Climate Change, where are you on this scale?

[Andy_W]

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.

False equivalence, my number, and magnitude.

If you look at the scientific weighting and actual facts, then it's easy to see that it's 99% saying 1% are wrong, and 1% saying 99% are wrong.

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.

I see your point, and it doesn't look good, but it's much less of a point when you consider ROI.

Someone attending 28 climate meetings by private jet, to cut or slow world emissions by 1% percent per meeting is a good ROI.

Sure they may have been able to fly commercial, but if their time is tight/ valuable (or they actually don't want to get involved, but feel like they have to) then you might actually get more people to actually go to these meetings, to actually gain some benefit.

Have to keep in mind that the people we flew there are rich (the highest polluters) and heavily Tory/ far right, they probably don't even want to be there, or are not fully bought into it like the Greens would be, or even Labour etc.

Loads of them going to the meetings, will have been going to argue that they want to keep fossil fuels etc, and 28 was the first actual commitment where they were effectively outnumbered.

COP 27 had about 50,000 people, and 300+ private jets, COP 28 was about 70,000 people and 200+? COP 29 will probably be even more people and less jets hopefully.

Seems like a daft idea having it in Dubai, where you can only really fly to, it's not like you can go there by train, but having it in a location which is effectively the source of a massive amount of fossil fuels was probably quite strategic. The next one is in Baku, another source, so it makes sense, we need to get these suppliers on board, or at least make them aware what's coming.

 

[Ash88]

False equivalence, my number, and magnitude.

If you look at the scientific weighting and actual facts, then it's easy to see that it's 99% saying 1% are wrong, and 1% saying 99% are wrong.

I see your point, and it doesn't look good, but it's much less of a point when you consider ROI.

Someone attending 28 climate meetings by private jet, to cut or slow world emissions by 1% percent per meeting is a good ROI.

Sure they may have been able to fly commercial, but if their time is tight/ valuable (or they actually don't want to get involved, but feel like they have to) then you might actually get more people to actually go to these meetings, to actually gain some benefit.

Have to keep in mind that the people we flew there are rich (the highest polluters) and heavily Tory/ far right, they probably don't even want to be there, or are not fully bought into it like the Greens would be, or even Labour etc.

Loads of them going to the meetings, will have been going to argue that they want to keep fossil fuels etc, and 28 was the first actual commitment where they were effectively outnumbered.

COP 27 had about 50,000 people, and 300+ private jets, COP 28 was about 70,000 people and 200+? COP 29 will probably be even more people and less jets hopefully.

Seems like a daft idea having it in Dubai, where you can only really fly to, it's not like you can go there by train, but having it in a location which is effectively the source of a massive amount of fossil fuels was probably quite strategic. The next one is in Baku, another source, so it makes sense, we need to get these suppliers on board, or at least make them aware what's coming.

The problem with the ROI argument is that each pledge will have been agreed upon before each representative steps on the plane.
Sunak didn't fly to Dubai and then decide the UK was going to pledge £40m while he was in attendance, that parts already been done.

Does the physical attendance of (mostly) the top 1% and their staff exceed the tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions in terms of ROI, when the exact same financial pledge can be made anyway?

----

I don't believe "warming is beneficial", but I voted 3 for the "stop scaring people about climate change" - because there is absolutely nothing the average Joe can do about any of it anyway.

It'll take you (assuming you're at the average) over two years to emit the same amount of CO2 that it took Sunak to fly to Dubai for the conference.
Cameron and King Charles also attended, they all flew on separate jets.

 

[atypical_boro]

The problem with the ROI argument is that each pledge will have been agreed upon before each representative steps on the plane.
Sunak didn't fly to Dubai and then decide the UK was going to pledge £40m while he was in attendance, that parts already been done.

Does the physical attendance of (mostly) the top 1% and their staff exceed the tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions in terms of ROI, when the exact same financial pledge can be made anyway?

----

I don't believe "warming is beneficial", but I voted 3 for the "stop scaring people about climate change" - because there is absolutely nothing the average Joe can do about any of it anyway.

It'll take you (assuming you're at the average) over two years to emit the same amount of CO2 that it took Sunak to fly to Dubai for the conference.
Cameron and King Charles also attended, they all flew on separate jets.

I must admit, if you ever load up one of those websites that shows you where all the planes in the sky currently are, it makes you feel pretty insignificant when you're sharing your bath water or whatever to reduce your carbon footprint.

 

[BaronSmoggie]

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.

Hey guys, lets use Zoom.

 

[Ash88]

Hey guys, lets use Zoom.

Hey Charles, it's Rishi...
We're going to be discussing a lot of stuff at the conference anyway, we're both in London... Why don't we share a private jet and save the tax payer £25,000 instead of taking two separate ones?

