Global warming new thread

diy_fun_uk said:
The thing is, whether man made climate change is a thing or not, I tend to give more thought to the wider question. Namely, if climate change is a thing, regardless of cause, what's the plan to try and mitigate and in reality, what positive impact are said changes likely to have.

There seems to be a consensus, ok maybe not a consensus but more than a few folk saying it, that we'll need oil for the next 30-50 years. At a basic level and if forced one way or the other, this assertion is either fact or not fact. If it's fact, then what the feck are these just stop oil protestors wasting their time for?

Up here in Scotland, we hear year in year out about how well coastal renewables could do. However in reality, there doesn't appear to be any truly concerted effort to implement this on a large scale. Is that because it's known these solutions would actually be pants, or because 'big business' is protecting its fossil fuel interests, or a combo of both?

And look at it this way. Let's say those who panic about all this are right. Let's say, in reality, we should be making massive significant changes as quickly as possible regardless of what government, business and the public want. What would that actually look like?

Because of the world we've created, the infrastructure, the products, the general way society functions, our economy, it's cloud cuckoo land to assert this can all be changed quickly. It will take decades regardless of the rationale behind such a timescale.

If it's too long it's too long. If it's written in the proverbial stars that we're all doomed by not acting much more quickly, then it's written in the stars.

That's not apathy, it's realism.
Click to expand...
It is real.

Oil use is expected to decrease, there's a theory it has already peaked, which means there's no need to drill new wells or fields. We can stop that now. Hence just stop oil.

There are plenty of details on how to get to net zero. If you don't care enough to Google it then I doubt me repeating them to you will help. In short it needs a significant amount of money. Roughly the same as the defence budget.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
The thing is, whether man made climate change is a thing or not, I tend to give more thought to the wider question. Namely, if climate change is a thing, regardless of cause, what's the plan to try and mitigate and in reality, what positive impact are said changes likely to have.

There seems to be a consensus, ok maybe not a consensus but more than a few folk saying it, that we'll need oil for the next 30-50 years. At a basic level and if forced one way or the other, this assertion is either fact or not fact. If it's fact, then what the feck are these just stop oil protestors wasting their time for?

Up here in Scotland, we hear year in year out about how well coastal renewables could do. However in reality, there doesn't appear to be any truly concerted effort to implement this on a large scale. Is that because it's known these solutions would actually be pants, or because 'big business' is protecting its fossil fuel interests, or a combo of both?

And look at it this way. Let's say those who panic about all this are right. Let's say, in reality, we should be making massive significant changes as quickly as possible regardless of what government, business and the public want. What would that actually look like?

Because of the world we've created, the infrastructure, the products, the general way society functions, our economy, it's cloud cuckoo land to assert this can all be changed quickly. It will take decades regardless of the rationale behind such a timescale.

If it's too long it's too long. If it's written in the proverbial stars that we're all doomed by not acting much more quickly, then it's written in the stars.

That's not apathy, it's realism.
Click to expand...
Man made climate is a thing but you are right, to make a change requires all nations on this planet to get on board. The oil economy is interwoven in everything: production of goods, farming, transport, investments and so on. If "the west" decides to aim for net zero, there will be plenty of other nations that will not get on board.
 
Scarum said:
Man made climate is a thing but you are right, to make a change requires all nations on this planet to get on board. The oil economy is interwoven in everything: production of goods, farming, transport, investments and so on. If "the west" decides to aim for net zero, there will be plenty of other nations that will not get on board.
Click to expand...
Not really. China is the single biggest polluter and also the country investing the most into renewables, I believe they installed more than half the world's total last year. All the big economies are working on it, albeit not hard enough.

Tarrifs on high emission countries will bring everyone else into line as well. And even if we're not at netball zero the closer we get the slower things get worse. That's better than diy's apathy.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
The thing is, whether man made climate change is a thing or not, I tend to give more thought to the wider question. Namely, if climate change is a thing, regardless of cause, what's the plan to try and mitigate and in reality, what positive impact are said changes likely to have.

There seems to be a consensus, ok maybe not a consensus but more than a few folk saying it, that we'll need oil for the next 30-50 years. At a basic level and if forced one way or the other, this assertion is either fact or not fact. If it's fact, then what the feck are these just stop oil protestors wasting their time for?

Up here in Scotland, we hear year in year out about how well coastal renewables could do. However in reality, there doesn't appear to be any truly concerted effort to implement this on a large scale. Is that because it's known these solutions would actually be pants, or because 'big business' is protecting its fossil fuel interests, or a combo of both?

And look at it this way. Let's say those who panic about all this are right. Let's say, in reality, we should be making massive significant changes as quickly as possible regardless of what government, business and the public want. What would that actually look like?

