COP26

[Billhook]

12 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

We are multiplying like an out of control virus on the planet, over 7 billion, more than double the number than when I was born in 1963.

 

Deforestation, burning oil and coal etc.

 

Nothing to do with us though. All a conspiracy to tax us more etc.

 

Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids | Live Science

WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM

---

Statistical study finds having children has long-term environmental impact.

 

[Paul in the woods]

40 minutes ago, Woodworks said:

I always liked the idea of a carbon tax.

Same here, would seem logical. But as you say it would liekly to be very complicated and I'd add only to the benefit of the very rich who can afford the advice to make the most of it.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

8 hours ago, Mesterh said:

It might save me from buying a beech house in the Midlands.

😂

[doobin]

16 hours ago, Haironyourchest said:

The problem, if we accept the "consensus" view as correct, is this: All economic activity, generates CO2. Even so called green jobs, generate C02. People plant trees, let's say, and are paid. They spent their wages, and the goods and services they buy generate CO2. Every time a coin changes hands, CO2 is released. This is because our population runs on fossil fuel. Our other commodities - plastic, metal, timber, food, water and so on, are also dependant on fossil fuels. The only way to stop the release of CO2 is to completely swap out fossil fuel for electric at the ground level. But the building of an all electric infrastructure requires fossil fuel, and will do for many years. If we want to maintain our "standard of living" this is.

This is that bit that so many people just can't grasp. Every time you do ANYTHING in the first world-drive to the shops, have a shower, eat dinner or post on Arbtalk, you are releasing CO2 from the past that has lain undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years. They witter on about 'oh, can't we just use wind power? And electric cars. And biomass!'

 

Take biomass. Lets say you can get around 44 mw/h per ha from sugar beet biogas. That's about 158,400 megajoules of energy.

Potential yields of biofuels per ha p.a. - Forest Research

WWW.FORESTRESEARCH.GOV.UK

---

Extremely approximate guideline figures of potential yields of different forms of biofuel per hectare per annum

 

Petrol is around 35 megajoules per litre. So to fill up your 50 litre petrol tank, that's 1750 megajoules. That ha can fill the tank just 90 times, much less when you take into account all the inneficiencies of the harvesting and production costs.

 

These are very rough, back of an envelope calculations, it's probably way worse than this.

 

Fossil fuels are a giant bank of millions of years of sunlight, across vast acreages. They aren't being replaced, and we don't currently have any alternatives except nuclear that can match our current consumption.

 

I don't have a clue what the answer is. Nuclear looks to be the only option to me.

[Cuttup]

Consume less. And  broad portfolio of energy sources.

[sime42]

Yep, consumption is key I think. In the short term it's not so much about searching for the silver bullet of a completely free and clean energy source, as just consuming less energy/ fuel/raw materials in the first place.
There's a long list of small things to be done, if everyone joined in it would add up to a significant saving. Lots of ideas mentioned on here already; walk to the local shop or school rather than driving, turn the CH down a bit, skip meat for a couple of meals, insulate the loft, don't but too much food and then waste some, keep your smart phone and car for at least a couple of years, etc etc. Non of these seem that much of a sacrifice.
Since most "stuff" that we buy is made in China we are actually paying them to be the biggest environmental vandals. A lot of their rise to economic power is funded by us in the western world. Raw materials get pillaged and pollution gets pumped out, to make the stuff that then gets shipped around the world for us to "consume ". So if we could just stop buying all the crap, from Amazon, I think it would have a big positive impact in terms of CO2 emissions.

[Rob D]

50 minutes ago, doobin said:

Fossil fuels are a giant bank of millions of years of sunlight, across vast acreages. They aren't being replaced, and we don't currently have any alternatives except nuclear that can match our current consumption.

 

I don't have a clue what the answer is. Nuclear looks to be the only option to me.

 

Yep I really feel the same way - there was a fairly big protest yesterday near us shouting 'No Oil, No Gas, Keep the Carbon in the Ground'. And my thought was 'how am I going to get to work? and have they thought how they were going to get to work? drop the kids to school?'.

 

I am part of the problem - we all are. But I don't have any answers. I don't think there are any clear answers right now.

 

 

[AHPP]

We could shuttle back on war a little. That’s quite resource hungry.

[nath]

27 minutes ago, Rob D said:

 

Yep I really feel the same way - there was a fairly big protest yesterday near us shouting 'No Oil, No Gas, Keep the Carbon in the Ground'. And my thought was 'how am I going to get to work? and have they thought how they were going to get to work? drop the kids to school?'.

 

I am part of the problem - we all are. But I don't have any answers. I don't think there are any clear answers right now.

 

 

I have the answer. Mass depopulation. Its THE only solution. All these stupid summits are just pissing in the wind and done only to make it look like they're making an effort. They know the real score.

 

Too bad theres not a vaccine or something that could humanely depopulate the world somehow.

[trigger_andy]

I have the answer. Mass depopulation. Its THE only solution. All these stupid summits are just pissing in the wind and done only to make it look like they're making an effort. They know the real score.
 
Too bad theres not a vaccine or something that could humanely depopulate the world somehow.

Is there an echo in here?