 

[Ash88]

I must admit, if you ever load up on of those websites that shows you where all the planes in the sky currently are, it makes you feel pretty insignificant when you're sharing your bath water or whatever to reduce your carbon footprint.

That's partly my point. It doesn't matter what any of us vote, A to D or 1 to 6... The whole argument for the average person is based around what we see in the media and believe to be true.

Even if there's 5,000 people registered on FMTTM (guess?) - Assuming there's no multi-billionaires here, that's 25,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Jeff Bezos emitted 7,000 tonnes.... just from his super yacht. He emitted another few hundred tonnes... so he could spend 180 seconds in space.

But lets all cycle to work.

 

[BoroMart]

I'm a D when realistic and a C when feeling optimistic....who the F... put 3

 

[BoroMart]

That's partly my point. It doesn't matter what any of us vote, A to D or 1 to 6... The whole argument for the average person is based around what we see in the media and believe to be true.

You don't really need to look at the media, there are a enough thoroughly researched scientific papers by reputable scientists and organisations, that have been peer reviewed by other reputable organisations. Media spin on it should be irrelevant, but then some people actively choose to watch GBNews and don't engage their gears while doing so

 

[Andy_W]

The problem with the ROI argument is that each pledge will have been agreed upon before each representative steps on the plane.
Sunak didn't fly to Dubai and then decide the UK was going to pledge £40m while he was in attendance, that parts already been done.

Does the physical attendance of (mostly) the top 1% and their staff exceed the tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions in terms of ROI, when the exact same financial pledge can be made anyway?

Yes, and the year to the COP 28 benefits will have been gained from what happened in COP 27 and whatever, or pressure from that, and the same will add up each year. Throughout 2024 we will be doing things, because of COP 28 (which were much larger commitments), then after COP 29 will end up doing more in 2025 etc. They would have not committed anything if there wasn't pressure, and each year the peer pressure at the events ramps up.

Attending by the top 1% and their staff is important, that sends a good message, that this is supposedly important to the "important people", and considering it's the top 1% who are the largest emitters then getting them to these events might be more of a wake up call. Spending money on things is very different to spending money on things, and attending events supporting others in their spending, and putting pressure on those who aren't.

If Charles and Rishi flew on the same plane, it would put the King and the PM on the same mode of transport, for one, that's a security risk, and two, it would mean combining schedules of double the number of people who have very different day to day activates. Then also they would need another separate jet anyway for their entourage who they will want them with them the entire time from leaving the door, to arriving where they're staying. Maybe Cameron and Rishi could have went on the same jet, seeing as he's foreign secretary, but I expect Cameron still has a bigger entourage than most, being an Ex PM. Having an ex PM there also in support is probably a good thing, especially as far as policy and appearance goes, but he's still a tosser, like Rishi.

I'm not sure if many heads of state go to this, but Charles is pretty pro-green as far as those types go, so it's a good thing he actually went, even though I'm not fussed on the monarchy in general.

I don't believe "warming is beneficial", but I voted 3 for the "stop scaring people about climate change" - because there is absolutely nothing the average Joe can do about any of it anyway.

It'll take you (assuming you're at the average) over two years to emit the same amount of CO2 that it took Sunak to fly to Dubai for the conference.
Cameron and King Charles also attended, they all flew on separate jets.

It's fine to scare people about what is coming, it's called reality, and hiding from it won't make it go away.

The "average joe" has a vote, collectively they get added up to decide on a party, and decide on likely policy, and collectively they can make their own decisions about their own actions, not controlled by policy. 68m trying to do their bit will all add up to a hell of a lot. If they don't vote the right way, they might avoid the cost of it now, but they won't in the future when it comes back to bit them on their ****, or their kids or whatever.

There were 14m "average joes" who voted this set of clowns in, and if 500k of the average joes hadn't voted for brexit, and voted remain, then we would have a hell of a lot more money/ and a better future growth projection, to be spending on things which would benefit the 68m average joes (and their future generations).

Comparing me to Sunak is not like for like, I don't set the policy for 68m people, and didn't even vote for the daft clown's party. Sure he might emit 1000x more than me, but it's effectively "nothing" compared to the emissions of policies.

 

[BoroMart]

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

....and that gets us to the heart of the problem, the biggest root cause is the human population growth. Cut the population, things return to normal.....maybe we need a global event that sterilizes 75% of the worlds population to get things moving in the right direction again......

 

[atypical_boro]

That's partly my point. It doesn't matter what any of us vote, A to D or 1 to 6... The whole argument for the average person is based around what we see in the media and believe to be true.

Even if there's 5,000 people registered on FMTTM (guess?) - Assuming there's no multi-billionaires here, that's 25,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Jeff Bezos emitted 7,000 tonnes.... just from his super yacht. He emitted another few hundred tonnes... so he could spend 180 seconds in space.

But lets all cycle to work.

I do agree with you to a point.

Though cycling is good for your body/mind too, and cheaper.