COP26

[Steven P]

On 03/11/2021 at 16:20, Woodworks said:

This sums up how serious our leader appears to take it

... flew to Glasgow in a chartered jet, flew out of Glasgow on a chartered jet so he can have dinner with one of his pals in a mens only club. Actions speak louder than words.

 

It isn't always the big stuff that makes a big difference of course, little stuff can help too - during an internet discussion I did some sums, if everyone in the world kept a phone 1 year longer, that is about the same carbon footprint as something like 3000 transatlantic jet flights.

 

But I feel COP26, hosted by our competent government, isn't going to have a big effect for all their flights to the UK and 24 hour helicopters in the sky. Not seen any dramatic announcements yet

[Paul in the woods]

I got fed up before the main event after Biden and the Pope met up to lecture people. Bided had an 85 car gas guzzling motorcade flown in from the US and I don't think many people will take the Pope seriously until he fully endorses birth control.

 

Personally, if what they claim about climate change is going to happen I can't see many seriously chaning their lives voluntarily until it's far too late.

[peds]

5 hours ago, Haironyourchest said:

 Still, at least I'll be "doing my part" or whatever, to save the lives of hundreds of millions of people yet to be born in the third world, I suppose..

 

Well, you had my sympathies until that last part, because the short term economic sting necessary to effect significant change will inevitably hurt us little people more than the fabulously wealthy who can, of course, easily afford it. But I'm afraid the consequences of the ongoing ecological collapse and the ever-worsening climate catastrophe aren't just a problem to faced by brown people from the future in places with exciting food. Scientific consensus is that thanks to the knock-on effects of climate change on its current trajectory, anyone on Earth born after 1970 has had their life expectancy cut short somewhere between slightly and dramatically; the most common causes of death for people of my own generation (circa 1986) are going to be starvation and suicide; and my own children of 3 and 4 are statistically unlikely to make it past their 30th birthdays. 

I'm not sure what O-Level science textbook you are getting your ideas from, but the kick-off date for "global warming" isn't an agreeably-distant 2100 any more, for us here in the civilised western hemisphere we can't expect our pampered and luxurious lifestyles to extend much beyond the year 2030.

 

To boil it down into simply economic terms as you are keen to do, we can either take a bit of a sting now and maybe stand a chance of not having global society collapse around us, or we can most definitely suffer the same economic sting a few years down the line and immediately watch everyone we know and love starve to death.

 

The most frustrating thing is patiently explaining this to people like yourself as the clock slowly runs out. 

[Woodworks]

3 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

I got fed up before the main event after Biden and the Pope met up to lecture people. Bided had an 85 car gas guzzling motorcade flown in from the US and I don't think many people will take the Pope seriously until he fully endorses birth control.

 

Personally, if what they claim about climate change is going to happen I can't see many seriously chaning their lives voluntarily until it's far too late.

"I can't see many seriously chaning their lives voluntarily until it's far too late."

 

And with democratically elected leaders it means it wont happen. Any party who had manifesto policies that would really make a difference (ie will hurt our pockets) wont get elected. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Woodworks

[openspaceman]

40 minutes ago, peds said:

Well, you had my sympathies until that last part, because the short term economic sting necessary to effect significant change will inevitably hurt us little people more than the fabulously wealthy who can, of course, easily afford it. But I'm afraid the consequences of the ongoing ecological collapse and the ever-worsening climate catastrophe aren't just a problem to faced by brown people from the future in places with exciting food. Scientific consensus is that thanks to the knock-on effects of climate change on its current trajectory, anyone on Earth born after 1970 has had their life expectancy cut short somewhere between slightly and dramatically; the most common causes of death for people of my own generation (circa 1986) are going to be starvation and suicide; and my own children of 3 and 4 are statistically unlikely to make it past their 30th birthdays. 

I'm not sure what O-Level science textbook you are getting your ideas from, but the kick-off date for "global warming" isn't an agreeably-distant 2100 any more, for us here in the civilised western hemisphere we can't expect our pampered and luxurious lifestyles to extend much beyond the year 2030.

 

To boil it down into simply economic terms as you are keen to do, we can either take a bit of a sting now and maybe stand a chance of not having global society collapse around us, or we can most definitely suffer the same economic sting a few years down the line and immediately watch everyone we know and love starve to death.

 

The most frustrating thing is patiently explaining this to people like yourself as the clock slowly runs out. 

 

Now that's pessimism but there is a chance you are right.

 

Small chance I will see 2030 but I was amused by the things people think they need to do to maintain human life on this planet, the best one on the BBC was to keep clothes an extra year, at the time my pants were the only things I was wearing less than 10 years old. Smart phone is 8 years old and I could go on, worse thing I do is drive I think.