Because of the world we've created, the infrastructure, the products, the general way society functions, our economy, it's cloud cuckoo land to assert this can all be changed quickly. It will take decades regardless of the rationale behind such a timescale.

If it's too long it's too long. If it's written in the proverbial stars that we're all doomed by not acting much more quickly, then it's written in the stars.

That's not apathy, it's realism.
Click to expand...

ACC has been a thing since before I was born.

The world could have been oil-free years ago but, as with most things, vested interests have kicked the can down the road.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
The thing is, whether man made climate change is a thing or not, I tend to give more thought to the wider question. Namely, if climate change is a thing, regardless of cause, what's the plan to try and mitigate and in reality, what positive impact are said changes likely to have.

There seems to be a consensus, ok maybe not a consensus but more than a few folk saying it, that we'll need oil for the next 30-50 years. At a basic level and if forced one way or the other, this assertion is either fact or not fact. If it's fact, then what the feck are these just stop oil protestors wasting their time for?

Up here in Scotland, we hear year in year out about how well coastal renewables could do. However in reality, there doesn't appear to be any truly concerted effort to implement this on a large scale. Is that because it's known these solutions would actually be pants, or because 'big business' is protecting its fossil fuel interests, or a combo of both?

And look at it this way. Let's say those who panic about all this are right. Let's say, in reality, we should be making massive significant changes as quickly as possible regardless of what government, business and the public want. What would that actually look like?

Because of the world we've created, the infrastructure, the products, the general way society functions, our economy, it's cloud cuckoo land to assert this can all be changed quickly. It will take decades regardless of the rationale behind such a timescale.

If it's too long it's too long. If it's written in the proverbial stars that we're all doomed by not acting much more quickly, then it's written in the stars.

That's not apathy, it's realism.
Click to expand...
Yes, to most of that.
There's lots of:
lipservice,
financial drivers,
people wanting to be elected,
people wanting to do the right thing
or be seen to do the right thing.

There there are big difficulties, like marine fuels, or aircraft fuels where there aren't attractive alternatives.
Everyone agrees it's all going to get worse before it (if ever) gets better. Ther's a shower of problems looming - wars over water, rare minerals, food and on and on.

Much of the world is at the ar$e end of everything, they can only just survive as it is - bu definition - and won't gladly take on any costs. The poor don't matter much because money is clout even if their numbers are inconvenient. Lives are cheap, living is expensive. They'll suffer, tough.

Legislation will be partly effective, but there will still be wars and strife.
As long as the people who are in power feel ok then I don't see a limit on how bad things can get for the masses.
Those in power will blame everyone else for your discomfort.

Life on Earth is like a Jenka tower. The will be a last straw sometime. Anthropogenic or not, the only question is when.
Does it matter? Unless you believe in something imaginary, no.
 
IT Minion said:
Not really. China is the single biggest polluter and also the country investing the most into renewables, I believe they installed more than half the world's total last year. All the big economies are working on it, albeit not hard enough.

Tarrifs on high emission countries will bring everyone else into line as well. And even if we're not at netball zero the closer we get the slower things get worse. That's better than diy's apathy.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right about China and investment into renewables but the amount of carbon used to get there... but then didn't all developed nations do so?
Yes, trade tariffs on high emitters is a good solution.
 
Notch7 said:
(because you dont understand it)
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to work out sometimes whether somebody on a forum really doesn't understand something, or whether they are just trolling. Some of the things gas112 has posted on the topic of global warming and climate change are so nonsensical that I am leaning towards trolling. On the basis that it simply isn't possible to misunderstand something to that degree.
 
gas112 said:
(Removed)
Click to expand...
Hedge funds etc are getting into water and showing signs of conveting it into a commodity. Find good sources and buy it up. Even thoughts of building canals to ship it around. How much does this effect a country - it depends which one it is.

The China bleat is just that. A bleat. They control an area that it seems has significant amounts of water. Same about their increasing influence. A bleat - it is increasing. Some countries are making trade deals with them - why, they want investment. They will even loan money. Bleats - well they want it paid back. Really unusual for a lender. One difference though they will take payment in kind - goods of some sort.

Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba. That's what a lot of it is. Fact is what they are doing is what all countries will if they can.
 
Last edited:
dns1 said:
How can the UK develop and manufacture new, green tech if our oil and gas is so outrageously overpriced due to import costs and foreign suppliers using it hold us to ransom?!

Why can't be have new oil and gas fields developed, legislation put in place to ensure that OUR prices remain low, that way we can actually manufacture decent clean tech here?

At the moment our extortionate energy prices mean we simply can't produce anything, so it's all going to China to produce on coal fueled power stations! And then they'll be able to hold us to ransom as well!

Surely new British oil and gas is by far the cleanest option?!
Click to expand...

Wages.

Not energy costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top