[Misc] Global Warming

[Zeberdi]

There definitely appears to be an industry, on both sides of the argument, around the politics of climate change. What we are sadly lacking in my opinion is a pragmatic and informed approach from that discourse to looking after our environment - with 'stop it' on one side, and 'we can't afford to stop it' on the other being seemingly entrenched positions.

That’s actually not true, we are way more sophisticated than that in the CC debate - in fact, in the 19 years since the Kyoto Protocol was ratified, committing 192 countries to a reduction in greenhouse gasses, any achievements that have been made have been exactly because of pragmatism. Some might argue too much. It maybe the case on social media/forum chats that discourse is polarised but in the real world, pragmatism and compromise are producing results in a way polarised opinions will not.

There doesn't appear to be any dispute in the scientific community that there is currently a correlation between an increase in global temperatures and an increase in CO2 levels, though there isn't necessarily a consensus that one is caused by the other. There is probably more consensus that the increase in green leaf coverage of the planet is caused by the increase in CO2 for instance.

Again not true - your science is a bit off here if you don’t mind me saying so - forested regions and ‘green’ habitat is actually decreasing - When trees are destroyed and vegetation disturbed, it actually releases stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases - that is the issue - not the possibility of Triffids taking over and polluting the atmosphere with O2. And an increase in C02 doesn’t ‘cause’ more ‘green leaf coverage’ - if only it did.

I actually think that our potential impact on climate change is over-egged, and we shouldn't be panicked into rushing into changing the way we live if it is going to result in a significant amount of people in this country becoming rapidly impoverished,

Reducing how much fossil fuels we use or how much water we use, won’t impoverish us, it will help save money. As will using the car less and cycling more/walking more.

… especially when we have no idea of the actual consequences of climate change and the fact that it changes irrespective of us.

I think we have a pretty good idea already by looking at trends in current (ie 100 year trends) weather patterns, threats to wildlife already being realised and threats to low lying countries from rising sea levels. Longterm climatic changes and short term anthropogenic contributions to the rate of change are discussed above - the former we can’t do anything about, the latter we may be able to.

Yes, we should absolutely be mitigating our contribution by taking advantage of renewable energy sources, but that shouldn't be at the expense of energy security, or the security of material supply, in this country - for instance I think we absolutely should not be importing coal when we have an abundance of it here, and we shouldn't be banning the use of coal in steel production - I'd actually advocate a ban on foreign ownership of both the coal and steel industries in this country, and state ownership if that is not possible, as we should retain the capacity in both industries, even if it is loss making, as it is strategically important to the country.
We also need to recognise that this island's impact globally is negligible, and act accordingly. We should be looking to balance our energy supply using nuclear, with gas and coal covering that balance whilst that nuclear capacity is being built up - and kept in reserve thereafter. The aim should absolutely be to transition to away from reliance on fossil fuels, but do it gracefully and keep the costs to the end user low whilst it is done.

Yes, regardless of CC, we need fuel security and economic security but our contribution to emissions and our footprint globally is not negligible:

“Even just at 1% for territorial emissions, we’re still amongst the top emitting countries – number 15 in 2017 and 2018. Actually, nearly a third of global emissions comes from countries whose territorial emissions are each 1% or less of the global total; around half from nations that account for less than 3% each of annual world emissions.

And we creep up the list when you count emissions per capita – i.e. how much we emit per person. Then we’re 13th amongst individual G20 nations (excluding the EU as a bloc) for greenhouse gas emissions; 11th for just CO2 emissions. For contrast, China is middle to bottom half for CO2 and GHGs respectively, and Australia, whose population is 2.5 times smaller than the UK’s, is near the top on both.”

The way to effect change at an individual level is to make it economical to do so. If it becomes more cost effective to work where we live, to use public transport, and to make our homes more efficient then people will do these things. For instance I've recently taken advantage of the Solar Together scheme to get solar panels and a battery fitted to my house - which is great, but it isn't going to supply all of my house's electricity on a cold dark day in the middle of winter.

Yes of course - I agree absolutely- and the green economy has been thriving for years. It already is more viable for many energy companies to switch to sustainable energy production and renewable energy sources than to buy fossil fuels/coal to burn. I also agree that we need nuclear energy to supplement our renewable fuel supplies until renewables can provide the demand required. But we also need to reduce our own energy use too as part of the overall action on climate change if it is to make a real impact. Recent financial discount insentives offered by fuel companies to customers to cut their peak times energy use, won’t do that, as customers will just use energy outside peak times. Discounts for overall energy reduction is a far more effective way forward imo.