 

The point is the whole problem is caused by around one billion people with an average spending power of a median UK household or above and the people before us that got us here.

[Cuttup]

2 hours ago, peds said:

Well, you had my sympathies until that last part, because the short term economic sting necessary to effect significant change will inevitably hurt us little people more than the fabulously wealthy who can, of course, easily afford it. But I'm afraid the consequences of the ongoing ecological collapse and the ever-worsening climate catastrophe aren't just a problem to faced by brown people from the future in places with exciting food. Scientific consensus is that thanks to the knock-on effects of climate change on its current trajectory, anyone on Earth born after 1970 has had their life expectancy cut short somewhere between slightly and dramatically; the most common causes of death for people of my own generation (circa 1986) are going to be starvation and suicide; and my own children of 3 and 4 are statistically unlikely to make it past their 30th birthdays. 

I'm not sure what O-Level science textbook you are getting your ideas from, but the kick-off date for "global warming" isn't an agreeably-distant 2100 any more, for us here in the civilised western hemisphere we can't expect our pampered and luxurious lifestyles to extend much beyond the year 2030.

 

To boil it down into simply economic terms as you are keen to do, we can either take a bit of a sting now and maybe stand a chance of not having global society collapse around us, or we can most definitely suffer the same economic sting a few years down the line and immediately watch everyone we know and love starve to death.

 

The most frustrating thing is patiently explaining this to people like yourself as the clock slowly runs out. 

2030? That strikes me as a short timefarme.Are you suggesting complete (worldwide) economic breakdown or ecologocal/environmental catastrophe? What are you basing that on?

 

I don't envisage either 1. there is still an abundance of fosil fuels/mnearls in the world 2. Most science doesn't suggest ecological collapse within this decade.

 

However, that is not to say that it's not in the post and I think we should make every reasonable and sustained effort to tread more ightly and transition away from excessive consumption and destruction of natural resources.

 

Sadly, as poited out by others, it's hard to find a resonable way in which to do this on a global scale.

One good thing, getting back to original post, is there is apparently agreement and support planned to prevent further deforestation of the Amazon. What we probably need is masive deforestation of the other Amazon...

[sime42]

2030? That strikes me as a short timefarme.Are you suggesting complete (worldwide) economic breakdown or ecologocal/environmental catastrophe? What are you basing that on?
 
I don't envisage either 1. there is still an abundance of fosil fuels/mnearls in the world 2. Most science doesn't suggest ecological collapse within this decade.
 
However, that is not to say that it's not in the post and I think we should make every reasonable and sustained effort to tread more ightly and transition away from excessive consumption and destruction of natural resources.
 
Sadly, as poited out by others, it's hard to find a resonable way in which to do this on a global scale.
One good thing, getting back to original post, is there is apparently agreement and support planned to prevent further deforestation of the Amazon. What we probably need is masive deforestation of the other Amazon...

I think this is the crux of the matter; Consumption. And worse still Over Consumption.
Amazon, and similar outfits, are major facilitators and encouragers of this.

[sime42]

On the theme of bottom up, small scale personal changes. There's been an awful lot of noise recently about everyone having to phase out gas boilers and move to cleaner alternatives. Fair enough. However, I wish people would be encouraged to turn down the thermostat on their CH a degree or two, in the first instance. I don't know why it's not talked about more, it's hardly ever suggested. If it is it's often turned into a joke about wearing an extra wooly jumper or something. You often see people come out of their house in only shorts and t-shirts, even in the depths of winter. That doesn't seem right to me. Wearing more cloths in winter is not really a hardship.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, peds said:

Scientific consensus is that thanks to the knock-on effects of climate change on its current trajectory, anyone on Earth born after 1970 has had their life expectancy cut short somewhere between slightly and dramatically;

That’s some pretty ‘tight’ scientific analysis! 🤨

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Cuttup]

13 minutes ago, sime42 said:

I think this is the crux of the matter; Consumption. And worse still Over Consumption.
Amazon, and similar outfits, are major facilitators and encouragers of this.

And herein lies the paradox...are the producers (suppliers) to blame or the consumers?

 

Do I need a new jacket or would I like a new jacket? How many jackets do I need?  

 

Earlier post demonstarted that by holding onto a phone longer saved x  amount of CO2, so this clearly shows that, as one British supermarket is always keen to tell us, every little helps...

But then we look at a major economy like China or India who are still planning to depend largely on fossil fuel for energy and it seems like its no longer about all those little savings which we have some influenec over (e.g.how often we upgrade our phones).

 

So what should we do? Will small scale savings be enough to counter large scale polluters/consumers? and if not, then is it a valid argument for 'the common man' to put himself and his family in  a worse financial position by making small environmental gains, which on a global scale may not be enough to tip the balance?