one way.
....... And I have kids, you will be gutted to find out, who i'm bringing up just fine thanks. But thanks for the advice.
Wiseman_Vaughn
Well-known member
No matter what we do we can't change it.
India and china burning fossil fuels at a rate of knots and maybe unwilling to change - the writing is on the wall
E
India and china burning fossil fuels at a rate of knots and maybe unwilling to change - the writing is on the wall
E
Andy_W
Well-known member
I'm anywhere between A and E, in different ways. There's a massive difference between A-E and 1-5 though, they shouldn't even be on the same chart.
As for A, thing's aren't getting better, they're not even getting less worse yet, every year the world adds on more and more emissions and even during covid in 2020 where the world practically stopped, we still only rewound emissions by 5 years.
As for B, we can avoid the worse case scenarios, but what are the worse case scenarios, a 10m sea level rise? 2 degrees gets us about a 1m rise by 2100 I think, the world might be able to handle that to some expensive degree, but the change in temperature for crops and wild weather will be much worse.
C is a practical certainly, albeit hopefully it will be very slow, giving people a chance.
D it's not just we, it's the world, but we need to be setting an example, seeing as we've been doing damage for longer than most others.
E The Uk is possibly not going to be "as ****ed", or shouldn't be as we're rich, but a lot of the world is in big trouble. Although saying that, if we keep electing governments favouring the rich at the expense of the poor then 95% are going to be in big trouble. Climate change might actually kill off far right thinking, when reality starts to bite, so maybe the wealth will get shared to some degree.
Assuming we can't slow/ reverse climate change before it's too late (which I don't think we can for 2 degrees/1m sea level rise), we (as in the UK, even as an island) could engineer a solution so that most places don't flood and we relocate those in areas which are not viable to save, but it's not just about us. We would likely need another football stadium location mind, but that's a first world problem.
There are probably a billion people who would be absolutely screwed elsewhere in the world but I think it would happen over a long enough time period where they could be supported, if the ROW decided to support them. The ROW should support them mind, as it's the ROW gained development from fossil fuel use, which helped them grow, which has largely caused this mess.
The development of Asian superpowers with much, much larger populations than USA or Europe etc is a ticking time bomb, but it's a bit difficult to tell them to stunt their growth by ploughing into green schemes.
Although saying that, spending money on long term gains is a good investment. China needs to be building something to keep the economy ticking, which is why they ended up building way too many houses/ accommodation buildings etc, which are empty. This is probably also the reason why China has already built more solar than the next 5 nations combined, and China's not even seen as "green". They're adding on more capacity per year, than the USA has ever done in total, for example.
Even with the greatest will in the world, from the rich nations, the poor have no chance of fully going green, or enough to stay below the 2 degree target, so unless the rich ones are paying for the poor ones then I think we're heading for trouble and the poor ones disaster.
I'm starting to think we've now lost the battle, or need to be spending money on preparing for that, whilst the ROW catches up with green energy. I still think we may as well get a full green grid though, as it's by far the cheapest source of energy for us and we could be independent with that (but it's not for the whole world). Ironically enough, the weather getting worse will probably improve our wind output.
It's odd though, I've met lots of people who talk of climate change more like global warming like it's going to warm the uk, so we get better weather, when in reality it just means far worse storms/ floods, stopping of the AMOC and us probably entering a very cold period for a few hundred years at least.
To stop 2 degrees, we need to reverse this graph back to probably 1950's levels, within a decade, it's not possible, we will be lucky to halve it within 20 years, but even then it's the same output as the 80's (which is still extremely bad).
As for A, thing's aren't getting better, they're not even getting less worse yet, every year the world adds on more and more emissions and even during covid in 2020 where the world practically stopped, we still only rewound emissions by 5 years.
As for B, we can avoid the worse case scenarios, but what are the worse case scenarios, a 10m sea level rise? 2 degrees gets us about a 1m rise by 2100 I think, the world might be able to handle that to some expensive degree, but the change in temperature for crops and wild weather will be much worse.
C is a practical certainly, albeit hopefully it will be very slow, giving people a chance.
D it's not just we, it's the world, but we need to be setting an example, seeing as we've been doing damage for longer than most others.
E The Uk is possibly not going to be "as ****ed", or shouldn't be as we're rich, but a lot of the world is in big trouble. Although saying that, if we keep electing governments favouring the rich at the expense of the poor then 95% are going to be in big trouble. Climate change might actually kill off far right thinking, when reality starts to bite, so maybe the wealth will get shared to some degree.
