COP26

[Richard 1234]

2 minutes ago, Cuttup said:

10 years till the apocolype? You're probably correct, it's not the most likely scenario, but interestingly, around 40 years ago even the scientists of Shell and Exxon (sticking with the oil company theme) warned that CO2 emissions were a problem and would become an even greater problem. 

 

Amongst climate scientists there is an overwhelming majority who have carried out peer-reviewed work, research and modelling , and they are all coming to the same conclusion.

 

What there seems to be less sureity about is not if it will hapen but when it will happen, with some concerned about a kind of domino effect once certain limits are breeched. I am not a scientist, but I think we ignore this science and the potential for long-term and serious impact on the planet and our lives at our peril.

That’s very different to claiming that 2 and 4 year olds now here in the uk aren’t likely to live past 30 due to climate change.

Anyway we might have an enormous volcano explode or mr Kim might detonate a nuke or two and save us the worry about getting too hot.

[Richard 1234]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

 

I knew I’d read about this idea years ago. Science fiction?

an alternative way of dealing/helping with climate change maybe?

[openspaceman]

33 minutes ago, Richard 1234 said:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

 

I knew I’d read about this idea years ago. Science fiction?

an alternative way of dealing/helping with climate change maybe?

I worry about the unintended consequences of geo engineering which is why I'm keen on biochar as a means of encouraging photosynthetic activity to gradually solve the excess CO2, of course it won't work until net carbon zero is reached and the places where it is used are rewarded.

[Richard 1234]

40 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

I worry about the unintended consequences of geo engineering which is why I'm keen on biochar as a means of encouraging photosynthetic activity to gradually solve the excess CO2, of course it won't work until net carbon zero is reached and the places where it is used are rewarded.

Reading some of that article the guy suggesting it wanted to try and find out what the consequences would be. 
if it’s a bad as we are led to believe it’s got to be worth looking into if nothing else.

I think stopping burning trees on a massive scale to produce electricity has to stop. To me it’s beyond stupid. We need more trees standing not less. And if they are to be chopped down they should be kept as timber to build stuff it would make room for new trees and keep the carbon locked away.

[difflock]

On 07/11/2021 at 20:19, peds said:

I mean, this is just perfect. As a work of satire, I can't see any way that this could be improved on. Bravo, sir, for such penmanship. 

 

Feel free to enjoy this similarly satirical broadcast:

 

 

And did she ONCE mention population growth!

So who is lying now?

[Billhook]

35 minutes ago, difflock said:

And did she ONCE mention population growth!

So who is lying now?

You just hit the nail on the head Difflock!

[Stere]

George Monbiot mentions GDP or growth 

 

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction | Climate crisis | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Instead of focusing on ‘micro consumerist bollocks’ like ditching our plastic coffee cups, we must challenge the...

 

Quote

---

What do we see if we break the surface tension? The first thing we encounter, looming out of the depths, should scare us almost out of our wits. It’s called growth. Economic growth is universally hailed as a good thing. Governments measure their success on their ability to deliver it. But think for a moment about what it means. Say we achieve the modest aim, promoted by bodies like the IMF and the World Bank, of 3% global growth a year. This means that all the economic activity you see today – and most of the environmental impacts it causes – doubles in 24 years; in other words, by 2045. Then it doubles again by 2069. Then again by 2093.

 

I don't  fully get the blind spot many enviromentalists and goverments have with population probably seen as off putting and Authoritarian

 

Think its also linked in with gdp as bigger pop =  bigger gdp.....

 

Wonder how many realize pop has its near doubled since 1975?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Elephant in the Room - Resilience

WWW.RESILIENCE.ORG

---

Discussion about climate disruption and mass extinction rarely mention human population as a significant factor in...

 

 

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 06/11/2021 at 20:52, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Not so much a ‘conspiracy’ rather a reflection on the obvious reality. 
 

Economic ‘health’ is measured by GDP, GDP is generated through economic activity, you need population growth to sustain economic growth. 
 

The problem is the apparent unwillingness of just about everyone to acknowledge that GDP is the root of the problem rather than the solution. 
 

So it’s not so much a conspiracy theory based upon tax - tax is just a byproduct of GDP. 
 

Consumption is the symptom, population the cause and GDP is a flawed measure of success. 

 

On 06/11/2021 at 22:55, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Yes, I absolutely do. That is exactly my beef with GDP as a measure of ‘success.’  
 

It’s completely at odds with what is ‘presented’ as the ‘supposed’ aspirations of COP26, it is a vacuous and deeply flawed philosophy and it baffles me that these so-called world leaders stand up there and spout their complete shite and people seem to suck it up. 

 

12 minutes ago, Stere said:

George Monbiot mentions GDP or growth 

 

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction | Climate crisis | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Instead of focusing on ‘micro consumerist bollocks’ like ditching our plastic coffee cups, we must challenge the...

 

 

I don't  fully get the blind spot many enviromentalists and goverments have with population probably seen as off putting and Authoritarian

 

Think its also linked in with gdp as bigger pop =  bigger gdp.....

 

Wonder how many realize pop has its near doubled since 1975?

 

Mheh.....

 

George M writes a great long spiel in the Guardian after he'd read my earlier posts and is held out as an environmental super hero.

 

It ain't rocket salad!

[openspaceman]

9 hours ago, Richard 1234 said:

Reading some of that article the guy suggesting it wanted to try and find out what the consequences would be. 

Yes but there is a history of human deeds to solve one problem but leading to another.

9 hours ago, Richard 1234 said:

I think stopping burning trees on a massive scale to produce electricity has to stop. To me it’s beyond stupid. We need more trees standing not less. And if they are to be chopped down they should be kept as timber to build stuff it would make room for new trees and keep the carbon locked away.

I don't necessarily disagree and we should be reducing our need for power from burning either fossil or biomass fuels, they both emit carbon dioxide.

 

The thing with trees is that they maximise their photosynthetic out take of CO2 from the atmosphere in their early life then at a point they change from youths to adults and this growth tails off even though they can live for hundreds more years and store the carbon. So, as with sylviculture, it will pay to harvest trees regularly and maximise the conversion of sunlight to wood and then store the carbon in a recalcitrant form.

 

Without spending time googling to confirm this but I think the major carbon stores are in the sea as clathrates, in the earth as carbonates (like chalk laid down as skeletal remains of small marine creatures) and in the soil as humus and peat like substances as well as vast remaining stores of fossil fuels.

 

Peat and clathrates evolve methane and CO2 as the earth warms.

 

The interesting thing is we cannot just bury biomass and hope it turns into coal because coal was formed at a time before a microbes to decay lignin had evolved but now ultimately buried biomass will get recycled to CO2 and water whereas carbonised wood will not.

[DanHorrich87]

40 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

 

Mheh.....

 

George M writes a great long spiel in the Guardian after he'd read my earlier posts and is held out as an environmental super hero.

 

It ain't rocket salad!

Haha! Now you've proven you've got a hotline through to the greatest most influential publication in the country (not!), is it time to formulate an arb economics and start dictating gov policy? Covertly of course.