Why the UK's 1% of global emissions is a big deal

Informed debate on energy and climate change.

eciu.net

 

[beorhthelm]

...
Again not true - your science is a bit off here if you don’t mind me saying so - forested regions and ‘green’ habitat is actually decreasing - When trees are destroyed and vegetation disturbed, it actually releases stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases - that is the issue - not the possibility of Triffids taking over and polluting the atmosphere with O2. And an increase in C02 doesn’t ‘cause’ more ‘green leaf coverage’ - if only it did.

let's check some science:

CO2 is making Earth greener—for now

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

climate.nasa.gov

Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth

habitat loss is another subject. and that's the main problem with global warming, it's abused as a backdrop to all sorts of other environmental issues and causes, that distorts claims, questions motivations.

some years ago it looked like a pragmatic approach was taking over with "net zero". this accepted you cant stop all emissions, there are other things that can be done, if you target a net zero emission by country, by region, you get a positive overall outcome without some of the horrendous economic and social consequences of actually attempting zero emissions. now we are well on track for net zero, that's not enough for some, because of those other causes.

 

[Curious Orange]

It maybe the case on social media/forum chats that discourse is polarised but in the real world, pragmatism and compromise are producing results in a way polarised opinions will not.

I probably wasn't quite as clear in my phrasing as I intended, anybody who only paid attention to the news and didn't pay attention beyond that would certainly think nothing practical was happening. Whether what is actually being done is of any benefit it is a separate discussion.

Again not true - your science is a bit off here if you don’t mind me saying so - forested regions and ‘green’ habitat is actually decreasing - When trees are destroyed and vegetation disturbed, it actually releases stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases - that is the issue - not the possibility of Triffids taking over and polluting the atmosphere with O2. And an increase in C02 doesn’t ‘cause’ more ‘green leaf coverage’ - if only it did.

The green leaf cover has increased by 5% over the last twenty years, as per NASA satellite observations, so I'm not quite sure why you think what I have said is wrong. I quite agree that correlation between it and CO2 might not be a causal one as we as a species have been getting very good at increasing yield from crops which could also be a contributing factor - however extra CO2 definitely makes growing plants easier.

Reducing how much fossil fuels we use or how much water we use, won’t impoverish us, it will help save money.

That could be eventually true, I agree. But that would only be the case if it is implemented in a way which doesn't drastically increase the cost to the customer of production or impact on the reliability of supply. If we don't get the transition right then we will be impoverished in the short term (well, apart from the ultra-wealthy, they'll just get richer off the back of it), which will be a difficult situation to rectify.

I think that our government is starting to recognise this and this is why they're backing off of EVs for instance, as the grid isn't currently up to a significant portion of the population having one, and we don't have the new nuclear power stations in place to ensure that continuity of supply we will need.

I think we have a pretty good idea already by looking at trends in current (ie 100 year trends) weather patterns, threats to wildlife already being realised and threats to low lying countries from rising sea levels. Longterm climatic changes and short term anthropogenic contributions to the rate of change are discussed above - the former we can’t do anything about, the latter we may be able to.

Yes, we can do something now and there isn't really any reason not to other than cost. The models need further refinement though, and peddling of the worst case predictions in the media is not helpful.

our contribution to emissions and our footprint globally is not negligible:

I think we'll probably have to disagree about 1% being negligible - suffice to say unless the likes of China and India start making inroads into their emissions then anything we do is largely pointless. I appreciate that you are probably trying to say that the UK carbon footprint should also include stuff imported from abroad, and therefore we contribute more... I just think that is an awful argument.

Yes of course - I agree absolutely- and the green economy has been thriving for years. It already is more viable for many energy companies to switch to sustainable energy production and renewable energy sources than to buy fossil fuels/coal to burn. I also agree that we need nuclear energy to supplement our renewable fuel supplies until renewables can provide the demand required. But we also need to reduce our own energy use too as part of the overall action on climate change if it is to make a real impact. Recent financial discount insentives offered by fuel companies to customers to cut their peak times energy use, won’t do that, as customers will just use energy outside peak times. Discounts for overall energy reduction is a far more effective way forward imo.

I mostly agree with what you say there, I'd only add that the amount of energy consumed becomes less of an issue once production is mainly from renewables, as I'm finding with the solar panels.