Assuming we can't slow/ reverse climate change before it's too late (which I don't think we can for 2 degrees/1m sea level rise), we (as in the UK, even as an island) could engineer a solution so that most places don't flood and we relocate those in areas which are not viable to save, but it's not just about us. We would likely need another football stadium location mind, but that's a first world problem.
There are probably a billion people who would be absolutely screwed elsewhere in the world but I think it would happen over a long enough time period where they could be supported, if the ROW decided to support them. The ROW should support them mind, as it's the ROW gained development from fossil fuel use, which helped them grow, which has largely caused this mess.
The development of Asian superpowers with much, much larger populations than USA or Europe etc is a ticking time bomb, but it's a bit difficult to tell them to stunt their growth by ploughing into green schemes.
Although saying that, spending money on long term gains is a good investment. China needs to be building something to keep the economy ticking, which is why they ended up building way too many houses/ accommodation buildings etc, which are empty. This is probably also the reason why China has already built more solar than the next 5 nations combined, and China's not even seen as "green". They're adding on more capacity per year, than the USA has ever done in total, for example.
Even with the greatest will in the world, from the rich nations, the poor have no chance of fully going green, or enough to stay below the 2 degree target, so unless the rich ones are paying for the poor ones then I think we're heading for trouble and the poor ones disaster.
I'm starting to think we've now lost the battle, or need to be spending money on preparing for that, whilst the ROW catches up with green energy. I still think we may as well get a full green grid though, as it's by far the cheapest source of energy for us and we could be independent with that (but it's not for the whole world). Ironically enough, the weather getting worse will probably improve our wind output.
It's odd though, I've met lots of people who talk of climate change more like global warming like it's going to warm the uk, so we get better weather, when in reality it just means far worse storms/ floods, stopping of the AMOC and us probably entering a very cold period for a few hundred years at least.
To stop 2 degrees, we need to reverse this graph back to probably 1950's levels, within a decade, it's not possible, we will be lucky to halve it within 20 years, but even then it's the same output as the 80's (which is still extremely bad).
Teesside96
Active member
B gets my vote.
Real cause for concern and it’s up to developed countries to reduce carbon allow developing countries the excess pollution.
But I genuinely think technology will save us in one way or another. AI and technological advancement will be scary in the next 10+ years I’m excited where it will take us. Nuclear fusion had a big leap today thanks to AI.
Possibly AI and quantum computers can help solve an issue of reversing greenhouse gasses already present?
I’m not an expert that’s my very limited knowledge opinion on global warming
Real cause for concern and it’s up to developed countries to reduce carbon allow developing countries the excess pollution.
But I genuinely think technology will save us in one way or another. AI and technological advancement will be scary in the next 10+ years I’m excited where it will take us. Nuclear fusion had a big leap today thanks to AI.
Possibly AI and quantum computers can help solve an issue of reversing greenhouse gasses already present?
I’m not an expert that’s my very limited knowledge opinion on global warming
BaronSmoggie
Well-known member
I don't recall calling you one or implying such. Like I said, my own opinion is that if people hold the view that you wrote down, having kids is something I personally think they should consider not doing if they don't subscribe to protecting and trying to do right by people and the environment.
I'm not going to get into an argument about your comments in paragraph 2 & 3. I have an opinion and you have yours. It doesn't need to get personal. Happy to hear you have kids, they do bring such joy to life.
jetpropelledgiraffe
Active member
So everyone is stupid that doesn't share your view?
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Most people can join the Woodland Trust - I asked a friend to buy my membership as a birthday present. The WT planted (I think) 8 trees with the fee.
Over 20 years ago I planted some trees and shrubs of my own that have now matured. It maybe not be a lot as far as changing the planet, but if everybody in the UK did it or joined the WT for one year it must have some impact.
Over 20 years ago I planted some trees and shrubs of my own that have now matured. It maybe not be a lot as far as changing the planet, but if everybody in the UK did it or joined the WT for one year it must have some impact.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I also don’t think I’m any of those categories.
I don’t drive, I mostly walk and cycle. I don’t eat meat (and no longer eat dairy). I recycle, and I’m gradually getting rid of gas appliances from my home. I fly a couple of times a year. My carbon footprint is pretty low I’d say.
But I genuinely never find myself worrying about it, I really think the damage is done, and that it won’t be acted upon quickly enough to be “reversed”. Not just in India, China, USA, Brazil, Russia etc, but here in the UK I don’t know a single person whose gone as far as adopting a whole new lifestyle purely for the benefit of the planet. Even the biggest “eco warriors” (for want of a better term) I know are still only willing to do what is convenient for them, and they all still drive etc.
I worry a lot more about war, nuclear weapons etc. They’re a bigger short term threat imho.
I will teach my kids, when they’re old enough to understand, that they will need to do xyz to help halt the slide, but that doesn’t mean I think they should spend their entire lives worrying about it either.
It’s no one’s fault, we’re just a very intelligent but very flawed species, and something has to finish us off eventually.
I don’t drive, I mostly walk and cycle. I don’t eat meat (and no longer eat dairy). I recycle, and I’m gradually getting rid of gas appliances from my home. I fly a couple of times a year. My carbon footprint is pretty low I’d say.
But I genuinely never find myself worrying about it, I really think the damage is done, and that it won’t be acted upon quickly enough to be “reversed”. Not just in India, China, USA, Brazil, Russia etc, but here in the UK I don’t know a single person whose gone as far as adopting a whole new lifestyle purely for the benefit of the planet. Even the biggest “eco warriors” (for want of a better term) I know are still only willing to do what is convenient for them, and they all still drive etc.
I worry a lot more about war, nuclear weapons etc. They’re a bigger short term threat imho.
I will teach my kids, when they’re old enough to understand, that they will need to do xyz to help halt the slide, but that doesn’t mean I think they should spend their entire lives worrying about it either.
It’s no one’s fault, we’re just a very intelligent but very flawed species, and something has to finish us off eventually.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
There is always one who will trot this most ridiculous of lines out. A line that has been cultivated and spoon fed to the followers of those who want to enable the ill-informed to undermine the truth and reality of a situation without actually having a valid, reasonable argument to use. ‘Oh, so I’m stupid for disagreeing with you…..’
Let’s breaks it down…
It’s not my view, is it?
It is the overwhelming scientific consensus, people who have spent years, decades even, dedicating their life to the study of such things. People who have access to the latest data, modelling, information, tools and evidence. It’s people who are looking at the situation objectively, analytically and critically, commonly starting from a position without bias in order to ascertain what is actually happening, the actual reality. Years and years and years, 1000s and 1000s 1000s of highly educated, specially trained, equipped and dedicated expert scientists. From across the world, 1000s of different universities, businesses, research centres, some working in collaboration with others, but many working completely independently of eachother. And they have all come to broadly the same conclusions..
Vs
….a minuscule number of fringe scientists, often working for and funded by fossil fuel groups. Often the links aren’t transparent but dig deep enough and they are there. It’s often the same type of scientists who used to tell you that smoking doesn’t harm you.
Think tanks, lobbyists. Right wing contrarian shock jocks, click baiters, attention seeking ‘personalities’ or a handful of controversial politicians likely receiving money to push ‘their’ view, which is actually rarely ‘their’ view. Politicians who are often no better informed, and indeed often less informed than the average student or person in the street. A few right wing tabloid ‘journalists’ with zero knowledge of the subject who are again, being paid to push a narrative in the interests of their paymasters and fossil fuel backers. Paid to pump out misinformation and lies and distraction to sow confusion and keep the money coming in for those at the top of the fossil fuel industry.
So you aren’t stupid if you didn’t share my opinion at all. I’m wrong about lots of things and have lots to learn and I’m big enough and ugly enough and simultaneously old enough and young enough to understand that, and to believe I don’t know everything and to still enjoy having my view challenged, learning things from people with differing points of view.
But you are stupid, (or maybe naive, ignorant, ill-informed, scared might be better terms) if you chose to believe the handful of shock jocks and tabloid climate change minimalists/denialists over the overwhelming scientific consensus.
It’s really not difficult.
jetpropelledgiraffe
Active member
You've just repeated your last statement really haven't you...in a very long-winded way. Blah blah blah "tabloid media" blah "old enough yet young enough"? You're just perfect aren't you.
Typical of how this board is going...I don't believe in number 3 but each to their own view.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
Ok buddy, have a good day.
I voted 3. Nobody is "stupid" for having an opinion when nobody, including yourself, knows the answer.
There's misinformation pumped out on both sides, big fossil fuel companies, governments, media, even green activists... because there's a lot of money to be made from both sides of the argument.
200+ private jets emitting over 400 tonnes of CO2 flew into Dubai to discuss climate change a few months ago. Part of the discussion was how to reduce carbon emissions.
